So, I started shooting some film

[Razeus]

Shot my 3rd roll of film, this time using something I can get developed quickly with the C-41 processing. Scan were done at the drug store. Used the Kodak BW400CN black & white film:


R1-01892-0011 by darrylwharrisjr, on Flickr


R1-01892-0024 by darrylwharrisjr, on Flickr


R1-01892-0021 by darrylwharrisjr, on Flickr


R1-01892-0015 by darrylwharrisjr, on Flickr


R1-01892-0004 by darrylwharrisjr, on Flickr

Film definitely has a unique quality to it that I've always liked. Can't to see what my first 2 rolls are going to look like. I had to use a special lab in town to develop and do the scans of the Kodak Tri-X 400TX. Quite expensive though. Going to run me $24 a roll! Walgreen's (the pictures above) developed and scanned my roll for $8!

 

[Edge100]

Film is terrific, though for the most part I've given up shooting 35mm colour film; I can't get slide film for a decent price locally (local dealers want $15-20 for a 36-exp roll of Velvia, for instance), and while colour negative film offers dynamic range that digital can only dream of, the hassle of scanning and working with the negs is just not worth it. That said, the new Portra 400 is something to behold. I still occasionally shoot 35mm B&W (mainly Ilford XP2, which is also a C41 process B&W film).

On the other hand, I'm really digging 120 at the moment.

 

[snberk103]

If you only want to develop your own film, the setup can be quite simple. You need a small room that you can make dark.... like a closet. Everything else for developing film can be done in the light, as the film is inside a light-tight tube. Better yet, there is a lot of gear going for free or cheap right now. So... if you want to save some $$ learn to develop your own film, and scan it yourself. This only applies to traditional BW, not the stuff you develop in C41 soup.... but that you can get done for cheap as well, as it's just basically colour film with the actual colours removed.

Good Luck.

ps Nice shots - I like the one of the Sikh (?) fellow....

 

[acearchie]

So... if you want to save some $$ learn to develop your own film, and scan it yourself. This only applies to traditional BW, not the stuff you develop in C41 soup.... but that you can get done for cheap as well, as it's just basically colour film with the actual colours removed.

Good Luck.

Done this myself and C41 is IMO just as easy as B&W just that you have to heat up the sink to around 38˚C preheat the chemicals and then agitate the light tight container in the sink as well.

Here's an example of some of the B&W photo's that I developed with ease. This is from a hasselblad with quite obvious light leaks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/acearchie/sets/72157624597666384/with/4835508993/

 

[mulo]

Here's an example of some of the B&W photo's that I developed with ease. This is from a hasselblad with quite obvious light leaks.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acearchie/sets/72157624597666384/with/4835508993/

I think you've used the light leak to your advantage in most of these

 

[Razeus]

Ordered myself a scanner to scan my negatives. The shots above were done by Walgreens and are horrendous. But, ya, I'm going to develop my own black and whites. My plan is to shoot 1 roll black and white (Tri-X) and 1 roll in color (Portra 400) as a "special projects in film", due to the cost of it all.

This set came from my 3rd roll of film as my first 2 sets had to go to a special lab to get processed and scanned since they are not C-41 (Tri-X 400TX). I'll get them back tomorrow. I'm eager to see how they look.

I can see why people jumped all over digital....lol

However, I may shoot exclusively with the film for a 90 period to improve my technique, composition and understand of photography as a whole.

You can follow my new blog here: http://analog36.wordpress.com/

 

[snberk103]

Done this myself and C41 is IMO just as easy as B&W just that you have to heat up the sink to around 38˚C preheat the chemicals and then agitate the light tight container in the sink as well.

Oh - I know one can do C41 at home... but I wouldn't call it "as easy". The temperature control is considerably more important than BW. If you are off a little bit with BW the shift isn't as obvious. With C41, if you are off a little bit the colours shift. If the subject matter has important colours then that little shift can be quite noticeable. Plus C41 is developed at a higher temperature, so it has a tendency to cool down over the cycle. We were taught, btw, the "drift down" method (don't know if that was the teacher's term or an industry term) where you start just slightly higher than 38º because the soup is going to cool down regardless and so you maintain the average. Certainly though, it is something that anyone can do.... it's just that I'd recommend learning BW developing first so that one can then just concentrate on the temperature control without needing to remember all the other bits.

Here's an example of some of the B&W photo's that I developed with ease. This is from a hasselblad with quite obvious light leaks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/acearchie/sets/72157624597666384/with/4835508993/

Nice.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Film definitely has a unique quality to it that I've always liked. Can't to see what my first 2 rolls are going to look like. I had to use a special lab in town to develop and do the scans of the Kodak Tri-X 400TX. Quite expensive though. Going to run me $24 a roll!

