A foray into film - continued

Messages
112
Name
Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
Reading the posts on this forum reminded me that I had a box of unused film somewhere in the house. I eventually found it in a dark corner of one of our wardrobes. There are some 10 colour films and 3 B&W, all are between 8 and 10 years old. I also found my Pentax P30N, I loaded the camera with a TruPrint 200 ASA film and full of optimism I took it for an outing. Here are the best of the results. I would like some advice, please, as I can't decide it it's the film or the camera that's produced this outcome (or is it the bloke holding the camera?), I think I should buy a fresh roll to eliminate one of the variables.

CNV00018.JPG CNV00019.JPG CNV00021.JPG


Any help would be appreciated,

Howard
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,564
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
Considering the film wasn't specifically cold stored in a fridge / freezer then considering its age the results are acceptable I guess.

The chances are that the camera is fine and the user knows what he's doing ( going by these results) so yes, fresh fil would be a good move imo.
 
Messages
494
Name
Clint
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
For very old expired film I would add an extra stop of exposure or ask to add extra developing time. (I think this is correct)
 
Messages
3,828
Edit My Images
No
#4
Just a couple of quick pointers:

1. The top two look underexposed, which can result in muddy colours. Colour negative film benefits from being over-exposed and should be rated a stop lower for every decade it's out of date. Hence, you may have been better off rating it around ISO 64.

2. The outdoor shots look like they were taken in quite grey, dull light, which won't help your photos 'pop'.

3. How were these scanned? They may benefit from being treated better at the scanning stage and post-processed to add a little saturation and have the levels tweaking.
 
Messages
1,225
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
Reading the posts on this forum reminded me that I had a box of unused film somewhere in the house. I eventually found it in a dark corner of one of our wardrobes. There are some 10 colour films and 3 B&W, all are between 8 and 10 years old. I also found my Pentax P30N, I loaded the camera with a TruPrint 200 ASA film and full of optimism I took it for an outing. Here are the best of the results. I would like some advice, please, as I can't decide it it's the film or the camera that's produced this outcome (or is it the bloke holding the camera?), I think I should buy a fresh roll to eliminate one of the variables.

View attachment 241326 View attachment 241327 View attachment 241328


Any help would be appreciated,

Howard
What is wrong with them?
 

Nod

Krispy and Kremey
Messages
32,599
Name
Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
The top 2 look a touch under exposed, although I would have thought that colour print film's latitude would have coped. Maybe the bright sky and the white building fooled the camera's meter? The pooch looks slightly orange, almost as though some tungsten lighting has fallen on him/her causing a slight cast.

Old film won't have helped matters either.
 
OP
OP
G
Messages
112
Name
Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
Thank you everybody for your comments and suggestions, all will be taken on board. I have ordered a film from "Fotosense" ,the cheapest I could find, and I shall have another go.

I should have said that I took the film to the local Max Spielman and had it developed on to a CD, it was then copied onto my PC and these images are the hi-res version. I gave them no other instruction other than I just wanted them on CD and didn't want the prints. Any recommendations for where to have them developed?

There was no tungsten lights anywhere near the pooch(?), it was all natural light. So I hope it was the old film. I have attempted to remove the colour cast. and convert to b & w.

What is wrong with them?
A lot!! as has been pointed out here. Do you not think so?

Some attempts at improvement following.

cassie_mono.jpg thatched_cottage_m.jpg

Once again thanks for your time in responding.

Howard
 
Messages
3,131
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
#8
I avoid Max Spielmann following some disappointing results at my local branch (I was told that a disposable camera I took in had no images at all, and another set of negatives were in such a sorry state it looked like they'd fallen down the back of a cupboard and been scraped out with the bottom of someone's shoe when I got them back). That said, another branch I used gave me perfectly good results, so it's probably down to the staff in the store and their understanding of and skill with the developing machines.

I now use Peak Imaging for most of my stuff, but send some colour stuff to FilmDev. Both of these have produced excellent results and have great service.
 
Messages
1,225
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
There does not appear to me to be anything wrong with them. The exposure on the outdoor shots meets the 18% grey card standard and the level of contrast that film displays.
If exposure is an issue then the Tog should open up 1/2 a stop to defeat the exposure displaid by the metre due to bright sky (but it's not out by much it is a dull day!)

The dog has been photographed inside in is under houshold lighting which gives the correct colour balance as set by the film (non Tungsten balanaced film) so it appearas yellowish (as it was). It is not a digitla camera so it will not try to correct white balance.

That's film.
 
OP
OP
G
Messages
112
Name
Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
Apologies for slow response, not been on recently.

