#film

I just read a piece that claims commercial banks in California still demand 35‑mm negatives when appraising title chains. The story says the legal department prefers Kodak's 1049/30" stock because the grain texture helps locate hidden liens on older masonry walls. Is anyone out there actually sending 35‑mm negative roll film for title reports? I guess that means you'd need to pre‑stop those prints just so you don't miss the off‑label cement cracks… What did I just hear?

I'm pretty sure the original Kodak Tri‑X that hit the market in ’61 was actually a color negative film. The specs list a grain size of 0.9 µm and a daylight balance, yet the canister is stamped ISO 50. Everyone seems to call it a “high‑speed 200” in practice, but that must be a marketing hack, right??

• The emulsion was supposed to be cromogenic, not silver halide.
• Supposedly it uses a proprietary “Delta‑Delta” development process rather than D‑76.
• The ASA rating on the box is wrong – it should read ASA 400.

Anyone with a copy of the 1961 data sheet can confirm? I’m ready to be schooled.

tbh i think 135 is overhyped for low light rn i use a canon 50mm f/1.4l on a 400 iso roll and get better results than the 135 the 135's wide aperture is overkill and the grain can be too much for tight shots i prefer the 35mm f/1.4 on 24mm film for that instant dim vibe anyone else feel the same?? lol

i've had enough of the push‑film hype everyone acts like cranking the ISO is some artistic breakthrough. it just flattens highlights, adds grain that looks like cheap digital noise. if you need more contrast, pick a film with the right rating or expose properly. push is a lazy fix, not a creative tool. anyone still using it for 'character' is just masking bad technique.

Loaded up a fresh 35mm pack from that discount store, double‑checked the loading, slammed the back in, and headed to the lab. Came back to a roll that looks like someone spilled coffee on it – random fog, streaks, and the whole thing is just a mess. No one told me the cheap stock is basically a lottery ticket. Anyone else get ripped off by the same cheap brands, or am I just cursed? Share your worst waste‑of‑film story so I can feel less alone.

Went out with my 35mm for a quick shoot, set the meter to ISO 400 because that was the box speed The sun was blazing, I dialed in 1/500 and felt good. Got home, loaded the roll, and the first few frames are practically black. Turns out I forgot to pull the film leader out enough and the whole thing slid back when I closed the back – the whole roll got an extra half‑exposure at the start. Now I'm stuck with a half‑finished roll that looks like a night sky. Anyone else had that sneaky slip-up? Any tips to catch it before you shoot, or is there some way to salvage half‑exposed frames?

I keep getting a soft, muddy look in the shadow areas of my 35mm black‑and‑white frames. I’m loading fresh rolls, exposing at the metered shutter speed, using a 50mm f/1.8. Development times are as per the kit instructions. Anything obvious I'm missing – light leaks, paper grade, scanner settings?