8 ms·

Show HN: Filmtypes – Explore the world of analog film

38 points by rylax 7y ago

rylax 7y ago
When I first got into film photography, I had a hard time figuring out which film stocks I should shoot. The beauty of film is that each emulsion has its very own characteristics which make it stand apart from the others. While scrolling through endless blog articles and example photos on tumblr (which took me ages) I decided to aggregate the most useful data, pick the six most fitting example photos by hand (yes by hand) and create a place for you to easily explore the beautiful variety of analog film. The tech stack is a nuxt static generated site hosted on firebase.
itcrowd 7y ago
Wow. Thanks for making this! As an analog photographer, this is what I've been looking for. I've bookmarked it for future reference. Here are some points I noticed (no dealbreakers): - On the landing page, it would be nice to be able to simply scroll down to see some content. Now the call-to-action button is there but why not show the main content below the "hero" image? - On the page with the film rolls: would be nice to have the specs of the film rolls on this page if you hover over a particular roll. E.g. replace the image of the roll with the technical specs. If not the technical specs, then at least the short description that you have on their individual pages. - The pages for a specific film roll are tagged (e.g. "street", "General purpose", etc.) but they are not clickable. It would be nice to click on the tags and see what other film rolls are available with that tag. - For the example images: add arrow-key navigation (I noticed Esc key works, which is nice) - Not all pictures scale to full screen (e.g. the first image here https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-delta-100 https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-delta-100). Is the resolution too low of the original image? - I realize you want feedback, but the chatbox in the lower left (edit: lower right) annoys me a bit. It is easy to dismiss with a large X to close, so it boils down to personal preference. Have you gotten good feedback from it? If not, maybe consider making your feedback email address more prominent. edit to add: - Consider making an "info" icon and place it next to "Specs" on each individual film roll page. When clicked, a small pop-up can be shown that explains what you mean by contrast, color tone etc.
- rylax 7y ago
  Thank you so much for the feedback. Absolutely appreciate it! You are spot on with your feature requests and assumptions. I had the clickable tag feature in mind but the others are new and really valuable! Also a good point with the feedback chatbox. I did get some feedback but in contrast to how annoying/prominent it actually is I will adjust it. I checked some sessions on hotjar and basically everyones first action is to dismiss the chatbox. I guess it makes much more sense on dedicated locations.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    What's the deal with the tags? There's really nothing that makes a given film good or bad for "street" photography, for example. I also don't really understand the "nature" tag. What are these tags meant to imply about the film?
    - rylax 7y ago
      The tags serve as an additional way of showing what the given film is used for the most. It does not indicate if it is good or bad.
ahpearce 7y ago
This is pretty rad. I considered making something similar for lens comparisons. I always use the "customer photos" sections on Amazon or B&H. It'd be a good way to make some affiliate cash, if you had a similar setup as this, but included affiliate link. Maybe your next lateral move. :)
- rylax 7y ago
  Thanks! Yeah good idea. The basic concept is easily portable to other niches. I have actually setup affiliate links. However, as of now I really do not believe in affiliate as a way of monetization. For me, it seems users will rarely click on such links. Furthermore, amz commission is also fairly low if you ask me. I am always open for tips and tricks tho! :)
- sxv 7y ago
  For example photos by lens type, see https://pixelpeeper.com/ https://pixelpeeper.com/ and https://www.flickriver.com/lenses/ https://www.flickriver.com/lenses/ For examples by camera type, see https://www.flickr.com/cameras https://www.flickr.com/cameras
Finnucane 7y ago
Are you trying to keep it to just currently available films? I think Fuji Neopan films are discontinued, but rumors of its return have been floated. Likewise Ilford doesn't list Pan 100 and Pan 400 on its website. And of course, Agfa APX 100 has been out of production for years, but old stock still floats around.
- rylax 7y ago
  As of now, I am trying to list all the film stocks that are currently still available/still floating around. I will take a closer look at the actuality of the films.
33degrees 7y ago
It be great if you added 120 film as well, and if the amazon links showed if the film was actually in stock, which is often an issue...
- 33degrees 7y ago
  Oh and filtering by ISO 1000 return ISO 100 as well
  - rylax 7y ago
    Thanks for the bug hint! I currently undecided on how I want to implement different film sizes. As of now each film shows in the details section the other available formats and I might make them filterable. Most of 120 films are also available as 35mm but I am aware of some exceptions. What do you think?
