Fujifilm Announces Worldwide Increase of Film Prices
>http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/fujifilm-announce-worldwide-increase-of-film-prices
>"The price increases are substantial and it would be an increase of at least double digit, but will vary depending on products, markets and regions."
>film is cheaper /p/ said, it will be fun /p/ said
Is Fuji just being a cash cow? Their x-series of cameras have been selling well why they do this on their film?
Bottom line is that the All-American Kodak isn't increasing its prices.
ektar 100 still #1
thanks kodak
thanks kodak
>>2750655
>why they do this on their film?
As less and less people buy it, but the price of producing it stays the same, prices have to go up to keep the production afloat. It doesn't make sense to take their digital money and drop it into their film, when that money would be better spent on R&D to continue to improve and try to take more of the market share.
>>2750655
>How does economics work?
Have you not noticed that in general things tend to go up in price over time especially if that commodity loses economy of scale and/or production costs increase?
Is this seriously news to you, Anon?
ha! just means I'm going to keep my fuji stuff in the freezer and continue shooting kodak film - better anyway.
i wonder what their production line looks like. they are probably like kodak and have not downsized from the days when film was the only thing. which in turn means that they are producing film in larger numbers than the market calls for. they (and kodak) should have pulled a ilford and downsized.
Kodak is the best. Enough of that ching chang wing wang fuji shit.
Kodak embodies the values of a great American company like hustle, loyalty and respect for its customers.
Our ancestors weren't wrong for nuking those gooks to oblivion.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model HP Scanjet a909g Camera Software Embettered by PicMonkey. http://www.picmonkey.com Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 200 dpi Vertical Resolution 200 dpi Image Created 2012:01:04 20:17:02 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 850 Image Height 554 Saturation Low Sharpness Soft
>>2750673
>Kodak embodies the values of a great American company
Like bankruptcy
>>2750676
Kodak WAS bankrupt. Now it is stronger than ever. No one can beat american companies. The same way Apple shit on Shamsung year after year.
>>2750676
whgkhasgulau!
>>2750678
>Now it is stronger than ever.
Stronger than EVER? Really? They're the forefront of photography again? Nobody told me...
>not driving an American car
>not shooting an American camera
>not working for an American company
>not having an American wife
>not texting using an American smartphone
So how much is this going to make Acros?
I don't use Velvia anyway, but keep your hands off my Acros, man.
>Kodak considered one of the best film distributors ever
>Gets rid of their best film stock
Makes sense
>>2750691
It actually does. Kodachrome chems were notoriously expensive, dangerous and difficult to produce and supply. The film wasn't all that bad. They just discontinued it when the chems ran out.
>>2750687
bout three fiddy
>>2750691
Getting rid of a useless film > increasing prices
>>2750723
>I still don't see why they couldn't exist as a much more expensive film due to the processing method. It had far better colors than even Kodaks best films now.
Because people weren't buying it, and if it's $20 per roll, even less people are going to buy it. So then they have to raise the price to $30 per roll, and some of the people who would pay 20 won't pay 30, so they're selling even less.... etc.
Meanwhile the places developing it are still paying hazardous chemicals fees and taxes on chems that aren't being used, so processing fees go up...
>>2750728
I seriously doubt that there are people out there that wouldn't mind paying that much for the film. It's not necessarily nostalgia that gets me going but the fact that the results of the film are unique. Maybe if resources aren't truly depleted and some people don't mind working with the harsh chemicals Kodak can sell a limited number of rolls/sheets every year and provide processing in within the price of film like they want to do with the new S8 camera.
>>2750746
There are people, yes, but are there ENOUGH people to warrant an entire factory line, sourcing chemicals and resources, a staff to run the machines, etc. The answer is no.
Was Kodachrum really that good?
>>2750748
Key word: limited.
It's not like it would be produced in mass quantities like it used to. I'm pretty sure if Kodak wanted the work they could get it, because they're Kodak.
>>2750678
>stronger than ever
out of bankruptcy, yes. stronger than EVER? of course not. They have effectively figured out how to cater to a niche market though. Film is about the only profitable part of their company.
>>2750655
fuji"film" seem to want less and less to do with the part of the company that's in their name.
