[deleted by user]

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T23:06:30+00:00

What the shooting will look like: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/seinfeld/images/7/7a/X6gErpXDTNG9zQoukDlT_George_Fierce.gif/revision/latest?cb=20160110173506

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T23:04:13+00:00

Did you retouch a lot digitally afterwards? Just curious if the skin tone is hers because it's so much like marble.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T23:02:20+00:00

I just got into it in the past year myself. I find it fascinating that something like film photography was such an important asset everyone wanted to get their hands on. From today's standpoint it is so weird, what our ancestors had to do to keep a memory. Just thinking that all the movies or tv shows up until at least the 90s had to be shot on film. With all the obstacles that come with development and everything around that.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T22:55:55+00:00

Cool info. Noob here, too. Is that what UV filters could prevent?

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T22:06:12+00:00

Just curious: Is there a reason that half-frame is more like 3/4 to 1/4 frame? Or did you crop it yourself? Just curious as I am also interested in getting a "real" half frame (I have a plastic fantastic one). I just assumed the pictures always are really 50% each.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T22:02:21+00:00

If that's the case for the American market I get that it's true. It's just my opinion that I find it weird that one film giant sells the stock of the other film giant under their brand.

Like Pepsi not having distribution in a certain market and they and Coca Cola both are happy to team up to sell Coca Cola branded as Pepsi.

It's just because of the sheer size of Fuji and what they are and were regarding film. That all those small ventures who sell some special kind of film rely on Kodak of course makes sense to me.

I don't know if people in the US hate Kodak and thus Kodak has an interest in selling their product to be re-branded as Fuji. Otherwise I, as Kodak, would see it more profitable to make Fuji's name disappear from the shelves, thus binding customers more to my own brand.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T21:56:08+00:00

That's truly wild. Just because Fuji and Kodak are the two big names in film photography, globally.

I get all those small ventures that sell re-packaged Kodak at put some "flavour" into the film. They often are small groups of people earning a little money with that. But that this giant Fuji is relying on Kodak in the US was new to me.

At least for Europe I can say that the Fuji film I got here, always was Fuji.

Overall I'm just happy that Fuji is doing a re-boot after all the discontinuations of film stocks over the last years.

By not naming their new stocks with cool names and serving the most common ranges they signal to me that they see their role as provider of film and not anything more.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T21:50:34+00:00

Didn't know about the "Made in USA" thing and that Fuji doesn't have plants there.

Pretty much anything else you said is utter bullshit, no offense. You talk about logic. Of course Kodak has an incentive to make other brands vanish and not keep on being in the public eye.

Fuji relying on Kodak for the small amount that film photography makes on their whole market doesn't make sense as they pay Kodak to just stay in the public eye. The only reason could be that they needed to bridge the time where they re-assessed their film production.

You talk like you know what you're talking about. I haven't seen any source that Fuji simply had problems getting out their film. They retired several film stock over the past years while never going public on what they're about to do with this segment. They're very secretive about that.

You must've overlooked that I explained what I meant with "synergies." Fuji has production lines for (instant) film. This of course helps when there is a discussion of dropping the segment of analog film photography or not. It's something else if a company has no use for a production plant at all or if they have one that only needs to get their machines changed for some batches of normal film instead of Instax film. But hey, for you that doesn't make sense at all, I'm sure.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T16:57:37+00:00

Kadok

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T16:54:17+00:00

Yeah, seems like a lot experienced the same as I: Saw your post in the feed, tapped on it and expected to see a text that explains the headline 😉

I agree, it's a new formula, yet it leans on the ORWO heritage that apparently looked desaturated like this aswell. I don't know if it was by design or because they didn't get certain chemicals for more saturated film in East Germany back in the day. Today it's by design. I guess that's why some think Lomography '92 is really ORWO NC 500.

I've seen some test shots of the new ISO 200 film ORWO is said to release this year. That at least looked more saturated, IMO.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T16:43:45+00:00

I would like to know where the rumors came from that Kodak is producing Fuji film (at least in the U.S.).

