willie_901
Veteran
If you watch the film, the credit-line rolled is - "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film in large fonts." I just now confirmed this on Netflix.
Perhaps whoever wrote that credit line lied.
A slightly less vile possibility is the "Shot on 35mm Kodak Film" only refers to all the still photographs depicted in the film and especially in the set of still photographs shown during the first section of closing credits. In this case, not including the words – still photography – in the credit line Shot on 35mm Kodak Film is sloppy at best and deceptive at worst.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
The most interesting film just coming out, in my opinion, is the Foma 120 Retro Soft 320. I have been shooting some of that in 9x12. It's just about to be released in 120.
I am really going to dig using it in 120.
It's really not a miniature format film IMO.
Also Ilford is not going away and outdated film is underrated for image making in my experience.
Dan,
Thanks for the film smut. Is this like Tri-X 320 Professional?
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
The most interesting film just coming out, in my opinion, is the Foma 120 Retro Soft 320. I have been shooting some of that in 9x12. It's just about to be released in 120.
I am really going to dig using it in 120.
It's really not a miniature format film IMO.
Also Ilford is not going away and outdated film is underrated for image making in my experience.
Dan,
The Foma Retro Soft 320 looks to be a promising film.
I have not tried any Foma films. A while back I read a thread about poor QC, and someone here on RFF said he loved the film, but the bad QC prevented him from using it.
Much time has passed. How is the QC at Foma today?
Foma is an interesting company because of costs and because they offer sheet films.
On an aside I think film is becoming more important to me in the larger formats. In the past 135 was more important, but I think 120 now has become more important, and even sheet films like 2x3 and 4x5.
Really encouraging is the commitment of new films and also sheet sizes. Like a surfer I'm riding the wave.
Cal
brbo
Well-known
Nobody lied. It WAS shot on Kodak film (Kodak Vision3 negative film). Which is something completely different than Kodak Kodachrome film.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Without searching through the posts, someone mistakenly said the film was shot on Kodachome film which is of course impossible. Subsequent posts meant to correct that misapprehension. It was shot on film, presumably Vision3, for all that it matters. It just goes to show that just because something was shot on film doesn't make it good. I found the film barely watchable.
freeranger
Well-known
I started a film-photography club for kids this year. I've taught them how to use fully manual cameras and how to develop film. The children love it and the educational benefits are huge....but my real motive: keep film going for as long as I do 
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I started a film-photography club for kids this year. I've taught them how to use fully manual cameras and how to develop film. The children love it and the educational benefits are huge....but my real motive: keep film going for as long as I do
AWESOME!!!
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Good to ask.
I can provide my strategy, which is probably like 99% of others here:
Long-term storage is in freezer. As mentioned, keep film in their airtight original packaging. I also have a hierarchy of bags that I use: It all depends on the film and my usage patterns, but for example I will put 5 rolls of FP4 120 in a small ziplock bag and squeeze out the air and seal it. then put that in a larger ziplock bag with some other 5-roll bags of 120 film. Seal that up and put it in my 120 box (airtight?) in the freezer. Why? A couple reasons and one of them is important. I feel that the extra level of airtight storage (ziplock bags) is redundant security just in case the factory package is leaky. The other reason is how I pull film for use-- I place small quantities in the small bags because they need to fully thaw to room temperature before I open them (the film package, not necessarily the ziplock bag). So, for me 5 rolls is a practical quantity.
For short-term storage, I do pretty much the same thing, but in the refrigerator instead of the freezer. Pulling film from the fridge means less time before it reaches room temp. Also, Polaroid film is fridge only storage.
I've heard there are some who prioritize freezer over fridge storage depending on the film type and speed. I have no idea if there is any merit to this, but the idea is to store faster film in the freezer. I also heard somewhere that slide film might store longer and better in the freezer too. Again, I have absolutely no idea if this is valid thinking or not.
Film storage is easy. Just remember airtight packing and let film reach room temp before opening. Easy.
GarageBoy
Well-known
Kodak makes more film than just Kodachrome you know.... Vision 3 is their latest ecn2 color negative film, available in 50 daylight and 800 tungsten flavors.
Kodacolor was their name for still negative film, and ektachrome is their e 6 slide
David Hughes
David Hughes
1, Other users of the fridge have strange ideas about what they are for (not film it seems) and so it's best to keep on the right side of them (only store a few dozen films) or buy you own fridge.