    - 33degrees 7y ago
      Adding it as a filter would be fine: some of the other info in the sidebar could be useful as filters as well, like the use cases. Also, comment from a friend who is more pro than me would be to add reciprocity compensation information.
      - rylax 7y ago
        Love it. Those are actually also on my feature roadmap! :)
- Finnucane 7y ago
  You could always check B&H or Freestyle, they have pretty much everything.
abruzzi 7y ago
nice clean presentation. Where are you sourcing your images from? Also, based on the samples I looked at, it would be nice to have larger images.
- rylax 7y ago
  thanks, I will take a look at it! I am sourcing CC BY 2.0 images from the flickr api.
  - abruzzi 7y ago
    I'm assuming that you are querying tags to find the images? I did notice a image that shows up under "Kodak Gold 200", but when you visit the flickr page it is clearly "Kodak Colorplus 200" (yes apparently they are different film stocks.) Unfortunately there is limited consistency in tagging film stocks.
    - rylax 7y ago
      Yes, that's right. The querying based on tags has its limitations considering the consistency. Some people even post b/w pictures and take color films. I have currently not found a better way to query it but I will def think about it.
samtimalsina 7y ago
I only have vague memories of shooting with film, with permissions from elder members of the family. Browsing through the photographs, I couldn't help but get somewhat nostalgic. Just a small suggestion, you could remove the "Explore Now" button on the homepage, and take visitors straight to the films.
- rylax 7y ago
  Happy to hear that I could revive some memories!
lunchables 7y ago
I love this site - would you share the details about the technology behind it? What's it written in, database, etc?
- rylax 7y ago
  Thanks! Sure. Actually @katabasis summed it up perfectly: "... Also, it's a great demonstration of static site / "JAM stack" technology (Nuxt + Flicker API + Firebase). A simple setup leaves more time to spend crafting a polished experience." Additionally, I am also using youtube's api for the videos and an airtable sheet where I store all the information about the films. When I update the airtable sheet it automatically updates firebase and generates the static site from nuxt. I could probably also use the airtable api but I have not looked into it yet.
  - lunchables 7y ago
    Thanks for sharing, I really love it.
melicerte 7y ago
After a few years in the digital photography, what I miss the most is the quality of my B&W photo done with my second-hand Nikon F5! I'm thinking of using that again but I fear the lack of film in shops and the lack of a good labo to develop my pictures...
- Finnucane 7y ago
  processing b&w film at home doesn't require a lot of space. A tank and a dark box to load it are all you need. And it's _way_ cheaper than a lab.
  - floren 7y ago
    And if you get into stand development, you're only using 5mL of Rodinal per roll... and instead of agitation every 30 seconds for 10 minutes, you just agitate when you add the developer and let it sit for an hour, maybe agitating once halfway through.
    - rylax 7y ago
      +1 what all above said. I myself self develop b/w and sometimes even C41 which is much easier than everyone talks/write about. The only problem with self-development imho is if you want to digitalize it. I have an Epson V500 scanner which is fine for b/w but almost useless for color. Labs tend to have much better scanners and experience in removing the color layers etc.
      - floren 7y ago
        Yeah, I have a V550 and it's a pain to use. Slow to load, slow to scan, and dust is incredibly apparent. Then you have to go through and process the negatives. I honestly prefer wet printing with the enlarger; once you've got the baths set up, it's quicker per image than scanning & processing!
        rylax 7y ago
ixtli 7y ago
This is so cool! Man I really miss developing B&W film in a darkroom in high school. Probably super toxic but man was it fun.
- klodolph 7y ago
  It was toxic a hundred years ago. There have been vast improvements in safety over the years.
  - rylax 7y ago
    True that. Unless you try to drink from the trays you should be pretty fine.
sdfasdfsafasf 7y ago
This is very cool. I have a question for the community. A few years back I stumbled on a website that had really cheap prices for film, near but not expired. $2 (or $1?) for a roll of 24 run of the mill Kodak-200. I bought a dozen various rolls and I've now run out. I think it might have been one of the three big photo shops (Adorama, ect) Where do you buy film cheaply?
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  Buy bulk on eBay and load your own canisters if you want super cheap.
- floren 7y ago
  I get my film from Freestyle Photo, but that's non-expired stuff and it starts at about $4.50/roll for their house-brand (rebranded Foma) B&W, in either 35mm or 120.
- deftturtle 7y ago
