If you like film "X," you'll really like...?
The Bill Mattocks
terms of 35mm film (which I send out to be processed, I do not yet do
any darkroom work). My favorites thus far:
B&W: Ilford Delta 100. Perhaps it is my continuing inexperience with
proper exposure and the fact that Delta 100 seems very forgiving of
this, but I have found thus far that Delta 100 scans very well and
very easily (Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III & Epson Perfection 2400
PHOTO), with great tonal range. I love the deep blacks and the smooth
greys - I find myself referring to it as 'creamy'. It also seems to
be very sharp - even with 35mm, I can often crop quite a bit before
the result starts to look bad. Makes me feel like I have a better
lens than I really do!
Color Print: Kodak Porta 160NC. When I scan this film, I find that I
seldom have to do anything to it - the histogram looks beautiful,
almost like I knew what I was doing! Unlike Kodak Gold 200, the film
lays flat and does not try ferociously to curl up when I put it in the
scanner, and I find that it is quite nice for both portraits and
nature shots. Not as punchy as, say, Agfa Ultra 100 for nature shots
- but then again, it doesn't turn people's faces red, either!
Color Slide: Fuji Velvia 50. I don't have much experience yet with
color slide film, but what little I have done leads me to believe that
the 'common wisdom' that Velvia is top-notch is correct. It is not
'too punchy', but it does seem to give an extra zing to my photos of
farms and barns and trees. It also seems to scan fairly well.
I know everyone has personal preferences or has found films that work
best for their personal style - but given that I don't do my own
darkroom work, would anyone have any suggestions about other films I
might try that you feel are better than those I have noted above? If
so, can you explain why? I enjoy experimenting, but I'm getting to
the stage of wanting to be a bit more selective, instead of just
randomly trying everything. I have relied heavily on prior postings
to this group as well, so thanks, everyone!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Ed E.
> best for their personal style - but given that I don't do my own
> darkroom work, would anyone have any suggestions about other films I
> might try that you feel are better than those I have noted above?
Hi Bill.
In a previous posting, I had mentioned that I was very pleasantly surprised
with Fuji Reala, a 100 speed print film. If you like Kodak's 160NC, try
this film as well. It scans great.
Chris Barnard
"Ed E." <EdE...@NetZero.MyPants.com> wrote in message
news:vh837i9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi Bill.
> In a previous posting, I had mentioned that I was very pleasantly
surprised
> with Fuji Reala, a 100 speed print film. If you like Kodak's 160NC, try
> this film as well. It scans great.
I just got my first two rolls of Fuji Superia Reala developed and printed.
I've been scanning them and yes, the results are pretty good. The colours
look fine and only required minimal correction on my computer (some I didn't
even correct at all). Now I know I definately need a better scanner and some
better lenses!
You can have a look at the pictures I uploaded from my website:
www.waymaster.com . Go through to pictures, click on cars and then on
Goodwood. There's a few pics there from my visit to the Goodwood Festival of
Speed last Saturday, when I tested the film. I've got a roll of Velvia
waiting to be developed as well. From the viewpoint of checking out the film
though, the pictures I have online probably aren't really big enough (or
good enough!) to do the film justice.
I might try that Kodak 160NC next - but I really was very happy with the
quality of the prints from Reala.
Chris.
The Bill Mattocks
> with Fuji Reala, a 100 speed print film. If you like Kodak's 160NC, try
> this film as well. It scans great.
Hi Ed,
I have experimented with Fuji Reala - I think...
The results I've had have been OK - not great, not bad. At least it
doesn't curl up as badly as Kodak Gold. But I've also been rather
confused about what I'm buying. I've found boxes labeled Reala, Reala
Superia, Superia, and (I think) Superia Reala, all available in 100
and 200. Some claim 4th-layer technology, some don't. I have no idea
what Fuji is selling in the Reala/Superia line, or what is difference
is between them. I've looked at Fujifilm's website, and still can't
make heads or tails of it.
I realize that everyone seems to have different experiences with
scanning film, both negatives and transparencies. My experience so
far has been just average with the "Reala" that I've scanned. It's
not that it is bad, it just doesn't seem 'special' in any particular
way. Perhaps if what one wants is a very neutral, unbiased scan, that
would be the way to go.
Films I've had real trouble with scanning include Agfa Ultra 100,
Kodak Gold 100 & 200, and the Agfa Vista that my local photo shop
keeps pushing at me. The Ultra 100 is way too saturated for people
shots, and seems oversaturated for nature shots - but I'm color-blind.
My wife says it looks fine. The Kodak Gold just curls up into a
tight little ball as soon as I take it out of the glassine envelope
from the processor's, and it's hell to make it lay flat enough to put
it in the negative carrier - by the time I get it in there, I'm too
ticked off to want to continue fooling with it. The Agfa Vista to me
looks 'cold', but I've only tried it on outdoor shots - perhaps it
would be OK as an indoor people/flash film.
But when I put Kodak Portra 160NC in either of my scanners (I shoot
Portra 160NC in 120 6x6 and 6x9 as well), it scans so beautifully that
I remember why I'm still struggling with film. I look at the
histogram and there is nothing to adjust - I seldom do anything to it
except crop and USM after resizing it for the web.
I feel the same way about the Ilford Delta 100 for B&W. I never knew
you could crop so heavily in 35mm without a resulting overly-grainy
mess. Honestly, it makes me feel like my lens is sharper than it
really is - I can crop right in and still get great detail and tonal
range - sweet! I tried Ilford HP5+ and FP4+, and found that if my
exposure was not dead-on, the result was tricky to scan and ugly when
I managed it. Kodak Tri-X is OK, as is Kodak TMAX, but not like the
Ilford Delta 100. If I want grain, I've found that Tri-X is as nice
as it was when I was in high school and doing my own darkroom.
