Covert expired colored film to B&W

>>2732492

you can, but ill look ass. literal ass.

also if youre not enjoying your film camera, youre most certainly a moron.

>>2732495
>also if youre not enjoying your film camera, youre most certainly a moron.

Did I say I don't? I was just saying I was memed by some here who said film is cheaper.

>you can, but ill look ass. literal ass.

Even if I edit it to make it look good digitally? I cannot find any B&W film that costs less than $3.

>>2732492
You can develop colour film as black&white film, use same developers, times, process. Film masking makes it an ass to enlarge but it scans just fine. So yeah, every roll of colour film you have is also a roll of grainy bw film.
If you're stingy about lab development there's always caffenol C, the budget homemade developer. What I'd give for a hoard of expired colour film for $1 a pop.

>>2732496

id say get a half frame camera, double the shots per roll :^)

>>2732497
I thought I'd drop a few examples because I realise how outlandish my claim might sound.
Flickr group: https://www.flickr.com/groups/c41inbw/
Example pics dev'd in coffee developer:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/victorymouth/5161599445/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/analogphotography/8531606881/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/asher_miller/4605013165/in/photostream/
The subject choice is irrelevant - you can get an idea of the grain, tonal width etc etc from these.

>>2732498
I would want to but I can't find any cheap olympus pen half frames here. I don't want the shipping risks.

>>2732505
homo.

japs ship for cheap and most of the time is top condition stuff.

>>2732497
>If you're stingy about lab development there's always caffenol C, the budget homemade developer.

In my area there's a $1 developing process for colored C-41 film. Do you think developing them myself is cheaper than $1?

>>2732518
>japs ship for cheap
>$30 film camera
>$30 for shipping
>cheap

anyhow maybe I'm just poor

File: sensor.jpg (94KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x374px

>>2732492
That picture really ruffles my jimbos.

The pictures are captured by the fucking sensor, not the goddamn SD card.

>>2732532
You are missing the point of the image. It is comparing them based solely on how many photos you can fit on them. It has nothing to do with what they are captured on, only where they are stored

>>2732540
I am not missing the point, I understand. The image just so happens to be wrong, that's all. It should be a SD card + Sensor.

But who the fuck cares anyway. Film people like film. Digital people like digital. Many like both.

This thread is pointless and gay.

>>2732540
>>2732549
well I guess I didn't read entirely, just looked at the picture.

OP's query is still kinda dumb though. If he wants to shoot expired film, he should just shoot expired black and white, then convert in photoshop. Expired color to B&W will look like shit.

>>2732544
Is that film expired?

So when I develop the C-41 film in B&W the colored film will become black and white?

>>2732554
>OP's query is still kinda dumb though. If he wants to shoot expired film, he should just shoot expired black and white, then convert in photoshop. Expired color to B&W will look like shit.

Well my problem is that I can't afford b&w film. Expired b&w still cost like $3 per film as compared to a $1 expired colored film. That's three times price difference.

>>2732563
That's not how it works, you will ruin the film. Trust me I used to develop film for a living.

>>2732565
then buy them 1 at a time, and actually think about what you want to shoot. Also, if you get a 24 roll (or maybe even 28 if you can find it) you can try different things. Expose the same image twice, with different settings. Then move on.

If you have a light meter, you will be golden.

>>2732520
>In my area there's a $1 developing process for colored C-41 film.

You're damn lucky. I pay the equivalent of $6+.

>>2732495
>also if youre not enjoying your film camera, youre most certainly a moron.
hahaha
>If you don't enjoy riding a horse 20 miles to work, you're a moron
>If you don't enjoy writing letters and mailing them and waiting a full week for a reply from your counterpart, you're a moron
>If you don't love brushing your teeth with a stick and some ash, you're a moron

Some people don't like throwing hurdles into the way just so they can brag about having jumped over them. Get over yourself.

Off topic point about the OP image... in the hands of the same photographer, the ratio of keepers to total shots will stay exactly the same. There is nothing inherently worse about shooting digital, and any "spray and pray" attitude is not the fault of the medium, but the fault of a poor photographer.

Blaming digital for having a lot of photos with no keepers is like blaming finger paints for the fact that most of what's made with them is stick figures and a mess, due to all the 4 year olds using it.

>>2732583
a good photo is a good photo. it literally makes no difference how many shots you took to obtain it. when you see a nice photo, the first question is not/should not be "did you get this in 100 tries or less?"

this is a nitpicky argument that no one cares about, except a few losers on a Djibouti diamond mining board.

>>2732520

You have a very cheap lab nearby anon, what's the catch?

