ISO 800 color film, pros and cons?
GaryT
Polaroid packaging. I don't have any direct experience shooting any of these
films to know the differences between them but I did work on the account
when Polaroid began marketing their film.
GaryT
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAEA5A6...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> There are different kinds of ISO 800 color films available from
> retail stores around here.
>
> These are the films and the price for four pack.
>
> Kodak MAX Gold ISO 800 $10-12
>
> Fujifilm Superior ISO 800 $9-12
>
> Polaroid/Agfa/Walmart ISO 800 $8
>
> Can someone tell me the pros and cons of these films and which one you'd
> recommend in general for flashless photography?
>
Ed
pictures in less light or allows your camera to use a faster shutter speed
to reduce blurring in action shots. The main con to 800 speed film is
increased grain size. They've gotten a LOT better over the years, but you
will notice a slight difference between 200 and 800 speed films of the same
brand/type when printed. If you're using an inexpensive point-and-shoot
camera, then I doubt you'll see any difference in the films since the camera
probably can't capture an image to the film's potential. Many P&S cameras
are geared toward a specific ISO rating, so be sure to read your manual.
I've tried the top two brands and prefer Fuji's SUPERIA (not Superior) to
Kodak Max. The grain was less noticeable and the colors seemed more
accurate and consistent. The Kodak Royal Gold line is a whole different
story - a great film, but only goes up to 400 speed.
Three suggestions: 1> Try a roll of each to see which suits your style and
taste better, and 2> Check B&H or Adorama online for better pricing on film
if you buy in any fair amount of quantity (like 10 or more rolls at a time.)
If you like the Fuji route and buy online, look for the Fuji Press 800 -
it's about the same price. 3> Be sure to check the expiration date on the
box. It seems that 800 speed film doesn't sell as quickly and expires just
hanging on the shelf.
I usually shoot Fuji Press 800. If you want to see what a decent camera and
scanner can do using that film, check out http://MXPics.com The cover
pictures were scanned from Fuji Press 800 this past May.
If you use any department store brand of 800 speed film, then I have no
sympathy.
*********
handlejob
AC/DCdude17 wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
Markku Nivalainen
I have my first roll loaded. The store ownder told me it's the only one he'd
recommend. Well, it's the same bloke who keeps on selling me T-Max and
whines when I buy Ilford... ;)
M
UrbanVoyeur
Sharp, relatively fine grain, pushable, decent saturation.
"Markku Nivalainen" <mni...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:aomsuh$m62$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
Mike Lipphardt
considering their speed. Both can be successfully pushed to 1600 as well.
Both also benefit from some overexposure. Actually, the better way to put
it is they get pretty ugly when underexposed, so you need to be careful not
to do that. The best way to avoid it without too much worry is to set some
overexposure.
Note that even when you get it right, underexposure artifacts like grain
tend to show up in dark toned areas. But still and all, very good films
when used properly.
Mike
General Tsao
: IMO Fuji`s 800 film has both tighter grain and better color saturation.
I recall reading somewhere that Superia 800 and Press 800 were the same
emulsion. Anyone know more about that?
--
Vandit Kalia
"How do your divers see the fish? Do you have a glass-bottomed boat?" -
Director of Tourism, Andaman and Nicobar Islands
666
Agfa is exceptionally good, but only in lowest speeds from 25 (yes ;-) to 160 ASA.
JaC
> The Walmart ISO800 is store brand, but it isn't.
> The film is made in Germany by Agfa and sold in Polaroid package specially marked for endorsement of Walmart service.
666
In contrary to Press 800...
JaC
Ray Paseur
NPC, NPS and NPH versions in medium format for portrait work and get
excellent results. NPZ is a stop faster than NPH (my workhorse film) at 800
speed and should meet your requirements.
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAEA5A6...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> There are different kinds of ISO 800 color films available from
> retail stores around here.
>
> These are the films and the price for four pack.
>
> Kodak MAX Gold ISO 800 $10-12
>
> Fujifilm Superior ISO 800 $9-12
>
Dave M
this work?
"Mike Lipphardt" <mlipp...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:i1Dr9.111$z5.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Ed
$1.97 each
> and costs me another $3 for 3" prints from Walmart and that comes to
20.7cents
> per shot.
If your end target is only 3"x5" prints with no desire for anything larger,
shoot any film. Quality obviously isn't your objective.
GaryT
GaryT
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> GaryT wrote:
>
> > Can't verify this as current, but I do know that Fuji made the film in
the
> > Polaroid packaging. I don't have any direct experience shooting any of
these
> > films to know the differences between them but I did work on the account
> > when Polaroid began marketing their film.
> > GaryT
>
clearly on
> the package and Polaroid label means nothing, but licensed use of name.
>
> "Distributed and sold by Agfa Corporation. Packaged in the USA from film
made in
> Germany. Agfa is a registered trademark of Agfa-Gavaert AG, Leverkusen,
Germany.