I bought a roll of Macophot PO 100 recently, but have not taken photos
with it yet. Waiting for the right situation...
Thanks for your response!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Snorre Selmer
The Delta 100 has finer grain than FP4+, but I prefer the FP4+ for its nice
tonality (x-grain gives nicer pics than t-grain if you ask me, at the cost
of grain-size)...
Scott
Good thread... here are my favourites and why:
B&W: I barely use B&W anymore, since it's cheaper/easier to simply
scan in colour film and work some photoshop 7 magic. However, when
forced to use B&W I prefer Portra BW. I know it's chromogenic - but I
find it produces pleasing results. If I had to use regular B&W,
pretty much anything from Ilford will do (Delta 100, PanF 50, FP4 -
depends on the lighting). I find that most B*W doesn't scan as well
as I would like - hopefully when I buy the new Minolta Scan Elite 5400
in a month or two that will change.
Colour Print: Fuji Reala and Porta 400UC. I love the range of 400UC
and find it has nearly the same (if not the same) grain structure as
Portra 160. If you like 160NC, give this a try... it scans well, the
colours pop on good prints, and the fleshtones stay neutral. I find
Reala to be the finest graind print film out there and it too scans
VERY well.
Colour Slide: Velvia 50 and Provia 400F. Same as with print - Velvia
for when there's lots of light and Provia for when there isn't so much
:) Both of these are very fine grain, AMAZING colour rendition, and
they scan exceptionally well (as long as your scanner can handle the
dynamic range).
Honestly, with these 4 colour films (2 print, 2 slide) you really
don't need anything else... unless you are in darker locations in
which case I tend to use fujipress 800... cheers
Scott
bmat...@earthlink.net (The Bill Mattocks) wrote in message news:<a534b8d4.03071...@posting.google.com>...
kennyken
prestigue.
k.
"The Bill Mattocks" <bmat...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a534b8d4.03071...@posting.google.com...
Matt Clara
"The Bill Mattocks" <bmat...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a534b8d4.03071...@posting.google.com...
news:<vh837i9...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In a previous posting, I had mentioned that I was very pleasantly
surprised
> > with Fuji Reala, a 100 speed print film. If you like Kodak's 160NC, try
> > this film as well. It scans great.
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> I have experimented with Fuji Reala - I think...
>
> The results I've had have been OK - not great, not bad. At least it
> doesn't curl up as badly as Kodak Gold. But I've also been rather
> confused about what I'm buying. I've found boxes labeled Reala, Reala
> Superia, Superia, and (I think) Superia Reala, all available in 100
> and 200. Some claim 4th-layer technology, some don't. I have no idea
> what Fuji is selling in the Reala/Superia line, or what is difference
> is between them. I've looked at Fujifilm's website, and still can't
> make heads or tails of it.
>
It's my understanding that plain vanilla Reala has been out of production
for 35mm for several years. Now it's Superia Reala, with the 4th layer
technology you mentioned. You can still get the old Reala for medium format
gear; however, if you can find it for 35mm, I would think that it's old
film. Don't confuse Superia Reala with Superia, as it's not the same film.
I like to shoot Superia Reala exposed at ISO 50 or 80, to overexpose it, and
then develop normally. The colors are quite rich under these conditions.
The grain is the finest of any color negative film on the market.
mc
Ed E.
> scan in colour film and work some photoshop 7 magic.
I agree 110%. I stopped shooting B&W a couple of years ago. I show a
wedding album with a color print, a B&W and a Sepia of the same picture on
the same page, and usually get "Oh, I like that!"
Ed E.
> for 35mm for several years. Now it's Superia Reala, with the 4th layer
> technology you mentioned. You can still get the old Reala for medium
format
> gear; however, if you can find it for 35mm, I would think that it's old
> film. Don't confuse Superia Reala with Superia, as it's not the same
film.
I wasn't aware that it was on the market for so long. Yes, the one I am
referring to is Superia Reala. I have recently started buying it through
B&H, so it's still an active product. <
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh2/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=122563&is=GREY >
My personal scans show that Reala is better at scanning at 2900dpi than
Kodak 160NC. Not much, but still better. That's my own personal
observation. I'm sure that others will believe the opposite. I just know
what works for me.
The original posting was looking for a good print film to try, and I'd
encourage Reala.
DJA
> Color Print: Kodak Porta 160NC. When I scan this film, I find that I
> seldom have to do anything to it - the histogram looks beautiful,
> almost like I knew what I was doing! Unlike Kodak Gold 200, the film
> lays flat and does not try ferociously to curl up when I put it in the
> scanner, and I find that it is quite nice for both portraits and
> nature shots. Not as punchy as, say, Agfa Ultra 100 for nature shots
> - but then again, it doesn't turn people's faces red, either!
>
I haven't yet used one of the "professional" films like Porta so I can't
compare to my current "consumer" film: Kodak HD400. IMHO, this film has very
rich colors and fine grain, but I've not heard many positive comments. In
what areas is Porta 400UC significantly better than "run-of-the-mill" Kodak
High Definition film?
I plan to get some Porta because of all the wonderful comments, but I can't
see glaring weaknesses in HD400.
I realize comparing a drugstore film to a "pro" film is heresy, but is there
*really* a tremendous difference?
Dave
The Bill Mattocks
> I just got my first two rolls of Fuji Superia Reala developed and printed.
> I've been scanning them and yes, the results are pretty good. The colours
> look fine and only required minimal correction on my computer (some I didn't
> even correct at all). Now I know I definately need a better scanner and some
> better lenses!
You're right, your pictures do look fantastic! Now, my question is,
how do you tell the difference between Reala, Superia Reala, Superia,
or Reala Superia? Is there any difference? Some boxes say they have
4th layer technology, some don't. Do they all seem the same to you -
in terms of quality and the ability to scan them?
