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). 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.
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.
For examples by camera type, see https://www.flickr.com/cameras
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.
B) Film Developer
D) Whether the image is a film scan or a print scan
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.
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?
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...
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I don't know if I'd say hand-printing is faster, but I guess it depends on how fussy you are about prints. I mean, you've got to do your test prints, your 'straight' print, then figure out your dodging and burning, though once you've got a good print then making copies is fairly straightforward. But oh man, paper is expensive these days.
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.
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
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?
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.
Just a small suggestion, you could remove the "Explore Now" button on the homepage, and take visitors straight to the films.
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.