  I live in Portland, and eBay and Craigslist are the best ways I’ve found to get cheap film, either because someone’s done shooting film, or because it’s old and expired. Blue Moon Camera, in St. John’s, also sells expired film in a mixed basket. I would trust their stock. You have to be very careful with old Polaroid film. It’s common to get ripped off. Unless you can test expired Polaroid film, it is risky to buy. I’m talking about old stuff, like before 2000/2010. I bought two packs of 4x5 Polaroid film. One dried up, the other still seems usable. In my experience, shooting old 35mm film is perfectly fine, but different stocks will have different degradation. And depending on the color shifts or type of work you shoot, some expired film will look better. Experiment with some different films at different expiration dates. I’ve found that older film requires more light. Otherwise, everything is lost in shadow and grain.
TomMasz 7y ago
This is definitely a good start and I look forward to seeing it grow. The example photos section is nice, it tells you more than the spec sheet can about how it will look.
katabasis 7y ago
Great project! There are lots of resources online for analog photography but few are clean, simple, well designed, etc. – nice work. Also, it's a great demonstration of static site / "JAM stack" technology (Nuxt + Flicker API + Firebase). A simple setup leaves more time to spend crafting a polished experience.
- rylax 7y ago
  I could not put it into better words :) Thanks!
leemailll 7y ago
Why use positive but not chrome for the film type? It really takes me a few seconds and several scrolls to make sure what the positive means.
- rylax 7y ago
  Thanks for the hint! You are right. Positive made sense to me but actually slide or chrome film is much more common and easily understandable.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    But not all positives are chromes. Some copy films produce interpositives, for example. Or like Scala-- is/was it a chrome? I'm not sure, tbh.
photigragraphy 7y ago
This is a really fun and great site! The resurgence of popularity with analog processes is exciting. While I've been fortunate to have grown up around film (and through the consumer switch to digital) I know the learning curve is much more difficult for those getting into it now. Personally I view it as a fantastic alternative to both the process of taking photos and the results. I really enjoy working with mechanical cameras and really "seeing" a photo in my minds eye before I capture a scene in reality - a discipline that I find more difficult to practice with digital workflows. Something peaceful and soul feeding about having only a handful of potential photographs (say three 4x5 film holders on a day hike) which forces you to really slow down and focus on each shot.
staticautomatic 7y ago
I think this is a neat idea and has some valuable information in it, except for the images. I've been working with film for a long time. I've shot a ridiculous number of films from 35mm to 4x5, scanned them on everything from roll-film scanners to Flextight to drum scanners, and printed on many different papers. My conclusion after going really deep down this rabbit hole is that, except for a very small number of films with really unique characteristics (most of them no longer made), you just can't tell much of anything from a digital image because of the lack of standardization across: A) Setting/Exposure B) Film Developer C) Scanner/calibration/profile D) Whether the image is a film scan or a print scan
- rylax 7y ago
  I waited for this comment for quite a while, hah. Yes, I agree with you on those assumptions to the most extent! It is really difficult to find out the exact characteristics given only the photos since the outcome can be altered by so many factors. However, even though I was aware of this - I still tended to look at example photos on tumblr because at least from my experience the sum of all viewed images do give you a good overview imho. The reason why I handpicked the first six photos by hand is actually because of this. When picking the images I tried to pick the ones that most match with the given characteristic. Off course it is still a very subjective matter.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    I think at the end of the day, the right conclusion is that an image is exemplary of the process used to create it. If you agree with that, then I hope you'll consider including information about the process along with the image. Without that context, I don't think you can reasonably attribute a "look" to the film itself. Minimally, I think you'd need to know: A) What's the film format/size? B) Was it shot and processed normally? (i.e. not pushed, pulled, cross-processed, or developed with a staining developer) C) Is this image a scan of a negative or a scan of a print?
    - rylax 7y ago
earlz 7y ago
Really cool, see a few missing film types (Superia 800 and 1600, Cinestill 800T/Vision3 500T) would also be really interesting if there was listings for cross-processing, especially of slide film in C-41. Each stock has its own set of casts and color crossing and it can be pretty difficult to figure out what that is for each film stock. Also completely unknown how you'd do it, but giving any kind of data for pushing the B/W films would be really interesting too
- rylax 7y ago
  Thanks! I will take a look at it!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

