This NG at its best (follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?")

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Alan Browne, Apr 15, 2004.

  1. Alan Browne

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Same here. The chemicals are not cheap enough for me to do my own E-6, unless I
    was on a really short deadline.
    I have one dedicated Palm software called DarkRoom 1.11 by Aaron Gresch. It
    should still be a free download software, and has most of the Kodak B/W films
    and development times using popular chemicals.

    The other item I have is the Massive Developer Chart, broken into DOC files for
    reading in PalmOS. You should be able to get those at
    Just as I thought, that film is nearly the same response as Ektacrap 400X. Oh
    well, I guess at least someone likes it.
    Much more to my style of film. Cleaner look. I have some information that Kodak
    is working on reducing the grain in an update of E200, though the push
    capability and colour response should stay the same.
    Gordon Moat, Apr 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Gordon Moat wrote:

    Thanks, good resource. (Michael Scarpitti is mentioned as a contributor).
    Non, no, no!! that WAS E200, just bad lighting/I should have opened up
    another stop for that particular shot. When I redo these shots, I'll
    use the 400 however and place the strobes for the shot.
    I wish they'd just leave the damned films alone. Seems I get used to a
    film and then they fiddle again.
    Alan Browne, Apr 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Just goes to show you that even grouchy old men can accomplish things . . .
    sometimes. ;-)
    Weird. I have tons of shots scanned from even greater push, and much less apparent
    grain. Perhaps there are some great differences between our scanning techniques, or
    scanners. It could also be that you had the older Elitechrome 200, which was
    actually more like the old Ektachrome 200 Professional.
    I hear that often, but there is another way to look at this. In the early 1990s,
    when I got into photography heavily, the film choices then worked well with medium
    format, but really limited 35 mm. While almost all those older films have been
    replaced (including Fuji choices), the replacements have shown greater colour film
    capabilities from 35 mm gear. While I am less satisfied with colour changes in film
    (E100S going to E100G worse, though E100SW to E100GX is better, new Fuji choices
    generally better), the improvements in grain are easily seen. The improved scanning
    performance is also very welcomed.

    I understand what many of you guys say about this stuff, since I see most
    photographers stick to only a few films. Even my college instructors did not vary
    much in film choices. Perhaps I am somewhat of an anomaly by using so many different
    kinds of films, though I do enjoy the exploration.
    Gordon Moat, Apr 17, 2004
  4. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Also, I neglected to mention that that shot (over the net) is about a
    25% crop of the original... grain comes from that and the serious
    I use a variety of films from both big houses. One in particular I use
    a lot is Sensia 100, a neutral film, good grain (it is Astia 100 after
    all). So now Fuji change Astia, and then a few months later they're
    changing the Sensia 100 too (to be the same as the new Astia?). When I
    have the time I'll DL the new Sensia and new Astia spec sheets and see
    if they're the same thing (deja vu all over again).

    I bought some E100G (two for one sale), but I've yet to try it. Your
    comments don't exactly thrill me...

    In my fridge I now have 13 types of film, (incl. 3 slide and 2 neg that
    I've never used before). Must promise myself to keep notes.

    Alan Browne, Apr 17, 2004
  5. Alan Browne

    Andrew Price Guest

    As I remember, he is 53 or 54. There are a couple here who are
    considerably older, not at all grouchy, and who have accomplished a
    lot more.
    Andrew Price, Apr 17, 2004
  6. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: This NG at its best (follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?")
    Sorry, Gordon "Ektacrap™®" is a registered trademark by me ;-).

    400X, which is like overly grainy
    I love the look of this film with Zeiss lenses and flash and agree with you
    100% - it _is_ grainy color Tri-X, and as wea ll know "TriX is for kids" ;-).
    Lewis Lang, Apr 18, 2004
  7. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    "Kodak fiddled as KodachROME burned" ;-)
    Lewis Lang, Apr 18, 2004
  8. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: This NG at its best (follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?")
    I would love to settle on 1 film and I envy HCB and others who have...
    Lewis Lang, Apr 18, 2004
  9. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Lewis Lang wrote:

    Nah. We need to settle on the 3 to 5 films that do the various jobs we
    want to do. The whole HCB thing is tiresome at some point. There *are*
    other ways to photograph...