My second question would be how are you scanning your photos? I'm
using a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III with Vuescan - and it does not
seem to 'like' Reala very much. I'm using the 'Advanced Workflow
Techniques' mentioned in the online docs. But I got the same results,
more or less, using the default Minolta scanning software (only just
bought Vuescan).
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
Can you explain your concept of 'tonality' to me? I did not care for
what I termed the 'tonality' of FP4+, as both it and the HP5+ seemed
to have less range - exposure had to be pretty much dead on. When I
hit it, it looked fine - but when I missed it, I lost a lot of detail;
either blown out or too black.
I referred to the Delta 100 as having greater 'tonality' for me
because even if the exposure was slightly wrong, the range seemed
spread over a larger spectrum (looking at the histogram) and I had
more room to adjust it.
Perhaps I am misusing the term?
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
> B&W: I barely use B&W anymore, since it's cheaper/easier to simply
> scan in colour film and work some photoshop 7 magic.
I've tried desaturating color print film to B&W in Adobe Photoshop
Elements 2 (can't afford Photoshop 7 just yet), but my results have
left something to be desired. I feel that the results I get are
missing too much absolute black and have not enough differentiation
between the greys. They tend to look 'washed out'.
Maybe there is a trick to successfully turning color negative scans
into B&W that I don't know?
> However, when
> forced to use B&W I prefer Portra BW. I know it's chromogenic - but I
> find it produces pleasing results.
I have not yet tried a C-41 process B&W film. I would like to do so.
> If I had to use regular B&W,
> pretty much anything from Ilford will do (Delta 100, PanF 50, FP4 -
> depends on the lighting). I find that most B*W doesn't scan as well
> as I would like - hopefully when I buy the new Minolta Scan Elite 5400
> in a month or two that will change.
I have had VERY good results scanning Delta 100 with both my scanners.
I may just be getting beginner's luck, though.
> Colour Print: Fuji Reala and Porta 400UC. I love the range of 400UC
> and find it has nearly the same (if not the same) grain structure as
> Portra 160. If you like 160NC, give this a try... it scans well, the
> colours pop on good prints, and the fleshtones stay neutral. I find
> Reala to be the finest graind print film out there and it too scans
> VERY well.
I have used the Portra 400UC, and you're right, it is very nice. I
have been tending to favor the 160NC, but only just a bit.
> Colour Slide: Velvia 50 and Provia 400F. Same as with print - Velvia
> for when there's lots of light and Provia for when there isn't so much
> :) Both of these are very fine grain, AMAZING colour rendition, and
> they scan exceptionally well (as long as your scanner can handle the
> dynamic range).
I suspect that my scanners are not top of the heap when it comes to
dynamic range - but I have shot the Provia in ISO 100, not in 400, as
I recall. It was alright, but seemed more on a par with Kodak Elite
Chrome than with other Fuji slide films (to me).
> Honestly, with these 4 colour films (2 print, 2 slide) you really
> don't need anything else... unless you are in darker locations in
> which case I tend to use fujipress 800... cheers
I haven't used anything faster than 400 in years - but I understand
the 800's are much better than they used to be. I guess I just don't
have much need to shoot in semi-darkness without a flash or a tripod
with long exposure.
Thanks for your advice!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Martin Francis
get Provia and Velvia when I can afford to, and Reala for big enlargement
stuff; but i'm not adverse to shooting Superia (all speeds except 100, which
is hard to get hold of), or cheaper Kodak and Konica slide films, and I
can't decide whether I prefer "old tech" or "new tech" Ilford films more.
And i've shot some Kodachrome, and a very small amount of shop-brand stuff,
and even some Czech film I got free with a Pentacon Six. I've never got
around to trying Agfa, or Kodak Pro print film, but i'm sure special offers
or the old maxim "when in Rome, buy whatever film the shop has and try not
to look like a Barbarian Horde" will prevail one day. I'm not sure if it's
my unwillingness to show brand loyalty, or my inherent cheapness, or even
whether i've inherited Roger Hicks' "pallette" mentality from reading "The
Film Book" 'til the pages are thin.
But I loathe Kodak Gold, and all it's variations...
--
Martin
http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty
Chris Barnard
"The Bill Mattocks" <bmat...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a534b8d4.03071...@posting.google.com...
news:<bf15qh$bi2$1...@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> how do you tell the difference between Reala, Superia Reala, Superia,
> or Reala Superia? Is there any difference? Some boxes say they have
> 4th layer technology, some don't. Do they all seem the same to you -
> in terms of quality and the ability to scan them?
I got my film from Jessops online. Ł9.99 for a pack of three 36 exposure
films. The boxes say 'Fujicolor Superia Reala'. They don't say anything
about 4th Layer technology. I had faster film which was just labelled
Superia and did have the '4th Layer Technology' babble written on it. I must
say that I've always been pretty happy with the Fuji stuff, but I've only
recently started scanning my negatives so I don't know what type of film I
used on my older negatives (I kinda tended to just randomly buy film
off-the-shelf rather than sticking to one brand). I've scanned quite a few
of my films going back over a few years now, I think Reala is some of the
best so far. However, I think I'll try a few different films which are
supposed to be good and make notes of their performance.
Anyway, back to your original question - I'm making a bit of an assumption -
but I think Superia Reala appears to only be available at ISO 100 (and
possibly 200), whereas plain Superia stuff appears to be available in a much
broader range. I suppose there is some difference, I'm not entirely sure
what!
> My second question would be how are you scanning your photos? I'm
> using a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III with Vuescan - and it does not
> seem to 'like' Reala very much. I'm using the 'Advanced Workflow
> Techniques' mentioned in the online docs. But I got the same results,
> more or less, using the default Minolta scanning software (only just
> bought Vuescan).
