
Show HN: Filmtypes – Explore the world of analog film - rylax
https://filmtypes.com
======
itcrowd
Wow. Thanks for making this! As an analog photographer, this is what I've been
looking for. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

Here are some points I noticed (no dealbreakers):

\- On the landing page, it would be nice to be able to simply scroll down to
see some content. Now the call-to-action button is there but why not show the
main content below the "hero" image?

\- On the page with the film rolls: would be nice to have the specs of the
film rolls on this page if you hover over a particular roll. E.g. replace the
image of the roll with the technical specs. If not the technical specs, then
at least the short description that you have on their individual pages.

\- The pages for a specific film roll are tagged (e.g. "street", "General
purpose", etc.) but they are not clickable. It would be nice to click on the
tags and see what other film rolls are available with that tag.

\- For the example images: add arrow-key navigation (I noticed Esc key works,
which is nice)

\- Not all pictures scale to full screen (e.g. the first image here
[https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-
delta-100](https://filmtypes.com/films/ilford-delta-100)). Is the resolution
too low of the original image?

\- I realize you want feedback, but the chatbox in the lower left (edit: lower
right) annoys me a bit. It is easy to dismiss with a large X to close, so it
boils down to personal preference. Have you gotten good feedback from it? If
not, maybe consider making your feedback email address more prominent.

edit to add:

\- Consider making an "info" icon and place it next to "Specs" on each
individual film roll page. When clicked, a small pop-up can be shown that
explains what you mean by contrast, color tone etc.

~~~
rylax
Thank you so much for the feedback. Absolutely appreciate it!

You are spot on with your feature requests and assumptions. I had the
clickable tag feature in mind but the others are new and really valuable!

Also a good point with the feedback chatbox. I did get some feedback but in
contrast to how annoying/prominent it actually is I will adjust it. I checked
some sessions on hotjar and basically everyones first action is to dismiss the
chatbox. I guess it makes much more sense on dedicated locations.

~~~
staticautomatic
What's the deal with the tags? There's really nothing that makes a given film
good or bad for "street" photography, for example. I also don't really
understand the "nature" tag. What are these tags meant to imply about the
film?

~~~
rylax
The tags serve as an additional way of showing what the given film is used for
the most. It does not indicate if it is good or bad.

------
ahpearce
This is pretty rad. I considered making something similar for lens
comparisons. I always use the "customer photos" sections on Amazon or B&H.
It'd be a good way to make some affiliate cash, if you had a similar setup as
this, but included affiliate link. Maybe your next lateral move. :)

~~~
sxv
For example photos by lens type, see
[https://pixelpeeper.com/](https://pixelpeeper.com/) and
[https://www.flickriver.com/lenses/](https://www.flickriver.com/lenses/)

For examples by camera type, see
[https://www.flickr.com/cameras](https://www.flickr.com/cameras)

------
photigragraphy
This is a really fun and great site! The resurgence of popularity with analog
processes is exciting. While I've been fortunate to have grown up around film
(and through the consumer switch to digital) I know the learning curve is much
more difficult for those getting into it now.

Personally I view it as a fantastic alternative to both the process of taking
photos and the results. I really enjoy working with mechanical cameras and
really "seeing" a photo in my minds eye before I capture a scene in reality -
a discipline that I find more difficult to practice with digital workflows.
Something peaceful and soul feeding about having only a handful of potential
photographs (say three 4x5 film holders on a day hike) which forces you to
really slow down and focus on each shot.

------
staticautomatic
I think this is a neat idea and has some valuable information in it, _except_
for the images. I've been working with film for a long time. I've shot a
ridiculous number of films from 35mm to 4x5, scanned them on everything from
roll-film scanners to Flextight to drum scanners, and printed on many
different papers. My conclusion after going really deep down this rabbit hole
is that, except for a very small number of films with really unique
characteristics (most of them no longer made), you just can't tell much of
anything from a digital image because of the lack of standardization across:

A) Setting/Exposure

B) Film Developer

C) Scanner/calibration/profile

D) Whether the image is a film scan or a print scan

~~~
rylax
I waited for this comment for quite a while, hah. Yes, I agree with you on
those assumptions to the most extent! It is really difficult to find out the
exact characteristics given only the photos since the outcome can be altered
by so many factors.

However, even though I was aware of this - I still tended to look at example
photos on tumblr because at least from my experience the sum of all viewed
images do give you a good overview imho.

The reason why I handpicked the first six photos by hand is actually because
of this. When picking the images I tried to pick the ones that most match with
the given characteristic. Off course it is still a very subjective matter.

~~~
staticautomatic
I think at the end of the day, the right conclusion is that an image is
exemplary of the _process_ used to create it. If you agree with that, then I
hope you'll consider including information about the process along with the
image. Without that context, I don't think you can reasonably attribute a
"look" to the film itself. Minimally, I think you'd need to know:

A) What's the film format/size?