There does not appear to me to be anything wrong with them. The exposure on the outdoor shots meets the 18% grey card standard and the level of contrast that film displays.
If exposure is an issue then the Tog should open up 1/2 a stop to defeat the exposure displaid by the metre due to bright sky (but it's not out by much it is a dull day!)

The dog has been photographed inside in is under houshold lighting which gives the correct colour balance as set by the film (non Tungsten balanaced film) so it appearas yellowish (as it was). It is not a digitla camera so it will not try to correct white balance.

That's film.
Thanks for that, quite reassuring to learn all that.

I have the fresh film in the camera and working my way through it - slowly. Will post the results when I've finished.

Howard
 
OP
OP
G
Messages
112
Name
Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
It took a long time to get through the film and to get it developed. I went to Max Spielman again, for two reasons - convenience and cheapness, also I can it back within 10 days - if I'm lucky.

Here are some of the latest results. I think they prove that the camera is fine, perhaps the operator needs more practice.

CNV00013.JPG

CNV00021.JPG


CNV00030_1.jpg

The second is over exposed, but that is probably my fault, unfortunately I don't remember the settings I used. All taken with the P30N and some old lenses, sorry can't remember which.

I have now loaded an outdated, by nearly 11 years, film. So we'll see what that produces in due course.

Comments and criticism welcome.

Thanks for reading.

Howard
 
Messages
3,131
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
#12
I have now loaded an outdated, by nearly 11 years, film. So we'll see what that produces in due course.

Howard
If it's colour film and hasn't been cold stored, shoot it at a stop over the box speed. E.g. if its 200asa film, meter it as though it were 100asa.

The general rule of thumb for expired colour film is to over-expose by one stop for each decade it's expired. Black and white - half-a-stop per decade of expiry.
 
OP
OP
G
Messages
112
Name
Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
If it's colour film and hasn't been cold stored, shoot it at a stop over the box speed. E.g. if its 200asa film, meter it as though it were 100asa.

The general rule of thumb for expired colour film is to over-expose by one stop for each decade it's expired. Black and white - half-a-stop per decade of expiry.
Not been on for a while, thanks for that advice - didn't know that. The film is not finished yet, haven't used the camera much recently. Will post when I get something back.

Howard
 
OP
OP
G
Messages
112
Name
Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
#14
Gosh I didn't realise that I hadn't been on since May.

Since then I've had some disappointments, the film I mentioned above came out totally useless. I had also put in two other rolls of film that I had found amongst the undeveloped film and they came out as blanks. So I was in a quandary, should I give it one more try or give up with the old OOD films. Decided to have one more go, which was not a complete disaster nor a complete success.

Attached here is an example, straight out of the camera, of what I got.


CNV00006.JPG

So, I am still undecided. I think it would be a shame to give up film completely as the camera seems to be working fine. If I give up on the old film there could be a few rolls of out of date film available in a charity shop in either Knutsford or Lymm in the coming weeks. I shall post on here to let you know.

Thanks for reading this far.

Howard
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,564
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
So, I am still undecided. I think it would be a shame to give up film completely as the camera seems to be working fine.
As you have found out, the camera seems to function OK.

The OOD film is without doubt causing dissapointment and imo unnecessary cost.

I'm all for one using OOD film, I have some b&w in the fridge which could well end up 11 years OOD before I get to use it all.

Fair enough b&w stands the test of time better than colour but eiher way, if when I come to use the film, should I find that it's age/ storage is without doubt causing me to waste time and effort taking the shots in the first place then the expense, time and effort of developing, I will give up on it and buy fresh.

If it is clear that a certain area of the process is making the end result unappealing wether that be camera, film, lab, chemicals, scanner or printer, then get rid of the weak link.....It's as simple as that!

A lot if not most things in life can be done on the cheap but the end result ( whatever that may be) is usually not very satisfying.

Is it not a preferable option to pay a tad more, buy fresh film and actually get enjoyment from your photography.?

The chances are you've already spent a small fortune that could have got you one or two good fresh films, devd and scanned at a high quality lab.
Perhaps it means having to shoot less frames but at least you might have some that you feel are worthy of keeping / printing/ hanging on your wall.
 
Last edited:

excalibur2

My F4's Broken...
Messages
10,010
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
Gosh I didn't realise that I hadn't been on since May.

Since then I've had some disappointments, the film I mentioned above came out totally useless. I had also put in two other rolls of film that I had found amongst the undeveloped film and they came out as blanks. So I was in a quandary, should I give it one more try or give up with the old OOD films. Decided to have one more go, which was not a complete disaster nor a complete success.

Attached here is an example, straight out of the camera, of what I got.


View attachment 251482

So, I am still undecided. I think it would be a shame to give up film completely as the camera seems to be working fine. If I give up on the old film there could be a few rolls of out of date film available in a charity shop in either Knutsford or Lymm in the coming weeks. I shall post on here to let you know.