> Polaroid, the Polaroid log trademarks and the Polaroid trade dress are
owned by
> Polaroid Corporation and used on this product under license from Polaroid.
> Polaroid does not manufacture this product or provide any product warranty
or
> support. For service, support and warranty information, contact Agfa
Corporation
> at 1-800-243-2652."
>
Tim
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
Paul Brecht
Kodak has worse under-exposure lattitude though...
Paul
///////////////////
"Mike Lipphardt" <mlipp...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:i1Dr9.111$z5.1...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/9/2002
Ray Paseur
$1.97 each
> and costs me another $3 for 3" prints from Walmart and that comes to
20.7cents
> per shot.
>
set-up portraits with very high yield.
For me a typical job might be a private school graduation. I would shoot
two or three images of each graduate receiving a diploma, maybe three to
five family portraits and a couple of individual portraits, so I expect to
expose, for example, 200 to 300 frames for a class of 30 students. I print
everything in borderless, lustre 5x7's (Fuji machine prints) from a local
professional shop and deliver all the prints to the clients. My prints cost
me about $0.75 each in those volumes - overall, I expect to pay about $40
per roll for film, processing and printing, and I'll use five to eight
rolls, sometimes nine. I usually throw in a nice looking folder frame (Tap
or equivalent) for the best of each of the portraits, for another few cents
per subject. Overall, a job like this costs me $350 for materials and $100
for an assistant.
I charge the school $1,000 for the shoot and can usually expect re-orders
in the $1,000 range. I could probably not get that if I showed them 3"
prints - size matters a lot when you're selling a photographic portrait.
Good luck, whatever you choose!
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAFC165...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>
> Ray Paseur wrote:
>
> > You might want to try Fuji NPZ. A five-pack from B&H is $22. I use the
> > NPC, NPS and NPH versions in medium format for portrait work and get
> > excellent results. NPZ is a stop faster than NPH (my workhorse film) at
800
> > speed and should meet your requirements.
>
JIM
Blue Container - Fuji??? Or is it the other way around;)
Jim
"AC/DCdude17" <Je...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DAFC099...@prontoREMOVETHISmail.com...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> GaryT wrote:
>
> > Can't verify this as current, but I do know that Fuji made the film in
the
> > Polaroid packaging. I don't have any direct experience shooting any of
these
> > films to know the differences between them but I did work on the account
> > when Polaroid began marketing their film.
> > GaryT
>
Tom Harrison
me. The nuances are all in experience. But here's the concept.
Negative film is clear, but coated with opaque stuff known as emulsion.
When you take a photo some light hits the emulsion and causes a reaction.
More light hits some part of the emulsion than others.
When you develop the film, the emulsion hit by light is protected, and the
part not hit by light is still vulnerable to the chemicals. The chemicals
eat away the unprotected (unexposed) emulsion: parts that got no light are
completely removed, leaving only the clear film itself. Parts that got lots
of light are well protected and remain opaque.
But the chemicals are like acid: the longer you leave them on (or the higher
the temperature, or the more you shake them), the more unexposed parts are
removed. This is why time, temperature and agitation are critical to
getting the right developing.
But if you didn't have enough light when you made the exposure
(underexposure), you might want to compensate by leaving those chemicals to
work a little longer. This is called "push processing" or "pushing" film.
You can also "pull" to compensate for overexposure, but this is unusual
especially today with cameras that have 1/4000th second shutters!
Like everything else in photography, you can double the exposure by 1)
opening the aperture one stop (e.g. f16 -> f8), or 2) lengthening the time
the shutter is open by one stop (e.g. 1/60th -> 1/30th second), or 3) by
increasing the adjustment the camera makes for the "natural" speed, or
sensitivity to light, of the film by one stop (e.g. ISO 200 -> ISO 400).
Since you develop a whole roll in a batch, you usually decide you want to
push a (whole) roll when you load it. And the easiest way to do this is to
increase the ISO from the setting on the film by one stop (e.g. ISO 200 ->
ISO 400). Some films can be pushed even more with ok results. If you
didn't change the ISO setting, you could also override your camera's
exposure setting and "underexpose" by one stop, but that would require extra
thought on your part, so just deceive your camera and tell it the film is
twice as fast (sensitive to light) as it really is. Then, when you drop
your film off (and not at KMart :-), you have to request that the film be
pushed by as many stops as you "deceived" your camera.
The drawback is that since the developing chemicals are not perfect, they
tend to eat away parts of the film a little less perfectly than they would
under the normal developing conditions. Typically, push-processed film is
grainier, but you can also see incorrect colors or other oddities. Some
films push better than others. That's the experience part.
Tom
"Dave M" <data...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YpOr9.30775$nb.1...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Jonathan Hill
absolutely excellent in low light. I've used both roll and canister film,
and the shots even when blown up to very exacting standards, they are still
excellent(roll film > 8X16)
great for outdoor special occasions.
"Tom Harrison" <tom.ha...@nospam.attbi.com> wrote in message
news:leLs9.38336$%d2.22377@sccrnsc01...