B) Was it shot and processed normally? (i.e. not pushed, pulled, cross-
processed, or developed with a staining developer)

C) Is this image a scan of a negative or a scan of a print?

~~~
rylax
Well, while this approach would make it much clearer it is unfortunately also
very unfeasible to do. Neither a photo api would give those details nor would
it be possible to aggregate all those information by hand for each film.
Thanks for your input!

------
melicerte
After a few years in the digital photography, what I miss the most is the
quality of my B&W photo done with my second-hand Nikon F5!

I'm thinking of using that again but I fear the lack of film in shops and the
lack of a good labo to develop my pictures...

~~~
klodolph
Most decent size cities will still have labs, and there’s always the option to
develop by mail.

If you still have the F5 and want to do B&W, pick up a roll of Ilford SFX.
It’s easier to find a lab that processes C-41 chemistry than anything else,
and it’s easier to scan than traditional B&W.

~~~
staticautomatic
In what way is it easier to scan? Every scanner has settings for both black
and white and color neg. Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41
introduces a host of issues into post-processing.

~~~
klodolph
C-41 is easier to scan because you can use IR cleaning with C-41. This
technique is impossible with traditional B&W film.

> Every scanner has settings for both black and white and color neg.

The fact that your scanner “has a setting” just means that people want to use
the scanner for this purpose. It does not inform you which alternative you
should choose.

> Plus, scanning "black and white" shot on C41 introduces a host of issues
> into post-processing.

I can't imagine even one issue in post-processing. Once you scan it the film,
you get a monochrome image. With C-41, the post-processing is easier because
you don't have to do as much manual cleanup (due to IR cleaning, above).

Speaking as someone who has an entire shelf dedicated to binders of film—B&W
is much worse to scan than C-41. I personally shoot mostly traditional B&W but
I recognize that my use case is different from most.

~~~
staticautomatic
Suffice it to say I disagree, but even if what you're saying is true, I don't
really see it as a good enough reason to shoot black and white on C-41 film.

~~~
klodolph
Ok, I guess it's okay for you to disagree but it would be nice if you
articulated the reasons for your disagreement, if you’re going to bother
replying.

Personally I prefer to shoot B&W over monochrome C-41, but if you are not sure
how much effort you want to spend on film and are going to scan, then it makes
sense to go C-41.

~~~
staticautomatic
Looking back over this I'm actually not sure we're talking about the same
film. I like SFX a lot. It's a traditional black and white film (in terms of
development chemistry, there's no mention of C-41 chemistry on the technical
sheet). Did you mean XP2?

Anyway, here's my take on "black and white" C-41 films: I just don't see the
point. Traditional black and white film is a beautiful thing. From an
aesthetic and technical standpoint it's far and away better than C-41. The
only advantage C-41 has is the ability to drop it off at a corner lab, and
those are becoming more rare by the day. I'd much rather just shoot a high
quality true color negative film and convert it. I don't do that very often
but I'd be kind of surprised if you couldn't get a better looking image from
converting, say, Portra, than shooting a "black and white" color negative
film. Every time I've tried films like XP2 an whatever the Kodak equivalent
was, the results have been resoundingly underwhelming.

------
rylax
When I first got into film photography, I had a hard time figuring out which
film stocks I should shoot. The beauty of film is that each emulsion has its
very own characteristics which make it stand apart from the others.

While scrolling through endless blog articles and example photos on tumblr
(which took me ages) I decided to aggregate the most useful data, pick the six
most fitting example photos by hand (yes by hand) and create a place for you
to easily explore the beautiful variety of analog film.

The tech stack is a nuxt static generated site hosted on firebase.

------
earlz
Really cool, see a few missing film types (Superia 800 and 1600, Cinestill
800T/Vision3 500T) would also be really interesting if there was listings for
cross-processing, especially of slide film in C-41. Each stock has its own set
of casts and color crossing and it can be pretty difficult to figure out what
that is for each film stock.

Also completely unknown how you'd do it, but giving any kind of data for
pushing the B/W films would be really interesting too

~~~
rylax
Thanks! I will take a look at it!

------
sdfasdfsafasf
This is very cool.