Thanks for reading this far.

Howard
Well the shot you posted could be quite good as I pasted into photoshop and just clicked on "auto color" and it came to life, which proves it's not a very good scan from the shop as it looks muddy ATM :(
autocolor.jpg
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,996
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
I'd agree with some of the above posts. Why not treat yourself to a pack of this*: https://www.7dayshop.com/products/k...int-film-135-36-exposure-value-3-pack-1880806 (or get 6 rolls for about £10 more) and send the results to either AG Photolab or Filmdev?

Both these labs now offer electronic download of the files once they've been processed, and AG also have the traditional DVD back though the post option. Turn-around from posting to seeing your photos is usually less than a working week. A medium resolution scan should show you how the camera (and its operator) is working, and a high-res scan is good if you think the shots you've taken or worth it.

Then all you need is something to photograph, and as a local lad you might be interested in this: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/f-c-meetup-10-or-11-august-astle-park-cheshire.699295/

You can then save your out-of-date film for times when you think the effect they give might suit the photos, and use the fresh stuff to enjoy a bit of 'conventional' film photography. :)

*EDIT Just noticed 7 day shop are out of stock of most of their Kodak film, so keep checking back as it looks like they're probably due a new delivery.
 
Last edited:
Messages
477
Edit My Images
No
#18
Also another vote to stop shooting out of date film. Plenty of stuff out there that you can shoot for £3-6 a roll if you want to shoot colour - Fuji C200 and Superia X-Tra 400; Kodak Colorplus, Gold, Pro-Image and Ultramax; Lomo CN 100/400/800.

Personal favourite is Fuji C200 which I either pick up for £3 a roll from my local lab, or £26 for 10 when 7dayshop have stock.
 

AndrewFlannigan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
842
Edit My Images
No
#19
Here's a serious question, bearing in mind I've been taking pictures for 50+ years and have as much darkroom time as most people: why would you spend the money to buy film then pay to get it processed and scanned when you can make a digital shot look like film with reasonable ease? I can understand that some people would enjoy using silver rich film then processing it and printing it. That makes sense to me because they're producing an artifact and that can be very satisfying. I just don't understand the colour neg >>> scan reasoning.
 
Messages
3,131
Name
Nige
Edit My Images
No
#20
Here's a serious question, bearing in mind I've been taking pictures for 50+ years and have as much darkroom time as most people: why would you spend the money to buy film then pay to get it processed and scanned when you can make a digital shot look like film with reasonable ease? I can understand that some people would enjoy using silver rich film then processing it and printing it. That makes sense to me because they're producing an artifact and that can be very satisfying. I just don't understand the colour neg >>> scan reasoning.
Speaking for myself, it's because I get pleasure out of shooting film. I pay for processing for all my film, but only get colour stuff lab-scanned (only because I've never really been happy with the way the colours appear on my home scans). I find that film photography is tactile in a way that digital isn't, from choosing the film I want to use, loading it, advancing each frame (assuming a manual camera), and then the anticipation of the results when the roll is finished. I'm happy to pay the associated costs because I get something out of it that I wouldn't get by converting a digital shot using a film preset or something.

I've got a couple of digital cameras, nothing high-end, but both very capable nontheless and I like both of them too. I had both of them before I decided I'l like to start shooting film again. I can genuinely understand why some people would see shooting film as a needless overhead, and I've heard a lot of people who used film prior to digital coming along say that they are really glad to have left all the additional faff behind. I just shoot film because I like it, and even if I never make a print, I still like it. It isn't to prove a point, be a masochist or a Luddite or anything, just something I enjoy.
 
Messages
3,996
Edit My Images
Yes
#21
It's probably a case of 'if you have to ask the question then you're not going to understand the answer'!

First off, I don't want to make a digital shot look like a film shot. I have film for that, plus a very good full frame DSLR if I want the immediacy, convenience and look of a digital shot.

Why did I go back to using film? Because I grew up with film and had quite a few film cameras sitting around unloved. One day I thought I'd try a roll of film again and found I enjoyed the discipline of only having 24 shots to play with, and liked the way it slowed me down and made me enjoy the whole process of taking photos more.

Plus I enjoy using my vintage/classic cameras, I enjoy the challenge of seeing how good a shot I can wring out of something like a simple old box camera, and I enjoy the feel and features of using one of the last of the great 35mm SLRs to be produced too.

I like the certain 'look' I get from film and I find that a good-quality digital scan doesn't detract from that and can capture the look of film quite well. I don't feel the need to use a darkroom or wet-print the results. I've been there and done my time at it, and much prefer the modern lightroom process... but usually do the least possible in terms of post, so as to maintain the character of the film.

