If you like film "X," you'll really like...?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by The Bill Mattocks, Jul 15, 2003.

  1. It's pretty cheap at the local supermarket near here - about $10.00
    USD for a box of four rolls (I think they're 24 exp). I've been
    getting my Portra 160NC from B&H at whatever the going rate is for the
    import stuff. Not expensive, but more than the HD400 for sure.

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 16, 2003
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Until / unless I start doing my own processing again (a possibility,
    since I got my first 4x5 rig), I'll probably not know... I just drop
    it off, they process it and get it back to me... Still, I've had the
    same results with Delta 100 at Albuquerque Color Lab and Process One
    in Overland Park, KS.

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 16, 2003
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. That real men shoot slide film ?

    ;^)
     
    Tony Parkinson, Jul 16, 2003
    #23
  4. Bill, Here's a list of what I shoot and why :-

    Colour Slide : Fuji Velvia 50 for Landscapes (but looking forward to trying
    the new Velvia 100 F), Provia 100 F for Natural History, Fuji Astia 100 for
    people (but again looking forward to trying the new Astia 100 F), Fuji
    Provia 400F for low-light situations (pushed to up to 1600), Provia 100 F
    for pretty much everything else

    Monochrome : Agfa Scala 200 since I prefer slides and it's the only Mono
    Slide film I know of in 35mm here in the UK. But I'm increasingly scanning
    Fuji Velvia 50, Provia 100 F, Fuji Astia 100 or Fuji Provia 400F,
    manipulating it using the PhotoShop channel mixers and sending the resultant
    TIFF files off to be written to 35mm slides

    Colour Print : Most of my prints are produced by scanning Fuji Velvia 50,
    Provia 100 F, Fuji Astia 100 or Fuji Provia 400F, adjusting it in PhotoShop
    and either printing on MY Epson or getting proper prints made by taking the
    TIFF files to a local lab I know who can do it properly. However, when I'm
    asked to shoot events at the church I'm a member of, I usually shoot Fuji
    Superia X-tra 800 (often pushed to 1600) to cope with the low-light, avoid
    flash and provide a fast turnaround
     
    Tony Parkinson, Jul 16, 2003
    #24
  5. Yeah right, 1 usually shoot at around 200mm from the rear of the church and
    less than double figures of films a year
     
    Tony Parkinson, Jul 16, 2003
    #25
  6. Actually, Chris, I have both scanners - I also shoot medium format and
    use the Epson to scan 6x6 and 6x9, with the Epson 2400 and
    transparency adapter, same as you. I found it quite acceptable with
    the 35mm until I got the Minolta, which is more convenient to scan
    entire rolls.

    Also, with the dreaded curling Kodak Gold, using the Epson's flim
    holder, the film would often curl so much it would pop out of the
    holder entirely. At least the Minolta's holder is a two-part affair;
    if I can persuade the film strip to lay flat for a moment, I can crush
    the top down while it isn't looking. Still, a real pain, and the
    results are often a bit naff.
    I can't do too much with the levels, and working with individual
    colors is right out - I'm much too color-blind. I am not even allowed
    to adjust the colors on our TV set.

    This is one of the problems I've faced over the years - perhaps I
    should just stick to B&W. I recently posted a portrait of two of my
    nieces on Photosig, and the comments I got were that the skin tones
    were, God help me, green. Bloody hell!

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 16, 2003
    #26
  7. I haven't tried the Astia, what's that like? And what is 'Natural
    History'? You mean like historical monuments and such?
    I subscribe to Amateur Photographer (why are British photography
    magazines so much better than the ones in the US?) and I thought I
    read recently that Britain's only processor of Scala had gone
    belly-up?
    I haven't had the occasion to shoot higher speed film in a long while,
    but it has been my understanding that it is harder to get a lab to
    push-process C-41 than E-6 or B&W. I take it you've had no trouble
    with that?

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 16, 2003
    #27
  8. Personally, I think that the Canon 10D is wonderful - I'd love to have
    one! But I suspect that we're on the cusp of something wonderful
    happening in the world of digital - another quantum leap, lower prices
    and higher image quality all around. I'm waiting to jump in, and in
    the meantime, I've just picked up a second Bronica C body...for
    peanuts...and it appears to never have been used...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2937227261&category=3350&rd=1

    Life is good for film users!