    Alan Browne, Apr 18, 2004
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 18, 2004
  11. Alan Browne

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Well, that explains quite a bit. Transparency films rarely tolerate underexposure well.
    I have experienced inconsistent results from consumer films, so I tend to avoid them
    unless there is no other option. However, in theory, most of these should be close to
    some professional emulsion.
    The previous Fuji Astia was one of the few Fuji films I used often. Recently, Fuji gave
    me some rolls of their newer emulsions to try out. I am happy to report that I like the
    newer Astia 100F even more. It is even more flattering with skin tones, better with
    Yellows, and has a really even tonality in 35 mm size.

    I would hesitate to comment on Astia by using Sensia. With consumer films, shipping and
    storage come into the equation, and the colour range could shift almost anywhere.
    However, if you are happy with the results, that is what really matters. The only
    transparency films I have ever used that stood up well to heat and harsh storage have
    been Kodachrome.
    I used the previous E100S quite a bit. The older E100SW I was never pleased with the
    results. E100G is not E100S, and the colour range is different. E100GX is not E100SW, and
    surprisingly is like E100S with better response with blue hues. I actually like E100GX,
    and continue to use it. I recently did a roll of 6x9 shots of an old Morgan Plus4, and
    the British Racing Green is rendered spot on . . . magnificent!
    I have a list inventory of films in my PDA. Sometimes just looking in the fridge is not
    good enough, especially when there is often more film than food in there.
    Gordon Moat, Apr 18, 2004
  12. Alan Browne

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Hey, no offence to the older members of this NG. Just because someone is old
    does not mean they are grouchy, nor that they should be grouchy.
    Gordon Moat, Apr 18, 2004
  13. Alan Browne

    Gordon Moat Guest

    It would be interesting to use just TriX, or even just B/W. About the closest I
    come is my most common film, which is Kodak E200. In college, I used mostly TriX,
    AGFA APX25 and 100, and Ektachrome 100 Professional. A couple instructors
    encouraged sticking to ISO 100 colour films, since it gave a good sense of final
    results. While that may have been a great way to start out, I quickly found that
    choosing films for particular colour responses could provide a different view of
    each subject. I suppose if I was really famous, and stuck to one film, few would
    question that decision.
    Gordon Moat, Apr 18, 2004
  14. Alan Browne

    Gordon Moat Guest

    I will try to remember to quote you in the future.
    Silly rabbit . . . . .
    Gordon Moat, Apr 18, 2004
  15. In what fields? My chosen field is NOT photography, and even then I
    have accomplished quite a bit.
    Michael Scarpitti, Apr 18, 2004
  16. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I think Gordon meant M.S. in particular who I suspect was a grouch from
    day one...
    Alan Browne, Apr 18, 2004
  17. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: This NG at its best (follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?")
    Lewis Lang, Apr 18, 2004
  18. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: This NG at its best (follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?")
    Already have, that's why I wish I could decide on just 1 film. Current films
    most used:

    Ektachrome 100VS (or Elitechrome Extracolor, whichever I purchase)

    Fujicolor Superia X-tra 200

    Fujichrome Sensia 100

    Agfa Vista 400 (aka "the Walgreen's?/Walmart? Special")

    Other films used occaisionally (not because they're bad, they may be at least
    equal to if not better than the films above):

    Kodacolor Gold 200

    Kodak HD 400

    Elitechrome 400x or II (I forget the exact designation)

    Ilford XP-2 Super

    And others from K64 to TMAx 100 and 400 to Tri-X to Fuji Astia (same as Sensia
    100?) to Fuji Neopan 1600 and 400 in the past (and the Ilford FP-4 Plus in my
    Nikon EM right now, but I doubt I'll be doing much b&w shooting in the future
    as I tend to see shots that are better suited for color).