See, told you that you wouldn't understand, so leave me alone now coz I'm really happy with my hobby. ;) :)
 
OP
OP
G
Messages
112
Name
Howard
Edit My Images
Yes
#22
Wow! Thank you all for your replies.

I too was coming round to the idea of abandoning the out of date film and buying some new film. I had seen the 7DayShop offer, shame it's out of stock. I'll see what else is available.

Ta for this I have seen the bill boards round here but it's not really my cup of tea. By the way, I'm flattered - I haven't been a lad for many, many years.

Here's a serious question, bearing in mind I've been taking pictures for 50+ years and have as much darkroom time as most people: why would you spend the money to buy film then pay to get it processed and scanned when you can make a digital shot look like film with reasonable ease? I can understand that some people would enjoy using silver rich film then processing it and printing it. That makes sense to me because they're producing an artifact and that can be very satisfying. I just don't understand the colour neg >>> scan reasoning.
As to why I was using film. Simple really, I found these films in a dark corner of one our wardrobes and I thought I'd have a go at using it having read on here of people using OOD film successfully. It got a bit addictive but it was also getting expensive to have developed professionally especially when the outcome was not guaranteed. So for the time being I think I'll kick the habit and go back to digital or buy some new film as mentioned above. I shall however keep looking at the F & C thread.

Thank you all for your help and advice, it has been much appreciated and educational.

Howard
 
Messages
2,249
Edit My Images
Yes
#23
Here's a serious question, bearing in mind I've been taking pictures for 50+ years and have as much darkroom time as most people: why would you spend the money to buy film then pay to get it processed and scanned when you can make a digital shot look like film with reasonable ease? I can understand that some people would enjoy using silver rich film then processing it and printing it. That makes sense to me because they're producing an artifact and that can be very satisfying. I just don't understand the colour neg >>> scan reasoning.
You cannot produce digital images with a film camera. I have my OM1n before as I type this (I have been looking at it to see if I could help with another thread regarding an OM1 fault). It is a superb piece of mechanical engineering. There is nothing like it in the digital world. Using it is an experience. Your comment is a bit like asking why someone would drive a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud or a Porsche when they could catch the train. The destination is not the point, the journey is.
 
Messages
3,996
Edit My Images
Yes
#24
By the way, I'm flattered - I haven't been a lad for many, many years.
If you're from Cheshire then you'll always be a lad. :) However, from your pseudonym I suspect you might have migrated from the other side of the River Dee? Siarad Cymraeg?
 

StephenM

I know a Blithering Idiot
Messages
3,149
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
#25
Here's a serious question, bearing in mind I've been taking pictures for 50+ years and have as much darkroom time as most people: why would you spend the money to buy film then pay to get it processed and scanned when you can make a digital shot look like film with reasonable ease? I can understand that some people would enjoy using silver rich film then processing it and printing it. That makes sense to me because they're producing an artifact and that can be very satisfying. I just don't understand the colour neg >>> scan reasoning.
In my case, it IS about the destination and not the journey. I use film because I prefer the look of the final prints to digital ones (N.B. I hardly ever use 35mm. mainly 120 and large format). I scan because despite my years in the darkroom (first enlarger 1961, contact prints before that), I can produce better black and white prints by the scan->Epson 3880 route than I can with wet printing. As to colour, I've never made a colour print from negative film in a darkroom, although I have made Cibachrome prints from Kodachrome slides. For serious work, I prefer black and white.
 

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
8,564
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
#26
The destination is not the point, the journey is.
In my case, it IS about the destination and not the journey.
Bit of both for me although more so the journey I think as I just get soooo much out of using a film camera, particularly LF....Something that no digital camera has ever given me.
The fact that I scan the negs and as such turn the film into a digital file, is a tad displeasing and without doubt is the stage between developing the film and arriving at the print stage that I do not enjoy very much (t'is why I have a huge backlog of scanning to do!), but it is, for me, the most practical method as I simply don't have the room or facilities to easily construct a darkroom.
 

RaglanSurf

Forum Idiot'13/14 <span class=poty>FPOTY'17</span>
Messages
10,541
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#28
Here's a serious question, bearing in mind I've been taking pictures for 50+ years and have as much darkroom time as most people: why would you spend the money to buy film then pay to get it processed and scanned when you can make a digital shot look like film with reasonable ease? I can understand that some people would enjoy using silver rich film then processing it and printing it. That makes sense to me because they're producing an artifact and that can be very satisfying. I just don't understand the colour neg >>> scan reasoning.
Hang on, I'll pull up a chair. Roberts, please bring me a whiskey.
 
Top