2, Do not store film anywhere near Worcester sauce...
Regards, David
Nokton48
Veteran
Makiflex Retro 320 - 2 by Nokton48, on FlickrCal,
Here is a test image I shot (9x9cm image on 9x12film) Foma Retro Soft 320. Processed in Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle. My replenished soup is FOUR YEARS OLD and still going strong. Kinda like Diafine in that respect. Replenish it regularly or it will oxidize and need to be replaced. No QC problems ever with Foma. But they did make some bad batches. Plaubel Makiflex, 9x9cm neg shot on 9x12 sheet film, Kern-Arau 360mm F11 process lens at F16. A cold and dismal day at our local downtown Victorian park. Cal, this should give you a good idea about 120 size Soft Retro. I scanned a 6x9cm size neg from the original 9x9cm image. I like this Retro Soft 320 in Microdol-X replenished (available from Freestyle). -Dan
Nokton48
Veteran
Like Rollei 400s, Foma Retro Soft 320 has a unique tonality. Wish they made it in 70mm!
rf_smitten
Member
I have just ordered a few rolls of Agfa CT Precisa, before it disappears from the market, so I've been thinking a little bit about the future of analogue photography and my attitude about it as well. It was the last affordable slide film here in Europe, all others cost more than 10 euros or so. I really like the aesthetic of slide film, maybe because of the famous photographs of the "New Colour Photography" movement, and also that it is actually easier to scan. Maybe Fuji will continue to sell off their stock for another few years, but the prices are already high and won't go down. I really hope that Kodak can bring back the Ektachrome film, but the delay of the project and the missing updates don't look very good. At least I have still hope, while I'm not so optimistic for Ferrania that they can make the big step from a small boutique producer to a reliable film manufacturer.
For Black and White film future seems to be brighter, the production process is easier and smaller companies are offering interesting films. At the moment, I think analogue photography is really at a decisive point and the next years will show if it will develop into a small niche market with exclusive prices and limited film choices or it can still be accessible for anyone.
For Black and White film future seems to be brighter, the production process is easier and smaller companies are offering interesting films. At the moment, I think analogue photography is really at a decisive point and the next years will show if it will develop into a small niche market with exclusive prices and limited film choices or it can still be accessible for anyone.
gdi
Veteran
My powers of deduction are strong and I concluded that the film about the last day of Kodachrome development, which was filmed 7 years after that date, could not have been filmed on Kodachrome! Obviously it was a different Kodak film and Vision 3 does make a lot of sense, and it is very logical to publicize that fact.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Cal,
Here is a test image I shot (9x9cm image on 9x12film) Foma Retro Soft 320. Processed in Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle. My replenished soup is FOUR YEARS OLD and still going strong. Kinda like Diafine in that respect. Replenish it regularly or it will oxidize and need to be replaced. No QC problems ever with Foma. But they did make some bad batches. Plaubel Makiflex, 9x9cm neg shot on 9x12 sheet film, Kern-Arau 360mm F11 process lens at F16. A cold and dismal day at our local downtown Victorian park. Cal, this should give you a good idea about 120 size Soft Retro. I scanned a 6x9cm size neg from the original 9x9cm image. I like this Retro Soft 320 in Microdol-X replenished (available from Freestyle). -Dan
Dan,
Thanks for the response. This film is encouraging. While not a modern film many like the soft rendering that makes it well suited for larger formats. I probably would not use Retro Soft for 135, but with all this single coated medium format glass it will be mucho good.
So looks like my inspiration is emphasizing 120 and sheet films and 70mm for firepower over 135.
Everybody should understand that I put together a dip and dunk system where I bought a Nikor rack with a dozen 120 reels ($50.00 BIN with free shipping), and along with the 120 and 220 reels I already own shooting a lot of 120 should leave 135 behind.
Also the trend I recognized over the past year is that mucho 120 cameras are being sold for no money. It is almost like when you could buy a user Nikon F3 for $75.00 or a F5 for $250.00, but this time it is 120 cameras.
Bought a Baby Linhof Tech IV kit with a 100/2.8 Zeiss Planar that the seller clearly indicated had lens separation for $800.00 BIN loaded with accessories.
