Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

35mm Film Advice

keith selmes 14 7.3k 1 United Kingdom
1 Jul 2012 12:20AM
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.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Shcokete 6 32
1 Jul 2012 7:02AM
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 Plus
16 26.2k 1 England
6 Jul 2012 1:37PM
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 13 641 1 United Kingdom
7 Jul 2012 1:53PM
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 Plus
16 26.2k 1 England
7 Jul 2012 5:21PM
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.

pablophotographer 6 921 331
18 Sep 2012 9:45PM

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 -

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 10 158 England
18 Sep 2012 10:22PM

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?
pablophotographer 6 921 331
19 Sep 2012 12:20PM
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?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.