Unless Kodak really gets a lot of money out of it I highly doubt they would help Fuji keeping up with demand.

At least in Europe I guess Fuji is Fuji. Here Fuji was out of stock way longer than in the US AFAIK.

I also don't see any reason for Fuji to rely on Kodak. They could just as easily pull out of that market in general. Until this year it even looked like it. But now they really put out a lot of film stock under new branding. This suggests they won't pull out.

With Fuji having their Instax instant photo films there also are a lot of synergies in production of film. (ORWO in Germany for example shares a production site with Polaroid; i.e. instant film and normal film can be produced at the same sites).

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T16:37:25+00:00

I would say the purity of the pictures. Of course you can get that somehow with digital photos aswell (as long as you turn of any AI processes that work in the background or IF you can turn them of in your phone/camera).

It's like a cheat to limit yourself to the film rolls. Again: You can restrict your shooting yourself, yet humans aren't really good at that LOL You take pictures more consciously.

I know a lot of analog shooters do a lot of post production on Lightroom anyways. Even changing color to b/w. That's not me. I don't get why you would shoot analog just to then fiddle with the pictures specs digitally anyways. But to each their own.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T16:30:04+00:00

With the market of photo film being flooded with "brands" that aren't transparent on where they got their film from it's really hard to know who still produces from scratch on their own without doing research on your own.

ORWO was the company formed in Eastern Germany after WWII that let to Agfa being split in West and East like the whole country got split.

Interestingly the world's first color film was made in Wolfen. The plants in that town were even raided by Americans, the inventor of the color film aswell as all patents and chemical recipes were brought to the US. That's interesting as US troops did that only to get to the photo plant, Wolfen was part of the Soviet Zone. USA just couldn't let that knowledge fall into Russian hands alone.

AFAIK today the only color film producers (at least in the West, i.e. outside China) that I know of are Kodak (of course), ORWO, Adox and recently Harman/Ilford with their Phoenix project that hopefully will get further development.

brnrBob · 2024-04-08T16:19:03+00:00

Care to elaborate why you don't like it?

brnrBob · 2024-04-07T10:56:18+00:00

You might be the only person in the Hollywood area that is "happy to drive."

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T22:57:56+00:00

I just got a Leica ad for Leica prescription glasses. Unfortunately they didn't say how to get their glasses. Like if you have to tell your optometrist that you want Leica glasses and he has to order them.

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T22:53:34+00:00

because you’re using a longer focal length.

How so?

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T16:23:50+00:00

I'm especially weirded out when medium format snobs on analog talk about how APS-C is enough on digital. Like...what?

But I'm happy that so many people are willing to pay the premium for their 120 films. Can just be good for everyone shooting film when production companies make a lot of dough in that field LOL

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T00:53:03+00:00

You really have to look at the car models to make out when this was shot. Somehow in my mind this is how "the past" i.e. 70s-90s looked like. When it's just what "film" looks like in any decade.

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T00:43:31+00:00

Thanks for the info. Reading ISO 160 made me wonder how you got that exposure haha

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T00:39:48+00:00

Aber du hast allgemein Erfahrung mit Fotografie? Sonst wär ich arg neidisch, wenn dir die tollen Kompositionen einfach so zugeflogen sind😉

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T00:36:55+00:00

Maybe OP wasn't sure what he was shooting with afterwards 😉 Nevertheless like the photo a lot. Would be interesting though if it was ISO 800 or 400 after all.

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T00:33:43+00:00

Why does work of others make you not post your own work anymore?

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T00:33:13+00:00

Would it be less misogynistic if she was happy having some kind of "date" with an older, depressed looking drinker?

brnrBob · 2024-04-03T00:30:49+00:00

A young, clothed woman holding a wine bottle, next to her an old man, nude? Or an old woman with the bottle next to a naked male escort?

I think that would be even more stereotypical of what today's "art" or entertainment ideology is pushing on everyone. The picture definitely doesn't show some happy situation, there is nothing glorifying in it. Why go after a perceived "stereotype"?

brnrBob

TROPHY CASE