I sent the lens to John at Focal Point and he repaired the lens separation for $250.00. A clean 100/2.8 Planar not only is hard to find, but when you can find one they cost around $2K alone. Bad news is that Focal Point closed shop.
For those that are stubborn like me and Dave now is the time to emphasize 120.
I'm finding good prices on tanks and reels too. $129.00 for a JOBO 3013 for 4x5, but this tank serves double duty for loading three 15 foot reels of 70mm where I can develop almost 200 frames of 6x7 shooting a Linhof like a Leica. Bought a Unicolor Uniroller for $29.00.
Cal
DKimg
Established
+1, I agree too. And thanks for the suggestion of fomapan 100. As a tmax100 user, I'll give it a shot and see how it holds up! Another interesting film to use similarly to Acros is Rollei film. Like the retro 400s and rpx100....Not exactly like Acros but it can pull off similar result (imo).
As much as I'll love to see all film stocks be available and thriving well... I don't mind Fujifilm being completely gone with their film stocks. It just amazes me how people go crazy stocking the moment a company releases news about a certain filmstock discontinuing. Maybe film companies should do flash ads of discontinuing film to bring in sales (sarcasm) ha... ha... ha...
Bottomline is I think we shouldn't be so concerned about storing film in freezers (as much as we all do). I think for the sake of shooting, using film, and appreciating the film stock for the time is beautiful. If it's gone, it's gone... nothing lasts forever. As long as there some awesome film available in the future (which there is) in formats up to 11x14, I'll be a happy avid film user.
I'm glad to use Acros 100 for the time I was in working in China. It was so cheap there and much more accessible to order than any other film stock. I'll rather wait for the hype to die down before I can find some expired acros and buy it at a decent price. For now I rather support the companies that still provide film like Kodak, Ilford, etc. etc...
Highway 61
Revisited
This sums up my thoughts exactly.
For years I have been hoarding black and white film (35mm and MF) because of the continuous prices increase. As a result I am now using films which are outdated and some of them are very outdated, because my workflow wasn't on par with my quite compulsive hoarding habit eventually. In spite of having freezed my films I now begin to see some veiling, obviously due to aging, on some of my developed negatives (freezing films is good but it doesn't do miracles with fast films now outdated for 10+ years). So, onwards from now, I will use what is in my freezer first and won't buy new stocks the way I have used to since the early 2000's. When done (it will be in about two years) I will see what is available on the market. In the meantime, I won't worry.
Like others here I like Fomapan 100 very much and I don't worry about the demise of Fuji (I still have some freezed Neopan 400 in either 35mm of 120 but they'll be all shot quite soon). Actually the demise of Foma would be more of a problem than what Fuji is doing, and which doesn't take anybody by surprise. It has now been very clear for about, say, 7 years, that Fuji would totally quit with black and white film sooner or later.
As an amateur photographer and low-stocks film buyer you can't always try to fight against windmills and think of what the future will be. Sometimes it's good to live in the present - which is mainly made of the past.
css9450
Veteran
Just for fun, I recently bought some Shanghai GP3 120 film. I've only shot one roll.... But I like it so far! There's a lot of concerns on the internets about quality control, mostly about the paper backing. It is some weird stuff - the paper is just black construction paper and the masking tape its sealed with at the beginning tends to tear the paper if you're not careful. And there's no gummed sticker to seal the end of the roll when its all exposed. And the "tab" at each end is cut kind of funny. But I have no complaints about the negatives, based on my one roll "sample size n=1" I've finished.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
DK,
If you look at Dan's 70mm thread Rollie 400S is available in bulk in 70mm double perf from MacroDirect for no money. About $3.00 a roll like the good old days per 120 equiv.
Also on Dan's thread lots of info on securing Blad A40 70mm back for $40-$50 so one can shoot medium format like a Leica.
If you like 400S consider visiting Dan's thread. 70mm is considered a "dead format" but I can still buy fresh film in bulk mucho cheap. I did a lot of testing 400S using 120 film as short test rolls. The film speed is exaggerated and is not 400. I found that it was more like 125-160 ISO. Really a slow speed film.
So my goal with 70mm is mucho image capture for low cost and that means exploiting 400S as a $3.00 a roll 120 equiv.
Cal