I am using an Epson Perfection 2400 Photo, which I would consider an
inferior scanner to your Minolta. It's a flatbed type with the transparency
adaptor but it does a reasonable job. The scanning software has some
auto-equalisation processing which is quite good, but can often leave the
photo looking 'flat'. A bit of stretching out the histogram at the top end
can often sort it, I try not to spend too much time meddling with the levels
myself.
Best regards,
Chris.
Bandicoot
From: "The Bill Mattocks" <bmat...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 2:53 PM
Subject: If you like film "X," you'll really like...?
> After some experimentation, I've narrowed my likes & dislikes down in
> terms of 35mm film (which I send out to be processed, I do not yet do
> any darkroom work). My favorites thus far:
>
> B&W: Ilford Delta 100. Perhaps it is my continuing inexperience with
> proper exposure and the fact that Delta 100 seems very forgiving of
> this, but I have found thus far that Delta 100 scans very well and
> very easily (Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III & Epson Perfection 2400
> PHOTO), with great tonal range. I love the deep blacks and the smooth
> greys - I find myself referring to it as 'creamy'. It also seems to
> be very sharp - even with 35mm, I can often crop quite a bit before
> the result starts to look bad. Makes me feel like I have a better
> lens than I really do!
I like the smoothness of Delta 100, but personally find it hard to make
exciting pictures with it for most of the subjects I use B&W for. For me, I
used to like Tri-X but now more and more prefer HP5. But if Delta 100 is
your thing, try Fuji Neopan Acros 100 - this seems to me to be even finer
than D100, and when I do find a subject that wants that smoothness, I think
it is a wonderful film.
If you want to have an adventure try Agfa Scala too - a fabulous B&W slide
film, but check where you can get it processed before buying any: not many
places deal with it.
Ilford SFX, which has extended red sensitivity, is also an interesting film.
>
> Color Print: Kodak Porta 160NC. When I scan this film, I find that I
> seldom have to do anything to it - the histogram looks beautiful,
> almost like I knew what I was doing! Unlike Kodak Gold 200, the film
> lays flat and does not try ferociously to curl up when I put it in the
> scanner, and I find that it is quite nice for both portraits and
> nature shots. Not as punchy as, say, Agfa Ultra 100 for nature shots
> - but then again, it doesn't turn people's faces red, either!
I love 160NC. I use it a lot for flower and garden work as the softer
contrast is wonderful, and the colours pretty accurate. It was specifically
designed to scan well, and as you say, it does. The Kodak print film most
like the Portra series is Supra, now replaced by Supra Gold (apparently it
is shared between the professional and consumer divisions, which is why the
normally consumer 'gold' name appears on it). This is a bit more contrasty
with slightly punchier colours and apparently was designed for use where you
have less control over the lighting than in the situations Portra was
designed for. Now, I use Portra in available light a lot and am perfectly
happy - I prefer it to Supra - however Supra is a better bet in mixed or
'odd' lighting. As an example, photographing the Chelsea flower show when
they had a canvas marquee I found Supra coped better with the slightly
off-colour daylight filtering through the canvas mixed with artificial
lights - but now the marquee has been replaced with a pre-fab pavillion with
much more neutral light coming in (and more of it, so there is less
artificial light in the mix) I find I like Portra better. Whatever, it is
close but different: if you like Portra give it a try and see what you
think.
I find Agfa Ultra 100 too eye poppin' bright for most natural subjects, and
for the subjects I would use it for I'd genberally be shooting slide anyway.
But it is quite a lot of fun...
Of the faster Portra films, 800 is surpringly fine grained for its speed,
and 400UC is impressive. 400VC is fairly grainy, but 400UC looks hardly
grainier than 160NC. 400UC is becoming my prefered film to leave in the
little 'snapshot' camera that often lives in my pocket.
I also like Fuji NPC 160, which has very accurate colours and I find is a
very nice food and still life film, though I use Velvia more for this.
>
> Color Slide: Fuji Velvia 50. I don't have much experience yet with
> color slide film, but what little I have done leads me to believe that
> the 'common wisdom' that Velvia is top-notch is correct. It is not
> 'too punchy', but it does seem to give an extra zing to my photos of
> farms and barns and trees. It also seems to scan fairly well.
My most used landscape film. I can't wait for the Velvia 100 I've
pre-ordered to arrive, even though it looks like it will be a little less
saturated. I'll still use Velvia 50 when I can, but an extra stop at
twilight could be very handy sometimes.
My other much used E6 landscape film is Kodak Ektachrome E100VS. The VS
stands for very saturated, and they aren't joking. If Velvia is like taking
a typical Fuji film and turning up the colours, E100VS is the same for
Kodak - only even more so. I don't like it much for anything with foliage
or flowers in it, and some flower colours (the mauves and purples
particularly) it seems to do very strange things to, but for bare rock, say,
or paintwork it is superb. I like the two as they each seem strong in the
areas where the other is weak - they make a good pairing. E100VS doesn't
have Velvia's fine grain, but then it is a stop faster.
If I need speed, Provia 400F is wonderful - very fine grain for the speed.
I try not to need faster films, but this is the one when I do. Provia 100F
is also very nice, but a little cold - good when that is appropriate, but
for me it isn't very often the right film.
>
> I know everyone has personal preferences or has found films that work
> best for their personal style - but given that I don't do my own
> darkroom work, would anyone have any suggestions about other films I
> might try that you feel are better than those I have noted above? If
> so, can you explain why? I enjoy experimenting, but I'm getting to
> the stage of wanting to be a bit more selective, instead of just
> randomly trying everything. I have relied heavily on prior postings
> to this group as well, so thanks, everyone!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bill Mattocks
Hope these musings suggest some worthwhile avenues. I am a landscape (both
natural and man-made) and still-life photographer primarily - if you are
interested in markedly different subjects then the films that suit me may
not suit you at all. Come to that, whatever your subject, it eventually
comes down to taste and personal style - have fun!