>>2750752
No one ITT or on this board ever used it.
Don't believe anything said.
>>2750759
The thing is, if the market isn't sufficiently large they just can't justify going through that kind of trouble and (probable) loss of profit. They're not running a charity FFS.
>>2750752
In the right circumstances, it was pretty unique looking. Nice detail, and relatively good color. Personally, I never liked it for natural skin tones as it left people looking quite pink in most light, but if your scene was dynamic and had crazy vibrant colors, it handled them very well. The other fun part was that it would expose some colors very saturated, and others (like blues) more muted.
Like anything else, if you put a roll through your daily life, or most of the stuff /p/ shoots, it would look really bland and terrible.
Also, something people don't like to talk about for some reason is that in most cases, it looks very very similar to a well shot and well processed digital image.
>pic related. Kodachrome.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Photographer Steve McCurry Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011-10-04T20:24:52-04:00 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1800 Image Height 1199
>>2750769
Digital
>>2750776
sure thing
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2013/02/digital-vs-kodachrome.html
>>2750768
I see a good amount of people over forums and comment sections that would kill to see it come back. I think it still has the potential to be profitable even on a small scale but since Kodak already went bankrupt once they are too afraid to try and take that risk again. I can't really say I blame them to be honest but it is quite unfortunate that it hasn't been a consideration.
What about this image is impossible to achieve with digital, and why?
Be specific.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Nikon Camera Model LS-5000 ED Camera Software SilverFast 6.6.1r7 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 360 dpi Vertical Resolution 360 dpi Image Created 2010:04:18 21:10:03 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 965 White Balance Auto Contrast Normal Saturation Unknown Sharpness Normal
>>2750776
It does though. The CCD sensor in the Leica M9 / M-E was made by Kodak and images from it look very much like Kodachrome. It's one of the reasons that sensor remains popular today despite the downsides to CCD sensors.
>>2750780
200 people saying "I want to shoot Kodoachrome" is not enough. Especially considering the price. You can't just run a small run of film. You have to buy all the chemicals and resources, and it only makes financial sense to buy that stuff in large quantities. The less they buy, the more their production costs are. All the machines they use stay the same size, as does the staff and time required to get it done. Distribution, marketing, etc. Then, you have to re-start the processing of the film, which is one of the major drawbacks of kodachrome in the first place, and who's going to want to do that? Most places that develop film are shutting up shop in the first place, not looking to get into new (old) processes.
>>2750781
dynamic range
faithful color reproduction
flattering skintones
should i go on?
>>2750787
No, you should be specific.
The dynamic range of kodachrome is around 7 stops, which is why they're usually so dim. The highlights blow quickly, so photographers would under-expose to try to preserve them. Digital is beyond kodachrome in terms of dynamic range. Even on a Canon.
faithful color reproduction is not a strength of film, as the whole "film look" is color rendering. All the natural color variance that actually exist in real life subjects doesn't show up. To reproduce this, a digital photographer simply has to take steps to unify their tones.
The same goes for skin tones. It's very easy to get flattering skin tones with digital. Simply look at every major ad campaign in the past 10 years. All shot on digital, all processed by someone who knows what they're doing. You can get literally any skin look you want. The inability of film to deal with varying light balances also affects its skin tone rendering.
I'd post any number of digital portraits with amazing skin tones, but because of the variety of looks available, you'd say "no that looks like shit" and I would have hard time finding something that would impress you and get you to actually admit it.
For me, pic related is a great example of beautiful skin tones. Shot on digital.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1200 Image Height 882 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:06:02 01:46:39 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 700 Image Height 515
>>2750785
Guess that is a lot of work.
But inb4 shoot with digital a fix in post, why didn't Kodak ever try creating a film that manipulated the look of Kodachrome? They must of known that the K-14 process wouldn't last forever and it was one of their best selling products.
>>2750780
>>2750785
It would make a lot more sense for them to create an e-6 slide film again, rather than try to bring back k-14.
Then again, I don't think anyone predicted process-paid super 8 film to come back either.
I hope kodak brings back a slide film in some form or another though, since their film business is profitable again. Maybe the fuji price hikes will motivate them to make a velvia competitor.