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 16, 2003
    #28
  9. My God!! I didn't know film could curl up so much! I've had an annoying
    problem with the film holder that comes with the Epson - the edges of the
    film strip often curl a little bit, so if I am scanning either of the two
    pictures on the edge of the strip, one side of the scan will be a bit
    darker - upsetting the colour balance and making that edge of the scan
    unusable. Since I've only been scanning stuff this past month or so, maybe
    all my old rolls of Kodak Gold have been lying out flat for sufficient
    amounts of time to stop them curling up so much. Have you tried putting them
    under a book for a week? I have considered trying to mount some negatives
    into a slide holder or something to stop the curling.
    The one thing I have had with this Superia Reala that I haven't seen before
    is that a couple of the strips did curl slightly horizontally across the
    strip. It didn't seem to affect the scan though.
    Green!?! Unfortunately, it's one of those things where people who deal with
    scans and mess around with colour balance on a regular basis can often pick
    up on even the slightest tint on an image. I must say, I don't think there's
    been anything wrong with the colours on any of the scans I've made - so my
    advice to you would be not to mess with the colour balance at all. I often
    just look at the histogram and stretch it out a bit to get rid of any
    zero/very low areas at either end of the graph. I doesn't always improve the
    image, but it can often boost the colours - make the dark areas darker and
    the light areas lighter. If in doubt, it's probably best to leave the scan
    alone!

    What type of colour-blindness do you have? Is it like red/green or
    something?

    Cheers,

    Chris.
     
    Chris Barnard, Jul 16, 2003
    #29
  10. Lower saturation than Velvia or Astia with better Rendition of Skin tones,
    kind of like a slide version of NPH
    Nope . . . . . . Flowers, Birds, Animals, Insects, Fungi, etc
    With the decline in the standard of Practical Photography over recent years
    and the introduction of Photography Mundanely, oops, I mean Photography
    Monthly, I'm not convinced that is still the case
    Joe's Basement did, however I believe they signred up a new one, but can't
    remember who
    Never had any problems with the Southampton branch of Snappy Snaps
     
    Tony Parkinson, Jul 16, 2003
    #30
  11. No, I haven't done that - these were fresh from the processor. And
    I've had the problem with more than several processing labs, so it
    seems to be endemic to that particular film stock.
    Well, all I did with this one was mess with the histogram, as you
    said. Here is the result:

    http://www.growlery.com/reunion/reunion060.jpg

    I was told on Photosig that the background was a sickly hospital
    color, and the skin tones were green. I have no idea if that's
    correct or not. You tell me!
    Red-Green is the most common form of color-blindness, and yes, I have
    it. I also suffer to varying degrees from just about any other form
    you care to mention. It nearly kept me out of the military - saving
    grace is that people who are profoundly color-blind tend to have
    better night vision, and we interpret the world around us based on
    texture, shadow, and movement instead of color. It makes for a dandy
    sniper.

    I have trouble identifying certain shades of certain colors - blues
    and purples, greens and browns, greens and reds, gold and green, tan
    and green, and so on. I have never seen a rainbow - to me, it is two
    thin lines of pale colored light across the sky - a light yellow and a
    light blue. I see nothing else, but I've seen photos of rainbows that
    I know must have been tweaked - because I can 'see' the colors in
    them.

    My wife still looks at me strangely when she happens to ask "What
    color is [name of object she's referring to]" and I reply that I have
    no idea. Some kind of color, I'm sure. Just can't pin it down.
    Other colors I have no trouble with - it depends very much on hue and
    intensity.

    Imagine that you were shown a color-wheel, where the colors fade from
    one to another very gradually. There would be a couple spots where
    two adjacent colors were so close to one another that you might say
    you didn't know precisely what to call the one in question. For me,
    that gap is just much bigger.

    I *see* colors, I am not monochromatic. I just can't always identify
    them. It took me some time to figure out what color 'sepia' actually
    is. I guess it is a sort of brown, but I always thought it was more
    of a reddish-yellow.