    The whole HCB thing is tiresome at some point.

    I never tire of the classics. What I tire of is the countless drones who try to
    imitate HCB and Winogrand, Arbus, etc. instead of persuing their own visions.

    There *are*
    See above :).

    ....still wish I could narrow it down to 1 film :-(
    Lewis Lang, Apr 18, 2004
  19. Alan Browne

    C.G. Guest

    These 2 threads got me moving on developing some B&W I had lying around. Tmax 100, Tmax 3200 (x3),
    HP5+, FP4+ and SFX200. Now I've just got to scan them....
    Certainly beats paying through the nose to have a lab make a mess of them.
    Thanks for the nudge :)


    : In another thread "Kodak B&W C-41 process?" the notion of home
    : developing came up.
    C.G., Apr 18, 2004
  20. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: This NG at its best (follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?")
    Does anybody (other than college instructors) question or even care about
    whether/if you've stuck to one film? Its (film's) a personal choice. I've been
    exploring/testing and bouncing between different films for what seems forever,
    and while it has been fun to see the differences I wonder if my time/mental
    powers would be better off just using 1 film and making do as best I can. While
    virtually no film choice has prevented me from getting a shot (though it might
    have taken some adjustment in the subject matter's movement, dof, shutterspeed,
    etc. to make things work), some (films) make it easier to get a shot verses
    others because of their I.S.O./speed. But speed and/vs. quality are always a
    trade off and its not (for me) easy to see which is the right choice.

    I always try to maximize my quality but sometimes I need, or would at least
    prefer a higher speed film to do that, but with higher speed comes decreased
    quality, especially vsible in higher enlargement sizes whereas anything will do
    for a 4x6" print.

    I used Fujichrome 200 for a while because I liked its saturated color, but...
    Fuji Sensia is even finer grained, sharper and has almost a glow to the
    tonality in its smoothness compared to its great but not as good 200 namesake.

    I used to use 100 (Ektar 100/125/Old Reala) color neg and (Fujicolor) 400 color
    neg exclusively. But I figure if I'm going to be shooting 100 speed film I
    might as well be shooting slides (and using fill flash or a reflector) for all
    but the most contrasty situations. 400 speed is great because of its speed and
    saturation and although less grainy in recent years, there is a dramatic (or at
    least noticable) decrease in grain and an increase in sharpness when using the
    200 speed over the 400 speed Fujicolor - especially for 8x12" prints to 16x20"
    full frame prints. Plus the Fujicolor 400 skin tones were a little too red for
    me the last time I used it (even when everything else in the frame was balanced
    for neutrals - though this might have changed w/ more recent batches of
    Fujicolor 400 but I don't care since I prefer the Agfa Vista 400 now for 400
    speed color neg despite the fact that it is a bit grainier than expected, I use
    it when I absolutely need that extra stop when the light is failing at end of
    day, not when its convenient to have that extra stop vs. the 200) and Fujicolor
    200's skin tones are near perfect, though it (the 200) can be a bit contrasty,
    squeezing out/shut/making too dark the detail of dark browns, dark purples and
    near blacks in people's clothing.

    I would go to all Ilford XP-2 Super at E.I. 250 but then there would be the
    matter of all that hand coloring of the prints I'd have to do ;-).

    Then again, I love the graininess, sharpness and tonality of Fuji Neopan 1600.
    Its a wonder I can decide on any one film at one time to be in my camera with
    my diverse taste and quality vs. film speed/convenience needs. See what I mean?
    Virtually impossible for me to decide on 1 film.





    The search and/or the use of/for different films never never ends... By the
    way... did I say never? Never! ;-) ;-)
    Lewis Lang, Apr 18, 2004
    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.