Peter
Michael Scarpitti
That's unlikely. Tabular grains have a little LESS latitude. Processing variations?
The Bill Mattocks
> It's my understanding that plain vanilla Reala has been out of production
> for 35mm for several years. Now it's Superia Reala, with the 4th layer
> technology you mentioned. You can still get the old Reala for medium format
> gear; however, if you can find it for 35mm, I would think that it's old
> film. Don't confuse Superia Reala with Superia, as it's not the same film.
> I like to shoot Superia Reala exposed at ISO 50 or 80, to overexpose it, and
> then develop normally. The colors are quite rich under these conditions.
> The grain is the finest of any color negative film on the market.
> mc
Hmmm, so Reala isn't so real anymore, but Superia Reala is not
Superia, which is different. Who's on first?
Just kidding, I appreciate the explanation. But believe me, I still
see plenty of boxes of film over at the local Wally World labeled
"Reala" which are not yet expired. The metal cartridges are actually
printed with "Return to Walmart for processing" adverts.
Still confusing - I appreciate the explanation, but Fuji, what were
you guys thinking?
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Scott
The new Kodak HD400 is Royal Gold 400 re-packaged (since they dropped
the "Royal Gold" brand fairly recently)... It's good film - but where
I live Portra 400UC is the same price (2-pack of 400UC is $14.99CDN
here, and HD400 is around $12.99CDN for a 2-pack (I think)). I much
prefer the colour rendition of the Portra films - I find the HD400 to
have red/orange casts, and the colours are blown out almost too much -
while the 400UC is more neutral (especially in flesh tones) but still
has colours that "pop".
Scott
"DJA" <NOTH...@news.com> wrote in message news:<bf1ulc$a96e9$1...@ID-160146.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Scott
you'll get fairly dull, lifeless images. You need to play with the
RGB levels and such... do a search on google for turning colour to
black & white and you'll find a TON of tutorials on the subject.
Scott
bmat...@earthlink.net (The Bill Mattocks) wrote in message news:<a534b8d4.03071...@posting.google.com>...
The Bill Mattocks
> if you want a no-nonsense accurate colour print film i'd suggest agfa optima
> prestigue.
Is it anything like Agfa Optima II? I tried the II, it was OK, but
didn't seem to be anything special...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
> compare to my current "consumer" film: Kodak HD400. IMHO, this film has very
> rich colors and fine grain, but I've not heard many positive comments. In
> what areas is Porta 400UC significantly better than "run-of-the-mill" Kodak
> High Definition film?
I have used the HD400, and still have a 4-pack, which I may use soon.
I tend to shoot outdoors, and here in New Mexico, 400 is a bit too
fast for my older cameras with 1/1000 or 1/500 top speed shutters.
I *liked* the HD400 fine - the prints were clean and the colors
bright. I had trouble scanning it - skies were very grainy. But of
course, this could be down to me making mistakes scanning!
> I plan to get some Porta because of all the wonderful comments, but I can't
> see glaring weaknesses in HD400.
The only weakness I've seen, as mentioned, is trouble with grain in
scans - and primarily blue skies. It's not that HD400 is so bad -
just that I've been amazed and delighted by Portra 160NC.
> I realize comparing a drugstore film to a "pro" film is heresy, but is there
> *really* a tremendous difference?
I've been trying everything I can get my hands on with wild abandon -
pro and amateur alike. If I can find something that works for me, I
don't care if I have it overnighted from B&H or buy it at the local
Walgreen's Drug Emporium!
It's not that any particular thing I've tried was so awful - they all
seem to be fine for color prints. But I'm scanning everything I shoot
- and I've discovered (much to my pleasure) that the Portra 160NC is a
joy to scan. And the prints *do* look different than say, HD400.
Softer, smoother, more 'creamy' if I can overuse the term. Obviously
would not be appropriate for everything, but I love the way it does
skin tones, and it seems appropriate for certain outdoor shots.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
> you'll get fairly dull, lifeless images. You need to play with the
> RGB levels and such... do a search on google for turning colour to
> black & white and you'll find a TON of tutorials on the subject.
Scott,
I appreciate the advice, and I have been learning a lot about PS
Elements (notably less powerful than full-blown PS), and I know I have
a lot yet to learn. However, at the moment it seems less difficult to
scan B&W film in the first place...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
> I don't yet consider myself faithful to any one or number of films;
Me neither - at least not yet. But I've had a couple of very positive
results with a few films and wanted to see if others share that, or if
their experiences differ (and if so, how).
> But I loathe Kodak Gold, and all it's variations...
The only thing I really loathe about it is that the moment I remove it
from the glassine envelope, it curls right up into a tight little ball
and refuses to lay flat so I can stuff it in the negative carrier to
scan!
I guess I wasn't really clear, judging from some of the responses -
I'm not attacking anyone's choice of film, or trying to put down
'non-pro' films or anything like that. I've had some decent results
with most of them - both in prints and scans. But I've found a couple
that seem really outstanding to me, the aforementioned Portra 160NC
and Delta 100 - just wanted to share and compare, not attack.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
> I like the smoothness of Delta 100, but personally find it hard to make
> exciting pictures with it for most of the subjects I use B&W for.
Yes, that's it exactly - smoothness. It's almost creamy, isn't it?
I've never been able to crop so deeply into a 35mm neg and not have
the result lose a great deal of detail and become grainy. It's
exciting!
> For me, I
> used to like Tri-X but now more and more prefer HP5.
When I was in high school and did my own darkroom stuff, I shot
Panatomic X and Tri-X. I'd push the Tri-X until it grained out, and I
preferred that gritty look. Now, I seem to prefer detail and subtle
gradations of shadow to grain, but there is no doubt that some
subjects need to be grainy and gritty.