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 16, 2003
    #31
  12. I'm rather fond of AP, PP, and "Black and White." Between those and
    "Lenswork" and "Shutterbug" and "View Camera," I get my monthly
    magazine fix. I love the articles on ancient cameras in AP.

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 16, 2003
    #32
  13. Maybe it does help to leave them a while before scanning. All my films curl
    up a little bit, but nowhere near as much as you are experiencing and the
    only two 'fresh' films I've put into my scanner have been those two films
    from Goodwood using Reala.
    Well, I couldn't see it at first. These people have obviously spent a lot of
    time messing with colour balance and the like. Yes, the background is a bit
    plain - seems a little too grey - although I'd have thought a beige/magnolia
    colour would've been more the 'sickly hospital' type.
    The skin tones looked fine to me, until I had a quick mess with the RGB
    balance of the picture. I took the green down by around 10% - then comparing
    it to the original, it seemed better afterwards - basically it's just
    bringing out the red a bit more. I don't think the skin tones look green at
    all, it's just that a little less green works better in the picture. I think
    this is a common thing to pick up on, as some films do tend to have a hue to
    them.
    A friend of mine is red/green colour-blind. It doesn't usually cause any
    problem, but occasionally he has to ask what a certain colour is. Another
    friend I had was colour blind to specific shades of magenta - he just saw
    them as black. I thought that was kinda weird.
    It's strange, I guess we all 'see' slightly differently - some more than
    others! I suppose it gives you a different outlook on the world. It must be
    a bit frustrating at times though.
    Yeah, my friend who is red/green colour blind always said that he just
    couldn't distinguish between red and green when they were next to each
    other. He can usually tell if something is green or red, but put them
    together and they look the same. I must admit, I can't really even imagine
    what that's like. Does that mean red looks like green? Or green looks like
    red? Or do they both look like a mix of green and red? Agghh!!
    Well, brown has quite a bit of red in it, and sepia B&W prints have a kinda
    murky yellow/brown sorta appearance, so you're kinda right.

    Chris.
     
    Chris Barnard, Jul 17, 2003
    #33
  14. The Bill Mattocks

    Bandicoot Guest

    I haven't tried scanning it yet - perhaps you'll be able to tell me!
    Very wonderful range of tonality, and subtlety. It also encompasses, when
    shooting, perhaps a stop more tonal range than any B&W negative film. The
    actual slides have a slight warmth, a bit like printing onto the old Agfa
    Portrait paper.
    Not tried that one. Old orthochromatic films had no red, and some continue
    in use as very fine grain films for copy purposes. Agfa Ortho 25 was a very
    fine example, now discontinued, but if you find any it is a lovely film for
    still life.
    I believe Supra was as well. Kodak is also saying that ease of scanning is
    a priority with the new Ektachrome films, so presumably they mean that
    E100GX, for example, scans more easily than its predecessor E100SW. I
    haven't made this comparison though. I think Fuji said the same thing about
    Provia, but I can't recall where I read that.

    I've just realised I mis-named this. It isn't Supra Gold, but Royal Supra -
    I knew it was some consumer name that had me confused!
    The VC is a bit punchier than NC, but I don't like it nearly as much. But
    then, maybe that's because the subjects I use Portra for are ones that
    require subtlety, and when I want 'punch' I use slide film anyway...
    Sounds like just the sort of subject I would choose Portra for too - bright
    Clive Nichols style flower portraits may be fun, and they certainly sell,
    but for the long run I think I will always prefer subtlety and accuracy for
    most plant pictures.
    I used a roll at a flower show a couple of months back just to see if I
    still felt the same way about it - and I did: too bright, for me, for that
    subject. But it wasn't as bad as I had remembered. I could see it being
    great at, say, a classic car show.
    I haven't used enough NPH to compare, maybe I'll give it a try. Rolls of
    400 don't get used up very fast where I'm concerned, or, mostly, used for
    'key' images - so I've made less effort comparing.
    The labs I use use plastic. However, increasingly I get the film sent back
    to me unmounted. It is a bit quicker to scan that way, and I lose nothing
    at the edge of the frame (which always seems to happen with mounts). Then
    if I have a need to mount some (or all) the shots on a roll I use a Gepe
    slide mounting press and do it myself. It is a bit of a chore, but I've got
    much faster at it, and it saves quite a bit of money over having the lab do
    it - though maybe it wouldn't save anything versus cheap card mounts.
    I was there in February. I used about half as much again E100VS as Velvia,
    and was very pleased with it. The Velvia is still my preference if there
    are plants or foliage in the scene (other than distant trees) but for rock
    and 'dried up' plants the E100VS really shines.