38 points by rylax 7y ago

When I first got into film photography, I had a hard time figuring out which film stocks I should shoot. The beauty of film is that each emulsion has its very own characteristics which make it stand apart from the others. While scrolling through endless blog articles and example photos on tumblr (which took me ages) I decided to aggregate the most useful data, pick the six most fitting example photos by hand (yes by hand) and create a place for you to easily explore the beautiful variety of analog film. The tech stack is a nuxt static generated site hosted on firebase.

itcrowd 7y ago

Wow. Thanks for making this! As an analog photographer, this is what I've been looking for. I've bookmarked it for future reference. Here are some points I noticed (no dealbreakers): - On the landing page, it would be nice to be able to simply scroll down to see some content. Now the call-to-action button is there but why not show the main content below the "hero" image? - On the page with the film rolls: would be nice to have the specs of the film rolls on this page if you hover over a particular roll. E.g. replace the image of the roll with the technical specs. If not the technical specs, then at least the short description that you have on their individual pages. - The pages for a specific film roll are tagged (e.g. "street", "General purpose", etc.) but they are not clickable. It would be nice to click on the tags and see what other film rolls are available with that tag. - For the example images: add arrow-key navigation (I noticed Esc key works, which is nice) - Not all pictures scale to full screen (e.g. the first image here https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-delta-100 https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-delta-100). Is the resolution too low of the original image? - I realize you want feedback, but the chatbox in the lower left (edit: lower right) annoys me a bit. It is easy to dismiss with a large X to close, so it boils down to personal preference. Have you gotten good feedback from it? If not, maybe consider making your feedback email address more prominent. edit to add: - Consider making an "info" icon and place it next to "Specs" on each individual film roll page. When clicked, a small pop-up can be shown that explains what you mean by contrast, color tone etc.

rylax 7y ago
Thank you so much for the feedback. Absolutely appreciate it! You are spot on with your feature requests and assumptions. I had the clickable tag feature in mind but the others are new and really valuable! Also a good point with the feedback chatbox. I did get some feedback but in contrast to how annoying/prominent it actually is I will adjust it. I checked some sessions on hotjar and basically everyones first action is to dismiss the chatbox. I guess it makes much more sense on dedicated locations.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  What's the deal with the tags? There's really nothing that makes a given film good or bad for "street" photography, for example. I also don't really understand the "nature" tag. What are these tags meant to imply about the film?
  - rylax 7y ago
    The tags serve as an additional way of showing what the given film is used for the most. It does not indicate if it is good or bad.

ahpearce 7y ago

This is pretty rad. I considered making something similar for lens comparisons. I always use the "customer photos" sections on Amazon or B&H. It'd be a good way to make some affiliate cash, if you had a similar setup as this, but included affiliate link. Maybe your next lateral move. :)

rylax 7y ago
Thanks! Yeah good idea. The basic concept is easily portable to other niches. I have actually setup affiliate links. However, as of now I really do not believe in affiliate as a way of monetization. For me, it seems users will rarely click on such links. Furthermore, amz commission is also fairly low if you ask me. I am always open for tips and tricks tho! :)
sxv 7y ago
For example photos by lens type, see https://pixelpeeper.com/ https://pixelpeeper.com/ and https://www.flickriver.com/lenses/ https://www.flickriver.com/lenses/ For examples by camera type, see https://www.flickr.com/cameras https://www.flickr.com/cameras

Finnucane 7y ago

Are you trying to keep it to just currently available films? I think Fuji Neopan films are discontinued, but rumors of its return have been floated. Likewise Ilford doesn't list Pan 100 and Pan 400 on its website. And of course, Agfa APX 100 has been out of production for years, but old stock still floats around.

rylax 7y ago
As of now, I am trying to list all the film stocks that are currently still available/still floating around. I will take a closer look at the actuality of the films.

33degrees 7y ago

It be great if you added 120 film as well, and if the amazon links showed if the film was actually in stock, which is often an issue...