>Why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
Reason why explained
>Yea, but why doesn't Kodak bring back Kodachrome?
As an oldfag - Kodachrome wasn't even that special. Most people endlessly referencing it these days are kids who never shot film back when it was the only things and they've certainly never been near a roll of Kodachrome. In blind tests most people can consistently distinguish Kodachrome from other slides and digital.
>>2750819
*can't distinguish
>>2750820
Really old Kodachrome, the stuff you see from WWII, or earlier, had sort of a distinctive look, but that's not what Kodachrome looked like when it was discontinued. Not at all. The results from the last 15 years of its production looked very very similar to digital.
Even the older stuff, the major parts of the look are the very unified tones (particularly in the blues and greens) and the pink mid-tones, and overall feeling of under-exposure.
The lighting, environment, and clothing also help them to look "old timey"
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Photographer Shorpy.com Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6427 Image Height 8181 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1800 dpi Vertical Resolution 1800 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2009:06:22 13:49:47 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1600 Image Height 2037
>>2750819
>As an oldfag - Kodachrome wasn't even that special. Most people endlessly referencing it these days are kids who never shot film back when it was the only things and they've certainly never been near a roll of Kodachrome. In blind tests most people can consistently distinguish Kodachrome from other slides and digital.
I liked it a lot and shot a good bit of it, and miss it pretty fiercely. I think a lot of this isn't so much the results that it provided, but that I was familiar enough with the results it provided to be able to get what I wanted out of it.
That said, for around the last decade of it's availability on the market, it was a royal fucking pain to get developed. The closer you got to them pulling it the worse it got. I think I stopped shooting frequently it around halfway through this time...just wasn't worth the effort.
In the current day and age, I'm both thankful film still exists and I only really lament the loss of different films in terms of losing choice. There's a lot of films I'd only use once, maybe twice a year, but they suited the purposes I used them for greatly. But businesses going to business.
Oh, and I only still shoot film for fun/personal projects. I'm pure digital for paid work. I'll definitely say I love the digital workflow for getting paid.
>>2750825
A lot of that is because it's large format. You get the same effect with modern films when shot on 4x5 or 8x10. I've seen several posts on /p/ with people asking about it (they usually can't pinpoint why it looks so good so the questions are usually the same - what lens, what PP, what film, etc).
Totally agree that it changed a lot over time. I mentioned further up that if people really love the kodachrome look the best digital camera to replicate it is the Leica M8 or M9. That Kodak CCD is gorgeous and one of a kind.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Leica Camera AG Camera Model M9 Digital Camera Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:07:15 23:13:53 Exposure Time 1/500 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 0000000000000000000000000000A928
>>2750828
> I think a lot of this isn't so much the results that it provided, but that I was familiar enough with the results it provided to be able to get what I wanted out of it.
I know exactly what you mean. Same way I feel about Tri-X. It's less and less about the exact look and more about familiarity with how the film will respond under different conditions, pushed, different developers, etc. I just don't want to have to re-learn all that through trial an error with a different film.
>>2750795
If this is your best example, this looks like garbage. It somehow manages to look too contrasty yet not contrasty enough at the same time. You honestly expect me to believe the real scene was as brown and ugly as this? Give me a break. If digital is really better for skin tones than film is (lol), then give us some examples that don't look like bronzed plexiglass.
how do i get this effect?
>>2750795
>Simply look at every major ad campaign in the past 10 years. All shot on digital
you serious right now?
>>2750880
Yes good point. I see what you mean.
>>2750682
the fujicucks are slow today then
This is really bad. Velvia 50 is my go-to landscape film, and it's already pretty expensive. I also wish they would bring Astia back.
Do you think Kodak will ever bring back Ektachrome?
>>2750780
I don't think you realize how many resources it takes to spool up even 'limited' production runs in factories. There's just not enough people to buy the stuff.
>>2750655
>Bottom line is that the All-American Kodak isn't increasing its prices.
Go fuck yourself retard.
Kodak has been the most expensive brand forever. It will almost certainly still be the most expensive.