Yes, having a lab do b&w these days is generally expensive, because it usually means someone in the lab processing by hand, not by an automatic machine like Walkgreen's would use. This is why just about everyone who still does b&w does their own processing. It's vastly cheaper and unlike c-41, there's a range of choices in developers and processing techniques. Making your own prints is fun too, and different from digital (it's nice to be able to do something away from the computer). But it does take more space. My darkroom is 1/4 of my home office.

 

[ChrisA]

Ordered myself a scanner to scan my negatives. The shots above were done by Walgreens and are horrendous. But, ya, I'm going to develop my own black and whites. My plan is to shoot 1 roll black and white (Tri-X) and 1 roll in color (Portra 400) as a "special projects in film", due to the cost of it all. ...

One way to get the cost way down. I used to do this 30 years ago back when $5 was a lot of money to me. You can by 35mm film is 100 foot rolls and re-spool it your self into re-usable cartridges. Today you film cost will be about $1 per roll and processing cost a little less.

I just looked it up. Prices have not moved much.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/190110-Arista-EDU-Ultra-BandW-100-iso-35mm-x-100-ft.?cat_id=402

Freestyle is one of the few place left that caters to artiest and students. They are reasonably close to me but you can order on-line if you don't live in Hollywood, CA.

One long 100 foot roll makes about 800 frames but you need 8 or 10 frames per roll for leader.

Their "Arista" brand is pretty good.

 

[MacCruiskeen]

Their "Arista" brand is pretty good.

The Artista Premium 400 is actually repackaged Tri-X. So you can get a 100-ft roll of Tri-x for quite a bit less than Kodak charges for it.

Bulk loaders are plentiful and cheap on the used market. Buy the cassettes new, though.

 

[snberk103]

...
Bulk loaders are plentiful and cheap on the used market. Buy the cassettes new, though.

Absolutely good advice... one (small) piece of sand or grit in the felt light trap will put a scratch through the entire roll.... and you won't know until the cassette is back in the box with all the others.... good luck finding the culprit....

... don't ask me how I know....

 

[sim667]

Done this myself and C41 is IMO just as easy as B&W just that you have to heat up the sink to around 38˚C preheat the chemicals and then agitate the light tight container in the sink as well.

Here's an example of some of the B&W photo's that I developed with ease. This is from a hasselblad with quite obvious light leaks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/acearchie/sets/72157624597666384/with/4835508993/

I dont know about where you are but here c41 chemicals have to be disposed of through filtration which you have to pay for.

OP: Have you tried shooting bigger formats than 35mm? Thats when film comes into its own IMHO

 

[MacCruiskeen]

OP: Have you tried shooting bigger formats than 35mm? Thats when film comes into its own IMHO

And these days you can good deals on pro-studio-grade kit. I recently got, for an investment of about $800, a Mamiya RB67, three lenses, and three backs. It is a conversation-starter in the street, I can tell you that!

 

[george-brooks]

Done this myself and C41 is IMO just as easy as B&W just that you have to heat up the sink to around 38˚C preheat the chemicals and then agitate the light tight container in the sink as well.

Here's an example of some of the B&W photo's that I developed with ease. This is from a hasselblad with quite obvious light leaks.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/acearchie/sets/72157624597666384/with/4835508993/

These are actually not light leaks. Light leaks would've spread to the outside edge of the frame but clearly there is a sharp line at the edge. This is in fact the result of over agitation or overly aggressive agitation. This is one of the many problems that makes developing C-41 by hand a bad idea. Seriously, just take it to a lab. Its cheaper than buying the chemistry yourself and more consistent.

 

[Edge100]

These are actually not light leaks. Light leaks would've spread to the outside edge of the frame but clearly there is a sharp line at the edge. This is in fact the result of over agitation or overly aggressive agitation. This is one of the many problems that makes developing C-41 by hand a bad idea. Seriously, just take it to a lab. Its cheaper than buying the chemistry yourself and more consistent.

It's not cheaper than using a $20 Tetenal kit (from which you can easily get 40 rolls), and every reasonably priced lab I've ever used for C-41 ends up putting roller marks on my negatives, presumably because they don't do enough of it to keep the machines in tip top shape.

There's no reason at all that you can do C-41 t home and get good results. You just need practice.

 

[acearchie]

These are actually not light leaks. Light leaks would've spread to the outside edge of the frame but clearly there is a sharp line at the edge. This is in fact the result of over agitation or overly aggressive agitation. This is one of the many problems that makes developing C-41 by hand a bad idea. Seriously, just take it to a lab. Its cheaper than buying the chemistry yourself and more consistent.

These are light leaks. I have since replaced the light seal on my Hasselblad back and no longer have this issue.

You also don't make any sense when you say that the light leak doesn't go to the edge of the frame. It clearly does.

These photo's are also B&W and processed using B&W chemicals and not a C41 process.

Also, as mentioned below, C41 processing is much cheaper if you do it yourself however, for convenience, I have now started having my local lab develop. I still do my own B&W though.