This was posted 5 years 5 months 27 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

3x24 Exposure Rolls Kodak 6034052 Ultra Max 400 Film (Blue/Yellow) $12.27 + Delivery (Free with Prime/ $49 Spend) @ Amazon AU

200
3x24 Exposure Rolls Kodak 6034052 Ultra Max 400 Film (Blue/Yellow) $12.27 + Delivery (Free with Prime/ $49 Spend) @ Amazon AUAffiliate
Go to Deal
Cashback
Being Askhole on 26/05/2019 - 17:01 amazon.com.au (233 clicks)
Last edited 27/05/2019 - 00:24 by 1 other user
This post contains affiliate links. OzBargain might earn commissions when you click through and make purchases. Please see this page for more information.

Looks like this deal is back again & no back orders. Enjoy :)

  • This offer is for 3 24 exposure rolls of Kodak Color Print Film ISO 400.
  • Great pictures in sunlight or low light, in action or still; The world"s most versatile 400-speed film choice.
  • Great pictures in a wide range of lighting conditions; Better pictures in low light; Sharper pictures with moving subjects; Extended flash range for better flash pictures; * Reduced effect of "camera shake"; Better depth of focus capabilities.
  • Bright, vibrant prints; Consistent color under most lighting conditions.

Extra 5% off for Amazon Prime members — $11.66 Delivered

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.
Electrical & Electronics 35mm Camera Film Kodak

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace

closed Comments

  • klownvandamn on 26/05/2019 - 17:41
    +1

    How do we turn these in to photos to be viewed on phone?

  • unifex on 26/05/2019 - 18:07
    +2

    im blown away anyone bothers with film now.

    For a while there digital wasn't as good but now its better with a good quality camera.

    • alvian on 26/05/2019 - 18:13

      Except for variable sensitivity, in what other ways are digital sensors better than film? For example, https://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

      • slipperypete on 26/05/2019 - 19:19
        +3

        Ken's post was 2008…lot of changes since then

        • alvian on 26/05/2019 - 19:28
          -1

          And what are these numerous changes that made digital sensors better than film? Please give me information instead of assertion.

          • slipperypete on 26/05/2019 - 20:20
            +3

            @alvian: Well for one thing….quoting KR is a really poor idea. He is one of the most disliked persons in the photography business. Incredibly opinionated and very often gives out very poor advice that is only aligned with his idea of photography. I know that is irrelevant, but as soon as anyone quotes KR I cringe. He prays on those who are fairly new or inexperienced in the field.

            Secondly, just to show I am not biased, I still shoot film and love it. I have 4 film cameras from 35mm to 6*7 to large format. For me it will always be something I am passionate about….simply because digital will never have the same look despite all the plug-ins and filters simulating film.

            As for why digital is better….
            apart from variable sensitivity it has a massive advantage in its sensitivity ISO range. It can virtually see in the dark with minimal grain. The Nikon D5 has 3,276,800 ISO which compares roughly with ISO 3200 in film for graininess.

            It can also adjust white balance any time, whereas film has to be a specific type.

            The actual quality/sharpness/detail is now better than film….do some research on this. May not have been in 2008 but has been for a long time now. Whilst in theory film may have higher acuity, when it is developed to print or scanned it reduces and has less visual detail. This is arguable of course.

            Digital is generally better at long exposures and now has higher dynamic range. Also when you consider digital can be layered with different exposures to produce an HDR photo it wipes the board clean.

            Also it is much cheaper and never expires.

            Colour accuracy is much better also. Along with that it can be corrected much easier if there are variations. Take a look at film simulations, each film emulsion is very different in its colour representation.

            Colour in film really has fallen to a low level compared with digital. Despite this, for B&W, film still rocks and simply looks much nicer than digital…again just an opinion.

            • alvian on 26/05/2019 - 22:25

              @slipperypete: Finally some information instead of assertions and anonymous and clueless neg votes which contribute nothing to the conversation.

              You need to separate sensor technology from digital camera and image post processing. My question is specific to sensors vs films because this is a post on cheap films, and unifex's comment was "(why) anyone bothers with film" but not "(why) anyone bothers with film camera".

              ISO range: since each film has a fixed ISO, it is unreasonable to compare the light sensitivity of one particular film to a digital sensor which uses analogue amplification and digital processing to archive its extended ISO range. How often does a general photographer need sensitivity lower and higher than that the common film range of ISO 25 to 3200? A film's exposure can be extended with pull and push processing too. Crazy high ISOs come at the expense of digital noise. Nikon D5 Hi5 mode is comparable to ISO 3200 film? Please don't bullshit.

              White balance: Images come off digital sensors as RAW data with no WB. WB is metadata the camera adds to the image post capture. One can correct WB in post processing, whether digital or film. More convenient with digital sensors: yes, better: no.

              Actual quality/sharpness/detail: You have provided an assertion, not information. Why do I have to research to back up your assertion? What new technological breakthrough had occurred in the past decade to digital sensors to result in shaper, more detail and higher quality images than films? And please don't say improved filtering and post processing algorithms. These are not inherent advantages of digital sensors over films. For example, PetaPixel 2014 comparison showed no advantage of digital sensors over films.