I have a question for the community. A few years back I stumbled on a website
that had really cheap prices for film, near but not expired. $2 (or $1?) for a
roll of 24 run of the mill Kodak-200. I bought a dozen various rolls and I've
now run out. I think it might have been one of the three big photo shops
(Adorama, ect)

Where do you buy film cheaply?

~~~
deftturtle
I live in Portland, and eBay and Craigslist are the best ways I’ve found to
get cheap film, either because someone’s done shooting film, or because it’s
old and expired. Blue Moon Camera, in St. John’s, also sells expired film in a
mixed basket. I would trust their stock.

You have to be very careful with old Polaroid film. It’s common to get ripped
off. Unless you can test expired Polaroid film, it is risky to buy. I’m
talking about old stuff, like before 2000/2010\. I bought two packs of 4x5
Polaroid film. One dried up, the other still seems usable.

In my experience, shooting old 35mm film is perfectly fine, but different
stocks will have different degradation. And depending on the color shifts or
type of work you shoot, some expired film will look better.

Experiment with some different films at different expiration dates.

I’ve found that older film requires more light. Otherwise, everything is lost
in shadow and grain.

------
katabasis
Great project! There are lots of resources online for analog photography but
few are clean, simple, well designed, etc. – nice work. Also, it's a great
demonstration of static site / "JAM stack" technology (Nuxt + Flicker API +
Firebase). A simple setup leaves more time to spend crafting a polished
experience.

~~~
rylax
I could not put it into better words :) Thanks!

------
Finnucane
Are you trying to keep it to just currently available films? I think Fuji
Neopan films are discontinued, but rumors of its return have been floated.
Likewise Ilford doesn't list Pan 100 and Pan 400 on its website. And of
course, Agfa APX 100 has been out of production for years, but old stock still
floats around.

~~~
rylax
As of now, I am trying to list all the film stocks that are currently still
available/still floating around. I will take a closer look at the actuality of
the films.

------
TomMasz
This is definitely a good start and I look forward to seeing it grow. The
example photos section is nice, it tells you more than the spec sheet can
about how it will look.

------
leemailll
Why use positive but not chrome for the film type? It really takes me a few
seconds and several scrolls to make sure what the positive means.

~~~
rylax
Thanks for the hint! You are right. Positive made sense to me but actually
slide or chrome film is much more common and easily understandable.

~~~
staticautomatic
But not all positives are chromes. Some copy films produce interpositives, for
example. Or like Scala-- is/was it a chrome? I'm not sure, tbh.

------
33degrees
It be great if you added 120 film as well, and if the amazon links showed if
the film was actually in stock, which is often an issue...

~~~
33degrees
Oh and filtering by ISO 1000 return ISO 100 as well

~~~
rylax
Thanks for the bug hint! I currently undecided on how I want to implement
different film sizes. As of now each film shows in the details section the
other available formats and I might make them filterable. Most of 120 films
are also available as 35mm but I am aware of some exceptions. What do you
think?

~~~
33degrees
Adding it as a filter would be fine: some of the other info in the sidebar
could be useful as filters as well, like the use cases. Also, comment from a
friend who is more pro than me would be to add reciprocity compensation
information.

~~~
rylax
Love it. Those are actually also on my feature roadmap! :)

------
samtimalsina
I only have vague memories of shooting with film, with permissions from elder
members of the family. Browsing through the photographs, I couldn't help but
get somewhat nostalgic.

Just a small suggestion, you could remove the "Explore Now" button on the
homepage, and take visitors straight to the films.

~~~
rylax
Happy to hear that I could revive some memories!

------
ixtli
This is so cool! Man I really miss developing B&W film in a darkroom in high
school. Probably super toxic but man was it fun.

~~~
klodolph
It was toxic a hundred years ago. There have been vast improvements in safety
over the years.

~~~
rylax
True that. Unless you try to drink from the trays you should be pretty fine.

------
lunchables
I love this site - would you share the details about the technology behind it?
What's it written in, database, etc?

~~~
rylax
Thanks! Sure. Actually @katabasis summed it up perfectly: "... Also, it's a
great demonstration of static site / "JAM stack" technology (Nuxt + Flicker
API + Firebase). A simple setup leaves more time to spend crafting a polished
experience."

Additionally, I am also using youtube's api for the videos and an airtable
sheet where I store all the information about the films. When I update the
airtable sheet it automatically updates firebase and generates the static site
from nuxt. I could probably also use the airtable api but I have not looked
into it yet.

~~~
lunchables
Thanks for sharing, I really love it.

------
abruzzi
nice clean presentation. Where are you sourcing your images from? Also, based
on the samples I looked at, it would be nice to have larger images.

~~~
rylax
thanks, I will take a look at it! I am sourcing CC BY 2.0 images from the
flickr api.

~~~
abruzzi
I'm assuming that you are querying tags to find the images? I did notice a
image that shows up under "Kodak Gold 200", but when you visit the flickr page
it is clearly "Kodak Colorplus 200" (yes apparently they are different film
stocks.) Unfortunately there is limited consistency in tagging film stocks.

~~~
rylax
Yes, that's right. The querying based on tags has its limitations considering
the consistency. Some people even post b/w pictures and take color films. I
have currently not found a better way to query it but I will def think about
it.