33degrees 7y ago
Oh and filtering by ISO 1000 return ISO 100 as well
- rylax 7y ago
  Thanks for the bug hint! I currently undecided on how I want to implement different film sizes. As of now each film shows in the details section the other available formats and I might make them filterable. Most of 120 films are also available as 35mm but I am aware of some exceptions. What do you think?
  - 33degrees 7y ago
    Adding it as a filter would be fine: some of the other info in the sidebar could be useful as filters as well, like the use cases. Also, comment from a friend who is more pro than me would be to add reciprocity compensation information.
    - rylax 7y ago
      Love it. Those are actually also on my feature roadmap! :)
Finnucane 7y ago
You could always check B&H or Freestyle, they have pretty much everything.

abruzzi 7y ago

nice clean presentation. Where are you sourcing your images from? Also, based on the samples I looked at, it would be nice to have larger images.

rylax 7y ago
thanks, I will take a look at it! I am sourcing CC BY 2.0 images from the flickr api.
- abruzzi 7y ago
  I'm assuming that you are querying tags to find the images? I did notice a image that shows up under "Kodak Gold 200", but when you visit the flickr page it is clearly "Kodak Colorplus 200" (yes apparently they are different film stocks.) Unfortunately there is limited consistency in tagging film stocks.
  - rylax 7y ago
    Yes, that's right. The querying based on tags has its limitations considering the consistency. Some people even post b/w pictures and take color films. I have currently not found a better way to query it but I will def think about it.

samtimalsina 7y ago

I only have vague memories of shooting with film, with permissions from elder members of the family. Browsing through the photographs, I couldn't help but get somewhat nostalgic. Just a small suggestion, you could remove the "Explore Now" button on the homepage, and take visitors straight to the films.

rylax 7y ago
Happy to hear that I could revive some memories!

lunchables 7y ago

I love this site - would you share the details about the technology behind it? What's it written in, database, etc?

rylax 7y ago
Thanks! Sure. Actually @katabasis summed it up perfectly: "... Also, it's a great demonstration of static site / "JAM stack" technology (Nuxt + Flicker API + Firebase). A simple setup leaves more time to spend crafting a polished experience." Additionally, I am also using youtube's api for the videos and an airtable sheet where I store all the information about the films. When I update the airtable sheet it automatically updates firebase and generates the static site from nuxt. I could probably also use the airtable api but I have not looked into it yet.
- lunchables 7y ago
  Thanks for sharing, I really love it.

melicerte 7y ago

After a few years in the digital photography, what I miss the most is the quality of my B&W photo done with my second-hand Nikon F5! I'm thinking of using that again but I fear the lack of film in shops and the lack of a good labo to develop my pictures...

Finnucane 7y ago
processing b&w film at home doesn't require a lot of space. A tank and a dark box to load it are all you need. And it's _way_ cheaper than a lab.
- floren 7y ago
  And if you get into stand development, you're only using 5mL of Rodinal per roll... and instead of agitation every 30 seconds for 10 minutes, you just agitate when you add the developer and let it sit for an hour, maybe agitating once halfway through.
  - rylax 7y ago
    +1 what all above said. I myself self develop b/w and sometimes even C41 which is much easier than everyone talks/write about. The only problem with self-development imho is if you want to digitalize it. I have an Epson V500 scanner which is fine for b/w but almost useless for color. Labs tend to have much better scanners and experience in removing the color layers etc.
    - floren 7y ago
      Yeah, I have a V550 and it's a pain to use. Slow to load, slow to scan, and dust is incredibly apparent. Then you have to go through and process the negatives. I honestly prefer wet printing with the enlarger; once you've got the baths set up, it's quicker per image than scanning & processing!
      - rylax 7y ago

ixtli 7y ago

This is so cool! Man I really miss developing B&W film in a darkroom in high school. Probably super toxic but man was it fun.

klodolph 7y ago
It was toxic a hundred years ago. There have been vast improvements in safety over the years.
- rylax 7y ago
  True that. Unless you try to drink from the trays you should be pretty fine.

sdfasdfsafasf 7y ago

This is very cool. I have a question for the community. A few years back I stumbled on a website that had really cheap prices for film, near but not expired. $2 (or $1?) for a roll of 24 run of the mill Kodak-200. I bought a dozen various rolls and I've now run out. I think it might have been one of the three big photo shops (Adorama, ect) Where do you buy film cheaply?