>yfw hp5 > txp
>yfw acros > tmx
>yfw superia > gold
>yfw c100 > ektar
>yfw pro400h > portra
>yfw there is no kodak slide film
>>2750781
>What about this image is impossible to achieve with digital, and why?
It was taken in 1964, for starters...
>>2750941
#rekt
how will it affect muh instax
>>2750937
>Kodak has been the most expensive brand forever. It will almost certainly still be the most expensive.
Are you the biggest goddamn retard ever?
>>2750937
>>yfw superia > gold
>>yfw c100 > ektar
>>yfw pro400h > portra
nah you dumb nigger
>>2750953
>Are you the biggest goddamn retard ever?
Technically impossible, seeing as I'm not from the you ess ay, buddy.
Hate to break it to you, but the rest of the world is a thing that exists.
And if they can't muster up a better price gap than 10% over a better quality product that was shipped refrigerated from the other side of the world, you're sort of proving my point even in your own comfort bubble.
>>2750685
>American camera
>American smartphone
Come on now
>>2750953
tfw canadian
E K T A R
K
T
A
R
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 954 Image Height 1200
P O R T R A
O
R
T
R
A
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:11:08 21:12:24 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 632
>>2750956
I agree with superia.
Gold looks like ass photos that your mom took in the 90s
>>2750923
And that's why I say they should find a alternative that closely resembles it with an E-6 development. It's rare to see new things appear in the film market these days but I'm sure half of /p/ would jizz their pants if Kodak made it so.
>>2750987
No offence but I don't think you understand the technical aspects behind film. It's just not how you think it is. Kodachrome is never going to be remade.
Lots of development is still happening in film - it's just that it's in mp film like vision3 stuff where you're not aware of it.
>>2750994
We're on the topic of stills film anon, maybe Kodachrome is permanently out the window though if you've noticed by now the company doesn't have a E-6 slide film to compete with other companies like Fujifilm. I just threw the idea out there that it would be great if Kodak could find some sort of way to recreate the look of it without having to use a complicated process. Nobody here is in the dark (zoz) about how film works or is processed.
>>2751007
The tech from mp film feeds directly into 'normal' film that photographers use. Vision3 is ahead, and if you'd ever shot vision3 for stills you'd know this.
Kodak don't have slide film on purpose. There's no money in it. Their money comes from selling mp film. This is great as it's where Kodak Ektar came from.
Sorry but if you think Kodak can just magically make an E-6 film on the cheap that replicates kodachrome then you are in the dark about the technical aspects of film. I'm not saying that to be rude - there's no shame in not knowing - but it's evident from what you're saying that you're not familiar with what goes into film manufacturing.
>>2751019
Oh goodness whatever you say m8. A lot of people would like to see Kodak release some sort of E-6 slide film including myself and I can say with a great deal of certainty that if they made something, even if it wasn't a KC emulate, it would generate some sort of profit.
>>2751027
>I know more about running a multinational company with a 2015 turnover of $1.8-$2 billion than the CEO of that company who has obviously decided not to sell E-6 out of blind stupidity. He really should listen to me and my friends as they could easily make up to $50 profit from the few rolls of slide film we want to buy.
You're a complete fucking moron.
>>2751027
Based on what? Because business plans don't really run on "I feel like maybe it would be good"
Do you know startup costs? R&C? Staffing requirements? Market analysis? How much would initial supply of chemicals cost, and how long would those last? What sort of licences would you need to store, work with, and ship those chemicals? What's your initial batch? Where do you ship those batches? What would be the price per roll of your magic film you're making up?
>>2751033
>>2751054
>We know what's right for a business and were calling you out for being a idiot.
Pretty much what you two sound like right now.
I'm just speaking for what other photographers would like and one of the potential outcomes. If you want me to say that I don't know shit about film manufacturing then alright, bur for fuck sakes at least I'm thinking somewhat creatively and not sitting back and pointing out all of the negative things that if Jeff Clarke himself heard would be discourage from ever even trying anything new in his career.
>>2750835
>Doesn't the M8 produce bad colours?
>>2750956
Superia is top-tier poorfag film though
>>2750878
Considering it was shot with an RX100 - Lightroom
>http://kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
...in which based-god Kenneth blows the fuck out of ol' yeller, right on time for a /p/ thread on the issue...