> But if Delta 100 is
> your thing, try Fuji Neopan Acros 100 - this seems to me to be even finer
> than D100, and when I do find a subject that wants that smoothness, I think
> it is a wonderful film.
Thanks! I haven't tried that one - I will give it a shot! How does
it scan?
> If you want to have an adventure try Agfa Scala too - a fabulous B&W slide
> film, but check where you can get it processed before buying any: not many
> places deal with it.
I'd kind of like to know what Scala will give me that isn't in any
other B&W, as I live in Albuquerque, NM - not exactly a photographic
mecca for processing.
> Ilford SFX, which has extended red sensitivity, is also an interesting film.
Interesting - I just picked up a roll of Macophot PO 100, which has no
red sensitivity, I'm told. It was on special at B&H.
> I love 160NC. I use it a lot for flower and garden work as the softer
> contrast is wonderful, and the colours pretty accurate.
Yes, I agree - not just for portraits!
> It was specifically
> designed to scan well, and as you say, it does.
I didn't know that. Are there any others that were designed to be
scanned?
> The Kodak print film most
> like the Portra series is Supra, now replaced by Supra Gold (apparently it
> is shared between the professional and consumer divisions, which is why the
> normally consumer 'gold' name appears on it). This is a bit more contrasty
> with slightly punchier colours and apparently was designed for use where you
> have less control over the lighting than in the situations Portra was
> designed for.
I was thinking of trying Portra 160VC (??? it's late) for extra punch
when needed, but I could also try Supra and see what I get, thanks.
> Now, I use Portra in available light a lot and am perfectly
> happy - I prefer it to Supra - however Supra is a better bet in mixed or
> 'odd' lighting. As an example, photographing the Chelsea flower show when
> they had a canvas marquee I found Supra coped better with the slightly
> off-colour daylight filtering through the canvas mixed with artificial
> lights - but now the marquee has been replaced with a pre-fab pavillion with
> much more neutral light coming in (and more of it, so there is less
> artificial light in the mix) I find I like Portra better. Whatever, it is
> close but different: if you like Portra give it a try and see what you
> think.
I will do so - and by the way, I use Porta 160NC with flash indoors
for people, and outdoors without flash - just did the Rio Grande
Botanical and it was great.
> I find Agfa Ultra 100 too eye poppin' bright for most natural subjects, and
> for the subjects I would use it for I'd genberally be shooting slide anyway.
> But it is quite a lot of fun...
I shot some typical desert plants on a lava-rock hillside here in ABQ
and was really pleased with how it pulled the plants apart - the tend
to blend in with each other otherwise, in a most boring way. Each
plant had it's own shade and it really opened it up for me. But I
thought it was too punchy. However, I'm color-blind (like bad). I
asked my wife, she thought it was not 'too much'. She liked it very
much, and her color vision is normal.
> Of the faster Portra films, 800 is surpringly fine grained for its speed,
Just don't know when I'd need it. Haven't shot anything that called
for film that fast in a long time...
> and 400UC is impressive. 400VC is fairly grainy, but 400UC looks hardly
> grainier than 160NC. 400UC is becoming my prefered film to leave in the
> little 'snapshot' camera that often lives in my pocket.
Yes, I have some 400UC and it also lives in my take-along Olympus XA
(and my Zeiss Nettar 6x6 folder, hehehe). I like it, but it seems to
me nearly identical to Fuji NPH (??? it's late) - I like them both,
but the Kodak is cheaper, as I recall.
> I also like Fuji NPC 160, which has very accurate colours and I find is a
> very nice food and still life film, though I use Velvia more for this.
Have not tried that, but I will, thanks.
> My most used landscape film. I can't wait for the Velvia 100 I've
> pre-ordered to arrive, even though it looks like it will be a little less
> saturated. I'll still use Velvia 50 when I can, but an extra stop at
> twilight could be very handy sometimes.
I've been playing a bit with the Kodak Elite Chrome 200 - been wanting
to try the Elite Chrome Extra Color, but haven't seen any at retail
outlets. My main problem with slide film right now is that everyone
seems to be using cardboard mounts instead of plastic - really
garbages up the scan.
> My other much used E6 landscape film is Kodak Ektachrome E100VS. The VS
> stands for very saturated, and they aren't joking. If Velvia is like taking
> a typical Fuji film and turning up the colours, E100VS is the same for
> Kodak - only even more so. I don't like it much for anything with foliage
> or flowers in it, and some flower colours (the mauves and purples
> particularly) it seems to do very strange things to, but for bare rock, say,
> or paintwork it is superb. I like the two as they each seem strong in the
> areas where the other is weak - they make a good pairing. E100VS doesn't
> have Velvia's fine grain, but then it is a stop faster.
How do you think it would be in the southwest desert? Sounds like
I'll have to put that on my list as well!
> If I need speed, Provia 400F is wonderful - very fine grain for the speed.
> I try not to need faster films, but this is the one when I do. Provia 100F
> is also very nice, but a little cold - good when that is appropriate, but
> for me it isn't very often the right film.
I have only used the Provia 100F, and yes, it seemed 'cold' or
'clinical' to me, too.
> Hope these musings suggest some worthwhile avenues. I am a landscape (both
> natural and man-made) and still-life photographer primarily - if you are
> interested in markedly different subjects then the films that suit me may
> not suit you at all. Come to that, whatever your subject, it eventually
> comes down to taste and personal style - have fun!
Right now, I'm shooting everything, every style, trying to figure out
what I like the most, and what I might have some little talent at. I
love landscapes, but I suspect that I suck at them. Still trying,
though. I'm having a lot of fun with post-industrial decay, urban
settings, in B&W with a lot of mood. I want to do some street
photography, but so far, I seem to lack the courage to get in there
and start photographing the interesting people I see. I also want to
do some work with models (non-standard portraiture), as I have some
definite ideas I'd like to try, but so far, I have not done so.