staticautomatic 7y ago
Buy bulk on eBay and load your own canisters if you want super cheap.
floren 7y ago
I get my film from Freestyle Photo, but that's non-expired stuff and it starts at about $4.50/roll for their house-brand (rebranded Foma) B&W, in either 35mm or 120.
deftturtle 7y ago
I live in Portland, and eBay and Craigslist are the best ways I’ve found to get cheap film, either because someone’s done shooting film, or because it’s old and expired. Blue Moon Camera, in St. John’s, also sells expired film in a mixed basket. I would trust their stock. You have to be very careful with old Polaroid film. It’s common to get ripped off. Unless you can test expired Polaroid film, it is risky to buy. I’m talking about old stuff, like before 2000/2010. I bought two packs of 4x5 Polaroid film. One dried up, the other still seems usable. In my experience, shooting old 35mm film is perfectly fine, but different stocks will have different degradation. And depending on the color shifts or type of work you shoot, some expired film will look better. Experiment with some different films at different expiration dates. I’ve found that older film requires more light. Otherwise, everything is lost in shadow and grain.

TomMasz 7y ago

This is definitely a good start and I look forward to seeing it grow. The example photos section is nice, it tells you more than the spec sheet can about how it will look.

katabasis 7y ago

Great project! There are lots of resources online for analog photography but few are clean, simple, well designed, etc. – nice work. Also, it's a great demonstration of static site / "JAM stack" technology (Nuxt + Flicker API + Firebase). A simple setup leaves more time to spend crafting a polished experience.

rylax 7y ago
I could not put it into better words :) Thanks!

leemailll 7y ago

Why use positive but not chrome for the film type? It really takes me a few seconds and several scrolls to make sure what the positive means.

rylax 7y ago
Thanks for the hint! You are right. Positive made sense to me but actually slide or chrome film is much more common and easily understandable.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  But not all positives are chromes. Some copy films produce interpositives, for example. Or like Scala-- is/was it a chrome? I'm not sure, tbh.

photigragraphy 7y ago

This is a really fun and great site! The resurgence of popularity with analog processes is exciting. While I've been fortunate to have grown up around film (and through the consumer switch to digital) I know the learning curve is much more difficult for those getting into it now. Personally I view it as a fantastic alternative to both the process of taking photos and the results. I really enjoy working with mechanical cameras and really "seeing" a photo in my minds eye before I capture a scene in reality - a discipline that I find more difficult to practice with digital workflows. Something peaceful and soul feeding about having only a handful of potential photographs (say three 4x5 film holders on a day hike) which forces you to really slow down and focus on each shot.

staticautomatic 7y ago

I think this is a neat idea and has some valuable information in it, except for the images. I've been working with film for a long time. I've shot a ridiculous number of films from 35mm to 4x5, scanned them on everything from roll-film scanners to Flextight to drum scanners, and printed on many different papers. My conclusion after going really deep down this rabbit hole is that, except for a very small number of films with really unique characteristics (most of them no longer made), you just can't tell much of anything from a digital image because of the lack of standardization across: A) Setting/Exposure B) Film Developer C) Scanner/calibration/profile D) Whether the image is a film scan or a print scan

rylax 7y ago
I waited for this comment for quite a while, hah. Yes, I agree with you on those assumptions to the most extent! It is really difficult to find out the exact characteristics given only the photos since the outcome can be altered by so many factors. However, even though I was aware of this - I still tended to look at example photos on tumblr because at least from my experience the sum of all viewed images do give you a good overview imho. The reason why I handpicked the first six photos by hand is actually because of this. When picking the images I tried to pick the ones that most match with the given characteristic. Off course it is still a very subjective matter.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  I think at the end of the day, the right conclusion is that an image is exemplary of the process used to create it. If you agree with that, then I hope you'll consider including information about the process along with the image. Without that context, I don't think you can reasonably attribute a "look" to the film itself. Minimally, I think you'd need to know: A) What's the film format/size? B) Was it shot and processed normally? (i.e. not pushed, pulled, cross-processed, or developed with a staining developer) C) Is this image a scan of a negative or a scan of a print?
  - rylax 7y ago

earlz 7y ago

Really cool, see a few missing film types (Superia 800 and 1600, Cinestill 800T/Vision3 500T) would also be really interesting if there was listings for cross-processing, especially of slide film in C-41. Each stock has its own set of casts and color crossing and it can be pretty difficult to figure out what that is for each film stock. Also completely unknown how you'd do it, but giving any kind of data for pushing the B/W films would be really interesting too

rylax 7y ago
Thanks! I will take a look at it!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]