Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
NO to most of that,,, I develop the negatives at a commercial lab then I scan them into the computer and edit them digitally. for color.
Black and white I do my own negs and then scan them. I have really bad balance i can't work in a darkroom at all any more. I do all my loading of film ect in a dark bag.
I shoot negative film because it is easy for me to find and have processed. We are doing this same discussion on a different thread. What I do is kind of a hybred system. All the digital things everyone else does but I start with film not a digital camera.
I'm one of those weirdos who likes the whole film ritual thing. More thought about what you are going to do because it isn't "free". Each trip of the shutter costs you money.
I always liked Tri-X as a good all-around black and white film. 400 speed, easy to work with, readily available...
I asked because I just shot a couple of rolls of Kodak Gold 200 and was less than impressed with the results. I normally shoot positive film anyway but in the past I have used various pro negative films (Reala, UC 100, NPS 160, Porta 160) and the Gold left me quite disappointed with the results. I used it because I needed some cheap film and had only a drugstore available to purchase from, and that was the best they had. It was in-date. Basically, it came out somewhat grainy, and I don't know how to describe the colours but they lack the subtlety and range that I'm used to. It was shot with an FM2n and mostly with an 85/1.4. So I'll be curious if you try it what you think, and if you really like the results better than a pro 400 film (I know there's an obvious cost difference there..). I haven't used enough pro 400 negative films to comment myself so I'll be curious about others' experiences.
Dave