You are right that different films are made for different
photographers, subjects, styles, and tastes - and bravo to that! But
I've found recently that a couple of them stand out for me - and are
easy to scan as well, and I wondered what else might be out there that
I'm missing. I sincerely appreciate all the good advice you've given!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
> the "Royal Gold" brand fairly recently)... It's good film - but where
> I live Portra 400UC is the same price (2-pack of 400UC is $14.99CDN
> here, and HD400 is around $12.99CDN for a 2-pack (I think)). I much
> prefer the colour rendition of the Portra films - I find the HD400 to
> have red/orange casts, and the colours are blown out almost too much -
> while the 400UC is more neutral (especially in flesh tones) but still
> has colours that "pop".
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
> That's unlikely. Tabular grains have a little LESS latitude. Processing variations?
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
Tony Parkinson
> I know everyone has personal preferences or has found films that work
> best for their personal style - but given that I don't do my own
> darkroom work, would anyone have any suggestions about other films I
> might try that you feel are better than those I have noted above? If
> so, can you explain why? I enjoy experimenting, but I'm getting to
> the stage of wanting to be a bit more selective, instead of just
> randomly trying everything. I have relied heavily on prior postings
> to this group as well, so thanks, everyone!
>
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
>
> Still confusing - I appreciate the explanation, but Fuji, what were
> you guys thinking?
>
;^)
David J. Littleboy
"Tony Parkinson" <nospamne...@photoshot.com> wrote:
> 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
There's a man who'd be a _lot_ better off with a Canon 10D and a 50/1.4 (at
least some of the time).
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Tony Parkinson
less than double figures of films a year
The Bill Mattocks
> I am using an Epson Perfection 2400 Photo, which I would consider an
> inferior scanner to your Minolta. It's a flatbed type with the transparency
> adaptor but it does a reasonable job.
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.
> The scanning software has some
> auto-equalisation processing which is quite good, but can often leave the
> photo looking 'flat'. A bit of stretching out the histogram at the top end
> can often sort it, I try not to spend too much time meddling with the levels
> myself.
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
> 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
I haven't tried the Astia, what's that like? And what is 'Natural
History'? You mean like historical monuments and such?
> 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
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?
> 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
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
> There's a man who'd be a _lot_ better off with a Canon 10D and a 50/1.4 (at
> least some of the time).
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
Chris Barnard
"The Bill Mattocks" <bmat...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a534b8d4.03071...@posting.google.com...
> 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.
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.
> 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!
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.
Tony Parkinson
Lower saturation than Velvia or Astia with better Rendition of Skin tones,
kind of like a slide version of NPH
> And what is 'Natural
> History'? You mean like historical monuments and such?
>
Nope . . . . . . Flowers, Birds, Animals, Insects, Fungi, etc
> I subscribe to Amateur Photographer (why are British photography
> magazines so much better than the ones in the US?)
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
> and I thought I
> read recently that Britain's only processor of Scala had gone
> belly-up?
>
Joe's Basement did, however I believe they signred up a new one, but can't
remember who
> 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?
>
Never had any problems with the Southampton branch of Snappy Snaps
The Bill Mattocks
> 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?
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.
> 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!
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!
> What type of colour-blindness do you have? Is it like red/green or
> something?
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
> 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
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
Chris Barnard
"The Bill Mattocks" <bmat...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a534b8d4.03071...@posting.google.com...
news:<bf3q9e$62p$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> > amounts of time to stop them curling up so much. Have you tried putting
them
> > under a book for a week?
>
> 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.
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, 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!
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.
> > What type of colour-blindness do you have? Is it like red/green or
> > something?
>
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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!!
> 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.
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.
Bandicoot
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
news:<105831628...@damia.uk.clara.net>...
> > But if Delta 100 is
> > your thing, try Fuji Neopan Acros 100 - this seems to me to be even
finer
> > than D100, and when I do find a subject that wants that smoothness, I
think
> > it is a wonderful film.
>
> Thanks! I haven't tried that one - I will give it a shot! How does
> it scan?
I haven't tried scanning it yet - perhaps you'll be able to tell me!
>
> > If you want to have an adventure try Agfa Scala too - a fabulous B&W
slide
> > film, but check where you can get it processed before buying any: not
many
> > places deal with it.
>
> I'd kind of like to know what Scala will give me that isn't in any
> other B&W, as I live in Albuquerque, NM - not exactly a photographic
> mecca for processing.
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.
>
> > Ilford SFX, which has extended red sensitivity, is also an interesting
film.
>
> Interesting - I just picked up a roll of Macophot PO 100, which has no
> red sensitivity, I'm told. It was on special at B&H.
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 love 160NC. I use it a lot for flower and garden work as the softer
> > contrast is wonderful, and the colours pretty accurate.
>
> Yes, I agree - not just for portraits!
>
> > It was specifically
> > designed to scan well, and as you say, it does.
>
> I didn't know that. Are there any others that were designed to be
> scanned?
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.
>
> > The Kodak print film most
> > like the Portra series is Supra, now replaced by Supra Gold (apparently
it
> > is shared between the professional and consumer divisions, which is why
the
> > normally consumer 'gold' name appears on it). This is a bit more
contrasty
> > with slightly punchier colours and apparently was designed for use where
you
> > have less control over the lighting than in the situations Portra was
> > designed for.
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!
>
> I was thinking of trying Portra 160VC (??? it's late) for extra punch
> when needed, but I could also try Supra and see what I get, thanks.
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...