>>2751225
Ken is a fucking retard. Everything he mentions is trivial af. What an autistic pedant. It honestly blows my mind that his shitty website is so popular.
>>2751244
JPEG BASIC
P
E
G
B
A
S
I
C
>>2751244
You sound like the kind of cunt that would throw the tape from a 120 roll on the ground in a national park.
>ken is love
>ken is life
>>2751244
I have no idea what you're so mad about. Based Ken is right and knows more about shooting film than you ever will
>>2751263
>>2751265
Is there a latin phrase that describes the argumentative tactic of attempting to discredit the speaker, rather than attempting to refute their claims in a logical fashion?
>>2751268
Ad hominem
>>2751094
>>Doesn't the M8 produce bad colours?
Are you thinking of the IR problems? There was issues with the sensor as the IR layer was too thin. So the sensor was too sensitive to IR. (Not a physicist so please excuse my basic explanation). This was solved by putting a UV IR-Cut filter on lenses. I had an M8 and it wasn't really a hassle as I always use a filter for protection anyway.
There were some nice side-effects to this though... It obviously isn't a problem in B&W and you can get amazing IQ in B&W on the M8 because of it. The camera can also be an IR camera without any mods just by using and infrared filter.
So that was the issue with that CCD sensor. The 35mm sensor that came after it in the M9 and M-E is pretty much the same just with the IR filter sorted out. Both sensors are CCD and produce almost indistinguishable images. The M9 just offers more resolution and about a stop+half of better ISO performance.
All this talk about bringing Koda/Ektachromes et al, why not throw your support behind filmferrania? They are attempting to manufacture slide film at a scale that should be economically feasable for the level of demand.
>>2751331
>attempting
That's the keyword right there...
what is the dynamic range of film vs digital
![CropperCapture[715].png](https://i.imgur.com/9EWdmf5.png "CropperCapture[715].png")
>>2751334
>medium/large format film
acceptable
>sub-medium format
subhuman poorfag tier
>>2751335
but i want /p/'s opinion ;^)
>>2751337
>calls 35mm users poorfag but tries to lump medium format roll film in with large format
Medium format isn't close to 4x5 and 4x5 is the 35mm of the large format world.
>>2751334
15 - negative film, but easily +4 stops in highlights on portra with decent scanner
16.5 - digital (RED cameras)
>>2751334
You can blow the highlights by 4 stops or more on Tri-X and still expose everything else in the frame properly. I seriously doubt digital will ever touch that kind of highlight compression, even in HDR.
Pic is Tri-X at 200
>>2751346
delete this
>>2751442
How to bring back down highlights in post? Do you scan as .tiff then have as much leeway as you need, or does bringing back that much highlight only work in a darkroom?
>>2751561
I didn't bring the highlights down. That's an unedited scan of the negative.
>>2751442
probably not, digital works in the opposite direction of analogue since there's a max headroom
film isn't known for shadow recovery, digital isn't known for highlight recovery
film is for overexposing, digital is for underexposing
also that new nikon d5 whatever has 15 stops of dynamic range, but kodak films have 13. they just go in different directions
>>2751265
>Poorly shooped smooth skin
>>2750962
The prices from Victoria camera traders, are pretty good, 1 roll of 120 is about 9-10 bucks depending on the brand, a lomo 3-pack of it is about 16-18 bucks
>>2750685
>not posting in an american website
>>2751244
Not really, he does have quite a few valid points in his stuff.
The guy is blatantly trying to sell shit though.
>>2750961
>he doesn't use an iPhone
>>2750937
>yfw acros > tmx
ISO 100 will not beat an ISO 400 film get out
>yfw superia > gold
A cheaper $3 Kodak colorplus beats a $4+ superia.
>yfw c100 > ektar
Even a cheap Kodak Ultramax beats a C100 or C200 are you even shooting? Ektar just blows it.
tl/dr fuji is ching chang wing wang shit.
>>2750655
Why buy Fuji in the first place? I would be more bothered if they increase the price of their Instax.