              "When it is developed to print it reduces and has less visual detail": Analogue copies will always incur information loss. This is not a disadvantage of films but a limitation of analogue copying technology. All the amplitude information about the image are present on the film. Ultimately this is a limitation of information theory and thermodynamics on the copying process.

              "When it is scanned it reduces and has less visual detail": This is a digital conversion and the result is entirely dependent on the scanners chosen and limitations in scanning technology. It has nothing to do with films.

              HDR: Consumer HDR is post processing manipulation of multiple exposures. We can do the same with films and darkroom techniques.

              Colour accuracy: Digital sensors unavoidably capture incorrect colour values due to its colour filter array. You can reduce but cannot eliminate demosaic artifacts. For example, PetaPixel showed colour accuracy is poorer with a digital sensor. "It can be corrected much easier if there are variations" — films can be post processed and corrected too.

              Here is one, but by no mean only, advantage of film over digital sensor. Optimised fresh clean sensor with every shot.

              • slipperypete on 26/05/2019 - 23:16

                @alvian: The link to Delta 3200…it is one of my favourite films and use it FOR the graininess…however you are right the D5 equivalent I mentioned is crap and unusable for most cases. However, convert that noisy image to B&W, add some digital grain to cover the blemishes and you can get away with some stuff. But yeah, film grain rules and looks a lot more natural, especially on big enlargements.

                You are right about artifacts and demosaicing…good point. They can suck…and digital still has a cold sterile look at times.

                As for higher than 3200 uses…wow!! No I often use high ISO's a LOT. Depends on what you are shooting. Low light sports, weddings in low light and so on.

                I like your point on fresh clean sensor each time though. However, I had an entire expedition of film (over 60 rolls) damaged by getting it developed in Thailand (old chemicals and/or dirty water) 3 months worth and that was my income!!!

                As for HDR, not quite the same and my point stands that digital now has better dynamic range.

                Anyway, this is such an overdone topic. I see advantages in both and one isn't necessarily better than the other…but one is way more practical, easier and more flexible. It's a debate for forum browsers and anyone who gets too tied up in it has more interest in tech and stuff rather than actual photography. I don't do a huge amount of paid work anymore, what I do is mostly modelling portfolios and mountain biking photography. I use film and digital for both funnily enough.

                • alvian on 26/05/2019 - 23:51

                  @slipperypete: My original question "in what other ways are digital sensors better than film" is in response to unifex's exaggeration and generalisation. As of now, digital sensors have not surpassed films, but neither are films superior in all ways to digital sensors. The technologies are different enough that each method of image capture has its own pros and cons.

                  It is plain to see that the digital workflow, from image capture to image reproduction, is better than analogue. Digital technology will continue to improve, just as analogue films will continue to become niche and avant-garde. The digital photography system has created and recreated many images unachievable with films (just look at Vivid Sydney), and clever in-camera digital corrections have made many people better photographers. Both systems have their places in this world. I only hope that unifex's mind isn't blown away.

                  Your use of high ISO to compensate for slow lenses is ill-advised. I don't know what DSLR you are using but the sensor's maximum native ISO may be a lot lower than you think. For example, this answer claimed that Canon sensors standardise on ISO 100 and have a maximum on-chip amplified ISO of 1600/3200/6400. Data are further amplified digitally off-chip (similar to "digital zoom") to achieve ISOs higher than native.

                  I had an entire expedition of film (over 60 rolls) damaged by getting it developed in Thailand (old chemicals and/or dirty water) 3 months worth and that was my income

                  I cannot begin to imagine how terrible it must have been for you. Losing a hard disc worth of data with no backup might be the closest I would experience. Yes, digital images + multiple backups FTW. To hell with dirty labs.

      • mubd1234 on 26/05/2019 - 19:23
        +1

        The fact that you can instantly view photos on the go, RAW image capture allowing yourself to change all sorts of parameters after the fact, you can take basically unlimited photos (with a good 128GB SD card costing ⅖ of (profanity) all these days) without having to worry about using up a roll of film, not having to worry about getting the photos developed at silly cost per photo, not having to worry about the person developing the film seeing what you've taken, not having to worry about whether your photos actually come out good…

        But yes, film might still win on the resolution front.

        • phocus on 26/05/2019 - 19:29
          +2

          I dare say most analog shooters also have a digital camera of some sort. It's not like they don't want those features and can fall back on it if the circumstances require it.

          Because of analog's restrictions it sometimes requires some level of creativity to achieve a good image. Some people like it. Also most normal people would never be able to afford a medium/large format setup in digital where it's very affordable film wise.

        • alvian on 26/05/2019 - 19:30
          -2

          These are advantages of digital cameras over film cameras, not advantages of digital sensors over film.

      • unifex on 26/05/2019 - 21:59

        Pete below wrote a better reply than i could below.

        • alvian on 26/05/2019 - 22:39

          So are you blown away that many bother with film? Are you disappointed that digital still has not surpass films?

  • Lps on 26/05/2019 - 18:16
    -3

    This is a joke post right? On yer BA, you almost got me.

  • altomic on 26/05/2019 - 18:49
    +10

    might pick some of this up on the way to the beard oil shop whilst riding my fixie and listening to vinyl music from bands you haven't heard of yet.

    • mapax on 26/05/2019 - 19:04

      Lol, that must be one smooth riding fixie to be able to use a record player.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join