>
> > Now, I use Portra in available light a lot and am perfectly
> > happy - I prefer it to Supra - however Supra is a better bet in mixed or
> > 'odd' lighting. As an example, photographing the Chelsea flower show
when
> > they had a canvas marquee I found Supra coped better with the slightly
> > off-colour daylight filtering through the canvas mixed with artificial
> > lights - but now the marquee has been replaced with a pre-fab pavilion
with
> > much more neutral light coming in (and more of it, so there is less
> > artificial light in the mix) I find I like Portra better. Whatever, it
is
> > close but different: if you like Portra give it a try and see what you
> > think.
>
> I will do so - and by the way, I use Portra 160NC with flash indoors
> for people, and outdoors without flash - just did the Rio Grande
> Botanical and it was great.
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 find Agfa Ultra 100 too eye poppin' bright for most natural subjects,
and
> > for the subjects I would use it for I'd generally be shooting slide
anyway.
> > But it is quite a lot of fun...
>
> I shot some typical desert plants on a lava-rock hillside here in ABQ
> and was really pleased with how it pulled the plants apart - the tend
> to blend in with each other otherwise, in a most boring way. Each
> plant had it's own shade and it really opened it up for me. But I
> thought it was too punchy. However, I'm color-blind (like bad). I
> asked my wife, she thought it was not 'too much'. She liked it very
> much, and her color vision is normal.
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.
>
> > Of the faster Portra films, 800 is surprisingly fine grained for its
speed,
>
> Just don't know when I'd need it. Haven't shot anything that called
> for film that fast in a long time...
>
> > and 400UC is impressive. 400VC is fairly grainy, but 400UC looks hardly
> > grainier than 160NC. 400UC is becoming my preferred film to leave in
the
> > little 'snapshot' camera that often lives in my pocket.
>
> Yes, I have some 400UC and it also lives in my take-along Olympus XA
> (and my Zeiss Nettar 6x6 folder, hehehe). I like it, but it seems to
> me nearly identical to Fuji NPH (??? it's late) - I like them both,
> but the Kodak is cheaper, as I recall.
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.
>
> > I also like Fuji NPC 160, which has very accurate colours and I find is
a
> > very nice food and still life film, though I use Velvia more for this.
>
> Have not tried that, but I will, thanks.
>
> > My most used landscape film. I can't wait for the Velvia 100 I've
> > pre-ordered to arrive, even though it looks like it will be a little
less
> > saturated. I'll still use Velvia 50 when I can, but an extra stop at
> > twilight could be very handy sometimes.
>
> I've been playing a bit with the Kodak Elite Chrome 200 - been wanting
> to try the Elite Chrome Extra Color, but haven't seen any at retail
> outlets. My main problem with slide film right now is that everyone
> seems to be using cardboard mounts instead of plastic - really
> garbages up the scan.
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.
>
> > My other much used E6 landscape film is Kodak Ektachrome E100VS. The VS
> > stands for very saturated, and they aren't joking. If Velvia is like
taking
> > a typical Fuji film and turning up the colours, E100VS is the same for
> > Kodak - only even more so. I don't like it much for anything with
foliage
> > or flowers in it, and some flower colours (the mauves and purples
> > particularly) it seems to do very strange things to, but for bare rock,
say,
> > or paintwork it is superb. I like the two as they each seem strong in
the
> > areas where the other is weak - they make a good pairing. E100VS
doesn't
> > have Velvia's fine grain, but then it is a stop faster.
>
> How do you think it would be in the southwest desert? Sounds like
> I'll have to put that on my list as well!
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.
>
> > If I need speed, Provia 400F is wonderful - very fine grain for the
speed.
> > I try not to need faster films, but this is the one when I do. Provia
100F
> > is also very nice, but a little cold - good when that is appropriate,
but
> > for me it isn't very often the right film.
>
> I have only used the Provia 100F, and yes, it seemed 'cold' or
> 'clinical' to me, too.
The 400F isn't quite as cold as the 100.
>
> > Hope these musings suggest some worthwhile avenues. I am a landscape
(both
> > natural and man-made) and still-life photographer primarily - if you are
> > interested in markedly different subjects then the films that suit me
may
> > not suit you at all. Come to that, whatever your subject, it eventually
> > comes down to taste and personal style - have fun!
>
> Right now, I'm shooting everything, every style, trying to figure out
> what I like the most, and what I might have some little talent at. I
> love landscapes, but I suspect that I suck at them. Still trying,
> though. I'm having a lot of fun with post-industrial decay, urban
> settings, in B&W with a lot of mood. I want to do some street
> photography, but so far, I seem to lack the courage to get in there
> and start photographing the interesting people I see. I also want to
> do some work with models (non-standard portraiture), as I have some
> definite ideas I'd like to try, but so far, I have not done so.
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.
>
> You are right that different films are made for different
> photographers, subjects, styles, and tastes - and bravo to that! But
> I've found recently that a couple of them stand out for me - and are
> easy to scan as well, and I wondered what else might be out there that
> I'm missing. I sincerely appreciate all the good advice you've given!
Thanks - I hope it is good!
Peter
The Bill Mattocks
> 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.
I will try that, since I have some more Kodak Gold laying about.
Thanks for the tip!
> > http://www.growlery.com/reunion/reunion060.jpg
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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!!
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.
> > 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.
> 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.
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
> Thanks - I hope it is good!
You've been a great help - thanks!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Tony Parkinson
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
T P
>
>My God!! I didn't know film could curl up so much!
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
>That real men shoot slide film ?
But real men shoot Fuji NPS or NPH ...
;-)
drsmith
Chris Barnard <chr...@SPAMdentalserve.net> wrote:
>
>I just got my first two rolls of Fuji Superia Reala developed and printed.
>I've been scanning them and yes, the results are pretty good. The colours
>look fine and only required minimal correction on my computer (some I didn't
>even correct at all). Now I know I definately need a better scanner and some
>better lenses!
>
>You can have a look at the pictures I uploaded from my website:
>www.waymaster.com . Go through to pictures, click on cars and then on
...
>Chris.
>
>
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