Kodak is cheaper and better in regards to the 35mm analog film department. Agfa Vista 400 is fine too especially for its price. If you want cheap B&W there's Ilford and Kentmere. It just shows the superiority of the white race over the slanted eyes.
#buyfilmnotmegapickles
#BuyAmericanBuyKodak
>>2752669
>ISO 100 will not beat an ISO 400 film get out
>he doesn't know tmx is a 100 speed film
No u get out.
>>2752682
>he doesn't know that a tmax 400 costs the same as an acros 100
>not comparing film based on their price points
Also in case you are wondering quality wise a tmax 100 is better than an acros 100. Shut up and go shoot film.
>filmfags on suicide watch
laugh it up while you can. no one here is actually hurt or crying because of this
>>2752683
>he doesn't know that T-Max 400 is TMY
You get a pass on that because Americans are classically ignorant.
>comparing film according to price
wat
As an oldfag that started photography before the digital boom there was never such massive gearfaggotry about film back in the day. The majority of photographers picked a film based on convenience, ease of development, slide/neg/b&W, rather than obsessing over different brands. About the most gearfaggotry it ever got was if you thought velvia was a nice look or not.
MFW gearfags are getting bored of FF vs crop, mirrorless vs dSLR, sony vs fuji, arguements and are spilling out into the world of film.
Let me enjoy the death of film in peace, hipster cunts.
>>2752732
Quality wise T-max 100 is better than acros 100. Cheaper too.
>>2752746
>shooting Kodak Gold instead of Colorplus
>2,50eur
>eur
JUST
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:25 18:16:04 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1029 Image Height 690
>>2752756
>comparing prices of 120 to 135
Now I can't tell if you're just trolling or just retarded.
You don't shoot film at all, do you?
>>2752752
>Back in my day the internet was just feilds
Nah m8. You've talked about film with more people, from more places around the world, in this thred than you would have in a year back then.*
That's why you're having so much trouble comparing the two.
*unless you worked in a camera shop in an airport.
>>2752756
>.60 cent difference.
>different formats
I dont get why people care about "cheap" and "expensive" film.
The expensive shit is like, 2-3 dollars more a roll. You may as well get the exceptionally better portra or ektar than piggu disgusting gold since 98% cant do C-41 at home, and dev is the part that is actually costly. I actually get terrified when people buy 100+ film packs unless they have their own scanners and especially if they can dev at home as well.
It also blows my mind that people want to save .49 cents by getting 24 exposure rolls. Just get the fucking 36!
>>2753144
I buy 24 exposure rolls so I can switch more often. I don't want to have to find an extra 12 things to take pictures of if I need to switch to 1600asa.
>>2753154
I just take half (or less) exposed film out in the darkroom, cut it and develop the exposed part. then I just cut a new lever at the remaining part. this wastes 1-2 exposures, but I'm ok with that.
>>2753159
How do you figure out where to cut? count the perforations?
>>2753154
Sometimes I like the 12 shot buffer to take different shots of the same thing at different exposure settings, just in case.
Sometimes you can use the extra 2-4 shots for self-portraits or pictures of your girlfriend or whatever
>>2753163
I just don't rewind the film back in the canister, so only the exposed part sticks out of it. That's why I open the camera in the dark. Then I just pull out 2-3cm more and make a cut leaving about 1cm of film (1 finger width) sticking out of the canister.
>>2752777
120 is usually cheaper than 35 tho.
Do you shoot much film?
>>2753357
You're also getting fewer exposures for that price though.
depending on what format you're shooting you're only getting between 8-15 shots.
>>2753599
8-15 that look gaddamn great though
>>2753827
True, I'd rather have 10 well thought out, high res 6x7's than 36 snapshits.
>>2753864
>Well thought out vs snapshits
Nothing to do with the film whatsoever. What's stopping you from having 10 snapshits, and 36 well thought out masterpieces?
>>2753357
Sure, there's less real estate on a roll of 120, which is why it's cheaper, my point was just with the guy claiming it was an unfair comparison when it was actually a kinder example in Kodak's favour.
>>2750795
Is that water on her body or does she have the pox?
What does "at least double digit" even mean? Are they doubling a digit? Are they adding 10? Is that in dollars or yen?
>>2754837
probably >= 10%