    Grand Canyon sunrises, Monument Valley, Bryce, all seem to me to be E100VS
    type subjects (mostly). I travel with multiple bodies so I can make the
    decision on a shot by shot basis. Zion, say, with the cottonwoods, would be
    much more a Velvia place. As with all slide films, over-exposure is death:
    E100VS is a film for drama rather than subtlety, and so a touch of
    underexposure (1/3 stop, say) to deepen the colours and allow the shadows to
    drop out can be no bad thing.
    The 400F isn't quite as cold as the 100.
    Kodak E100GX would be interesting to try for the model work. Not the only
    people film by a long way, obviously, but it manages to be warm (noticeably
    so) without messing up colours too much - a definite asset under studio
    lighting.
    Thanks - I hope it is good!



    Peter
     
    Bandicoot, Jul 17, 2003
    #34
  15. I will try that, since I have some more Kodak Gold laying about.
    Thanks for the tip!
    Interesting! Thanks for having a look at it! I'm not sure how I'll
    guard against it in the future, but I'll try.
    I haven't had any real trouble with magenta, but to me it's just
    another shade of purple with a bit of red in it.
    On the other hand, it has advantages. I spot wildlife while we're out
    driving about - no one else sees it. Movement and shadow - nature's
    camoflage does not work on me. I used to think our cammo uniforms
    were a bit of a joke when I was in the military - doesn't hide a
    thing. Didn't think until later that for most people, it does.
    I can often tell the difference, even next to each other - but it
    depends entirely on the shade. To me, traffic lights in the US tend
    to look blueish white if they're supposed to be green, and red lights
    look amber. Amber looks amber as well, so I'm down to memorizing
    their positions on the tree.
    You see how it is - colors are such a mystery to me! Some jump right
    out and I know just what they are - and I know if something is
    'colorful' or not, but depending on shades...if my skies came out
    purple and my grass was brown, I'd be none the wiser.

    And don't even get me started with the LED's on modern cameras! Lord,
    they love to have a single LED turn different colors to mean different
    things. It is either on or off, blinking or not. That's all it is to
    me. All my cameras are match-needle or without metering at all, and a
    nice LCD meter in my hand to complete my work.

    Thanks again for your help!

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 17, 2003
    #35
  16. You've been a great help - thanks!

    Best Regards,

    Bill Mattocks
     
    The Bill Mattocks, Jul 17, 2003
    #36
  17. Quite frankly David, one of the main things that puts me off "going digital"
    those digital converts who seem to insist on telling me I "need" digital
    with all the fervour of an American TV evangelist. Arseholes like you in
    fact.

    Fortunately, I have a couple of friends who have gone digital and have seen
    how it has benefited their photography sufficiently to make me consider
    going digital at some undefined time in the future
     
    Tony Parkinson, Jul 17, 2003
    #37
  18. The Bill Mattocks

    T P Guest


    This is yet another reason why no serious photographer should ever
    even *entertain* the idea of using Kodak Gold film. There are plenty
    of superior emulsions available for less money.
     
    T P, Jul 17, 2003
    #38
  19. The Bill Mattocks

    T P Guest


    But real men shoot Fuji NPS or NPH ...

    ;-)
     
    T P, Jul 17, 2003
    #39
  20. The Bill Mattocks

    drsmith Guest

    Chris - http://www.waymaster.com/:

    Directory Listing Denied
    This Virtual Directory doesn not allow contents to be listed.

    Just thought you'd like to know. I'm using IE 5.5 SP2

    --drsmith
     
    drsmith, Jul 19, 2003
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.