Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

35mm Film Advice

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

keith selmes
1 Jul 2012 - 12:20 AM

I used to get some odd prints from 6x9 negs on 120 roll film, not a lot one could do about it.
They would do for example a 5"x7" print from a 6cmx9cm negative.
Something had to give.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
1 Jul 2012 - 12:20 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Shcokete
Shcokete  332 forum posts
1 Jul 2012 - 7:02 AM

EKtar 100 is very sharp. I use it with a Leica, when I am going to do large exhibition prints. However the faster films are nearly as good and to be honest at for family photo prints at say 7 x 5, you can use 200 or 400ASA and not notice the difference. I have found Foto_station at Ruislip good for D & P.

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225752 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jul 2012 - 1:37 PM

How I do it

This way I still retain the option of colour and/or B&W.
I get a better result from scanning the print than scanning the neg and is less fiddly

pentaxpete
7 Jul 2012 - 1:53 PM

Ilford cassettes cannot now be reused as both ends are now sealed on -- I have saved many from FP3 and HP4 days where it WAS possible to re-use the cassettes -- 'Chinese LUCKY' cassettes can be re-used still though.

Just Jas
Just Jas  1225752 forum posts England1 Constructive Critique Points
7 Jul 2012 - 5:21 PM

In my day I used the Adox cassettes where one end cap could be 'unscrewed' as it were.

Don't know the current cassette is like, though.

here

Last Modified By Just Jas at 7 Jul 2012 - 5:30 PM
pablophotographer


Quote: The issue with loss of part of the frame, which pablophotographer referred to, may be due to print dimensions not matching the negative dimensions.

35mm film is 24mm high by 36mm wide, therefore a 2:3 ratio. The only way you can get prints which cover 100% of the image is to choose print sizes which also have a 2:4 ratio, for example 5 * 7.5 (not 5*7 which is a common option), 6 * 9, or 12 * 18.

I covered this issue in a blog article -
http://kevinthephotographer.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/resizing-photos-for-print/

Interesting point, I had my pictures done on 6x4 (thinking that would correspond correctly. In digital I shoot most at 3:2 format. I thought for the black and white ones that without the white framing around them (which I like as a feature) I would have more space of the film on the paper,Actually the printers told me that having the B&W pictures done with the white frame it would display more of the film on the print (but slightly smaller). It is pity the printers don't always offer advice to help the customer get the best out of their photos. Is there a loss of a part of the image even when you print with chemicals??? I didn't think so...

nickthompson
18 Sep 2012 - 10:22 PM


Quote: How I do it

This way I still retain the option of colour and/or B&W.
I get a better result from scanning the print than scanning the neg and is less fiddly

That's interesting that you get better results that way. I would have thought scanning the neg would be better. Do you use a scanner specifically for scanning photos or a normal scanner?
Nick

pablophotographer

Thought of it overnight... When I give dimensions I refer to the length first. then the height , then the depth. The frame is oblong and horizontal shouldn't the 3 refer to length in proportion to 2 on the height? Shouldn't in that way the full printed pic contain all of the film frame?

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.