I Second That Emulsion (a film thread)

would definitely be good if you had time to make use of it! do you have to supply your own paper or not?

otoh, basic equipment to develop B&W film at home: $50-100. epson v500 - $110 from amazon. ~shrug~

yeah i am intrigued by contact sheets-as-editorial-process tbh, something about the tactility

xp wait the epson is that cheap? thought it was $500 or something

huh, looks like a plustek 7600 is only 360 on ebay, which is temptingly affordable

er, amazon

If I get a place of my own when this lease is up, I think I'm going to start developing my own film at home. Too hard to time it right for drying over the tub with a roommate.

so my local cvs only had Kodak bw400cn, what is this stuff I bought

B&W film that you can drop off at the CVS (cheapest place is wal-mart actually)

gr8080 posted a p alluring set shot on 400cn in the other thread a couple of days ago:, what do you see like: 2012

i had kinda mixed results on the roll i shot, some shot in really-low-light coming out nicely & daylight stuff looking really boring

huh well whaddya know, thx dude

This was Fuji Neopan 400CN, which is their equivalent of that Kodak C-41 B&W stuff (sorry if I've posted this before):

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6150/5944030099_e958159755.jpg

so with this c41 stuff is the idea that Walmart developing/scanning will be adequate?

Well, more that it's C-41 chemistry so it can be run through the usual Fuji Minilab (or similar) machine that high-street processing stores tend to own. Exactly like colour negative film. If it wasn't C-41, you'd have to go to a "proper" lab. So, it's cheap.

yeah I guess I mean that, for the pretentious amateur (this guy), is the appeal of using c41 that you can get decent results without going to a pricier lab or DIY? or: you're going to get the same output from CVS or Walmart or the fancy pro lab, maybe? because that is definitely appealing

C-41 process is competely automated so yeah going to CVS/WAl-mart over a pro-lab would make no difference in the developing*

*well, you would probably get more fingerprints on CVS. wal-mart outsources to fuji and I've been happy with the stuff I've gotten back from wal-mart. CVS/drug stores et al probably have an in-house C-41 machine so a 16 yr old pimply faced dude is probably gonna be handling your negs afterwards.

as for scanning, not sure which would be better

Scanning varies from minilab to minilab, so I'd ask. I've heard of people getting very large files (20+ MBs) from some Walmart and CVS locations, but my Costco (using the standard Noritsu machine) supplies tiny files (800 pixels on the long end) with their scans.
Pro labs that do bulk roll scans are using similar minilab equipment, but the operators are more likely to know what they're doing (less dust, fewer scratches, less likely to have the scan be badly exposed) and you'll be guaranteed a larger file size.

(note: my Costco is just shitty in general - prints with visible dust all over them and negatives scratched to hell)

http://www.precision-camera.com/webmaster/forms/view.php?id=5

pretty good deal via Rangefinderforum for scanning from a pro place - free development, big scans for $12/roll

CVS developing + scans without prints is usually ~$3, IIRC

oh god, flashbacks to when I decided to try the local walgreens for some rolls. they had to call for a manager to determine what 'processing only' meant and whether they'd accommodate me, and when I picked em up the guy (yes pimply faced teenager) actually spilled out the cut negs on the floor and crawled around picking them up and stuffing them into the bag. bag wouldn't close over one of the strips so he folded it. none of it mattered because the chemistry was so off that the negs were unusable anyway. LESSONS.

so guys: filters??

I've never used 'em but say more

i dunno i thought that yellow/orange filters were kinda std ish for BW photography?

i've got a UV filter on my rollei sl35 that i just threw on my M6. apparently this is useful only for protecting the lens, but that's what i was after so

yeah uv filters are for lens protecting only

color filters change the tonality/contrast on B&W film. I think a lot of people prefer a yellow filter for B&W. maybe somebody else here would be more knowledgeable. caveat: I think using a filter results in a 1 stop decrease in light..

color filter, that is

not for leicas with ttl metering

or so I read

yellow makes the sky more contrasty iirc

IIRC, color filters block their color - so a green filter makes greens lighter, etc.

In B&W this increases contrast depending on the scene - yellow makes skies more dramatic and increases overall contrast, red is good for (white and Asian) skin tones, blue/green/etc. are more specialized.
I think there are levels of each color filter - light, standard, heavy - that will block different amounts of light, but I haven't used filters in years.

ansel adams was a pretty heavy user of filters. there are probably lots of websites that will show you the effects of filters. or you could probably do the same in lightroom/aperture in using the (digital) filters - run one of your color photos through it to see how different 'color' filters affect the result

hey soooo:
what happens to kodachrome, now that it can't be processed as kodachrome? is it cross-processed to any interesting/unusual effect, or is it just a write off, bleached and dulled by regular chemicals?

well this was interesting: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=23&msg_id=0027zU

you can process kodachrome with B&W chemicals to get B&W images, but there's this nasty chemical called 'rem jet' that can't be removed without hassle from the negs

yeah, b&w seemed to be what everyone was recommending, with a smaller fringe of photo-moonshine makers preparing to frankenstein some colour prints. interesting. from elsewhere in the expired film community, i hadn't realised agfa scala 200 was (long) expired, i like that a lot, & used to be able to get it cheaply.

I saw a Facebook link recently to someone in Australia who managed to develop Kodachrome at home. Looked like a one-off, though.

that person is probably dying of cancer right now

i think there is an ilx thread in which a few filmmakers discuss the dangers of home developing, in enclosed spaces, i found it pretty alarming

no joke I wear one of these

http://i.imgur.com/MZN2F.jpg

it's like one of those foam dome hats, but instead of having beer near your head you can easily access your vaseline and your concealer as they are stuck to your face

Got back that c41 bw film from cvs yesterday

results were...interesting. horrifically over-processed, so contrasty, highlights blown everywhere, but I might be able to salvage some stuff

hmm I dunno if c41 can be overprocessed if it was ran through a machine. might be your light meter?

do the negs just look really ... thick? in comparison to the clear sprocket hole parts

I meant digitlly processed really

o so the scanning you mean

yes :-/

Highly unlikely it's a problem with your negs. That sounds like standard bad minilab scan issues.

gbx i use that kodak bw400cn. my mom mails it to me.

this is what it looks like corner store scan untouched

ex 1
ex 2

I'll put up some samples from my rolls later today.

Rumor is that Ultramax 400 (Kodak's current cheapie) is consumer-grade Portra. Should be very nice at 200, I need to visit a Wal-mart soon.

consumer-grade? what's that mean?

where's the rumor from? I use ultra max 400 from time to time and don't see much similarity.
I'm guessing consumer grade means same chemistry or something, but lower quality control/no refrigeration etc.?

in the old days it was assumed that a lot pro and consumer grade films were similar or identical formulations but pro had higher quality control and more stringent expiration dates
could all be BS, but Ultramax does seem to look more muted than Gold 400 did

I'd like to reassure you that I am manically rescanning ultramax 400 negatives with my portra setting now. will report on results.