1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

And another one back?

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by steveandthedogs, Feb 1, 2017.

  1. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Roger Hicks likes this.
  2. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Like all these announcements, I'll believe it when it actually happens.
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.
  3. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    What really surprises me is that the samples don't have a film look. Any one of them could be a desaturated digital image or perhaps you think differently?
     
  4. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Only passing on what they say!

    S
     
  5. taxor

    taxor Well-Known Member

    I reckon it's a good thing but the opening page shows an image crawling with dust spots and other sh**e. Is this the 'look' that's drawing people back to film? Maybe it's just me being a BOF. I agree about it not looking very film-like, it has a kind of bad mono conversion feel to it. Anyway, I wish 'em well with the venture and I'll try some if I can get my hands on it but my prints will be spotless.
     
  6. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Most of the shots on the opening page have scratch marks on them .
    Could be a faulty camera , defective film , grit in the felt light seal on the film roll , poor developing practice or poor handling of the film after developing and scratched with a dirty / damaged squeegee ..........

    Now I'm perfectly capable of screwing my own rolls of good quality film , I don't need any help doing that .

    So are the flaw's shown on these example shots deliberately done to appeal to the Lomo mob ?
    If so was it done by the photographer , the developer or made like this from the manufacturer ?

    Not all the shots show consistent flaws , so it's hard to tell just what the film is or who it is aimed at .
    It's an odd choice by a firms marketing department to show the worst that something can do rather than the best it's capable off !
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  7. taxor

    taxor Well-Known Member

    Aye, we've all been there.
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  8. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    I never make a mess of my films.

    It's the negative fairy.

    Honest.

    S
     
  9. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    To be honest , I don't mess mine up either . It was a manufacturer defect of the developing agent I used .

    A week or so back I developed about 20 rolls of film that I've been trying to get done and one came out totally blank .

    Now I've worked it out and found that it's the manufacturer of the developers fault ......not my fault !

    I'd been developing a mixture of 35mm and 120 roll's during the morning and they all came out fine .
    Went for a pub lunch , then carried on developing when I got back home a couple of hours later .

    I'd been developing the films in Tetenal's Paranol S , so mixed up the correct amount , developed for the correct time , stopped , fixed and washed .
    Film came out totally clear . :(

    I checked the bottle and it seemed that the manufacturer had put a wetting agent in the bottle , and they'd even put the wrong label on it saying " Tetenal Mirasol 2000 anti-static" !

    Anyhow , the for next film I mixed some solution up out of another identical open bottle , but noticed that they had labeled this one up as "Tetenal's Paranol S" , and the rest of the films came out fine !

    I was surprised how Tetenal could make such a mistake really , putting different chemicals in identical bottle , even if they did label them up differently !
    So clearly , it couldn't possibly be my fault that the film came out blank ! :)
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  10. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Really :eek: … wow, that's great Steve :) Sadly, I have and the first ever roll of B&W film I developed on
    my very own was of a Gordon Lightfoot concert I shot for a newspaper in Winnipeg and, if memory
    serves, I forgot to dilute the developer :eek: but I did dilute the fixer :D. So, my negs would have made
    for decent sunglasses ;) Luckily, I was (a bit more) adept at printing and was able to come away with
    a few decants prints :)

    cheers,

    Jack
     
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  11. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    What I want to know is why I've suddenly started forgetting to remove the lens cap....

    About four random shots on the last roll.

    S
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  12. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    The time to really worry is when you are using an SLR!:rolleyes:
     
  13. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  14. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Good to see it's capable of putting out better results than the first lot of samples .
    Thanks for the update .
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  15. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Reminds me, Steve. the first few times I started using my Konica Hexar :eek: …. ;)

    Cheers,

    Jack
     
  16. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Interview with Dave Bias of Ferrania on youtube.

    Ignore first 80 secs, seems to be over skype, so quality not brilliant, but interesting.
    Mentions the scratched shots and why they posted them.

    S
     
  17. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the link , but it seems to be a 2 1/4 hour interview !
    I started watching it it , then skipped through to several points at random . lack of time etc .

    As I'm interested in the film ( any new film ) the content of the first sample shot's are irrelevant ,but the quality is .

    What was the reason for the scratches on the film ?
    ( Curious as to why they showed them too )

    Thanks , Neil .
     
  18. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    It was a trifle long...

    The scratches came from processing, he did say why they put them up, but my ears aren't what they used to be [no, they used to be my elbows. Thank you, Spike M] and the sound was a bit ropey anyway so I didn't really get that bit.

    S
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  19. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Evidently the scratches were caused by minute age-related imperfections on one of the machines [splitter?], these have now been renewed and are on their way back.

    S
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  20. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Makes sense .
    At least they realise it's a fault and are/have put it right . I'm more interested in the product now and will no doubt be getting a few roll's to try out .

    Rushing to put out flawed sample images without even an explanation with them is a big mistake though , how many people saw them and dismissed the film straight away ?
     

Share This Page