Did you even bother looking up what caffenol is? Because that answers your question.

>>2732563
I can't be fucking bothered to transcribe wikipedia for you and lecture on how c41 film works but yes, you will get a bw negative. That's what my post said and what you can see in the flickr group consisting of literal thousands of example pictures I linked. Or you could, you know, type in the phrase "c41 film developed as bw" into google to verify this.

>>2732566
You're either a genuinely hamrful troll or an imbecile, prolly both :^)

lot of terrible analogies in this awful thread

>>2732602
A lot of shit that points out how terrible film is and I don't like that because I pretend that shooting it makes me a better photographer with more unique photos.
-Translated by Bing!

>>2732605

this terrible translation is why google will always be no 1

I'd like to keep this thread on top so any new posters can see it and realize what a shit hole this board is

>>2732605

babbys first Translated by Bing!

>>2732599
>You have a very cheap lab nearby anon, what's the catch?

Actually $1 is only the developing costs. I have to factor in the transportation costs and my time so it's roughly $3+ per roll of film.

>Did you even bother looking up what caffenol is?

Yes I look it up caffenol-c to be exact. I can already make one since I have the items for that developer here. The only problem is the fixer since it's an additional cost as well.
>>2732599
>I can't be fucking bothered to transcribe wikipedia for you and lecture on how c41 film works but yes, you will get a bw negative. That's what my post said and what you can see in the flickr group consisting of literal thousands of example pictures I linked. Or you could, you know, type in the phrase "c41 film developed as bw" into google to verify this.

>I can't be fucking bothered to transcribe wikipedia for you and lecture on how c41 film works but yes, you will get a bw negative. That's what my post said and what you can see in the flickr group consisting of literal thousands of example pictures I linked. Or you could, you know, type in the phrase "c41 film developed as bw" into google to verify this.

So with this it is still better to just shoot B&W film in the first place than develop c-41 with b&w process?

You can find c41 process b&w film cheap as fuck on ebay, problem solved.

File: IMG_5955.jpg (286KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1200x800px

>>2732492
>Anyhow, there's a bunch of $1 expired colored film here
Buy literally every roll of that.
How much do they have?
What types?
It's almost certainly just fine to shoot as ordinary colour film too.
This is Fuji 400 slide film developed as normal and desaturated in gimp.
It looks great.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2732732
Your pic is rather underexposed

but it is a nice shot

I was kind of thinking about this too, girlfriend has shitloads of expired colour film in our fridge she got for free from her school. It's mostly cheap Agfa Vista 200 that comes out rather underexposed if shot at box speed.

I decided against it, I can get a 30m roll of Hp5 for cheap enough anyways and just bulk roll. And I get the higher ISOs I need.

Really though if you can get C-41 development for $1 there I'd just shoot it as is and desaturate in post. Here it's like €7.

>>2732626
Nowadays with scanning and photoshop/lightroom the physical negative is just an almost irrelevant step of obtaining the end image, so there's really no difference between bw and c41 film, developed as bw. c41 negatives will be less contrasty, thinner, with the red antiglare mask, all factors that literally take a slider and half a minute to adjust.
So unless you plan on enlarging your photos, there's no diff between c41 and dedicated bw film.

Sodium hyposulfate and an acidifier can be bought as raw chemicals in bulk and mixed to make several gallons of standard fixer for ridiculously little cashmoney. Buying bottled fixer solutions is literally paying for the convenience of having someone else obtain, mix and dilute two or three easily accessible chemical compounds and bottle them for you.

File: IMG_5955c.jpg (316KB, 1212x800px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1212x800px

>>2732747
I think the exposure is fine, it's close to 10 year expired fast slide under contrasty flourescent lighting. Another 2 stops would have blown the background out entirely.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2732753
You sound pretty dumb right now, but whatever...

>>2732758
the color looks better.....I would open it up another stop, or maybe half a stop for the B&W....

The blacks are too black, looks burned.

Alternatively, if you are able to do dodge the photo a little bit, that might help too.

>>2732732
Pretty much all of it is going to be XP2. Some under ilford some under noname

>>2732913
W-what? Pretty much all of the expired c41 film you started the thread about is going to be dedicated c41 process dye-based black and white film? Why the fuck are we having this thread then.

File: 1434325075018.png (481KB, 1452x611px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1452x611px

>>2732492

>>2733679
kek'd too much at this.

>>2733679
This should be a /p/ banner, if you can make it to work that way.

>>2733679
>dark slide open on unprocessed film

reee desu

>>2733014
hahaha
>>2732913
Yep, you're a fucking idiot.