|
8th-samurai posted:It's not a step or two, it's a quarter to a half a step. Which is not a lot when most of the scene is zone 0. 8th-samurai posted:It will if you are shooting something that is lower contrast and gives you some developer wiggle room. Real world though people shoot TMZ and Delta 3200 in low light high contrast situations where you will be sacrificing more shadow detail than saving (highlights too).
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
notlodar posted:400 to 1200/1600? The problem is that it isn't zone 0. In a high contrast situation there are less midtones, thus, more zones in the shadows, but the zone system is only really a guide, and in practice, 11 zones aren't enough. I thought we were talking TMZ versus Delta 3200? TMZ's true ISO is roughly 1000 and Delta 3200's is roughly 1600 (or 1200 depending upon who you talk to). That's not a lot of difference certainly not enough to see a real world shadow detail increase. I know because I have shot both. That third (quarter?) stop won't net you enough shadow detail to to make a visible difference in most situations. Tri-X or any ISO 400 film will have less shadow detail than either of those film stocks. I prefer to push Tri-X because I prefer the look of an old style film to a T grain film in those situations. That being said I have shot Tri-X at EIs as high as 6400 with decent results. Personally I use HC-110 with a high dilution and stand development at high EIs. That and a no agitation water bath stop can rescue some shadow detail. The developer burns out first in the highlights, giving it some extra time can open up your shadows a bit. The problem is that film can only record so many stops of information. You need to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail in anything over roughly 7 stops of contrast to get your midtones where you want them. The zone system just gives you a frame work to judge highlight, shadow, and midtone values and relate them to your development plans. I'm not one of those rabid zoners that obsessively chart every value in a scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 10:43
|
|
|
gib posted:The really cool ones can also record exif-like information (shutter speed, aperture, etc.) IIRC, some put it between shots and others put it all on a frame at the end of the roll. The weirdest is the Nikon F6 with the MV-1. It writes EXIF-like files to a CF card. It's the best of both worlds! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 13:49
|
|
|
Snaily posted:The weirdest is the Nikon F6 with the MV-1. It writes EXIF-like files to a CF card.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 16:27
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I thought we were talking TMZ versus Delta 3200? TMZ's true ISO is roughly 1000 and Delta 3200's is roughly 1600 (or 1200 depending upon who you talk to). That's not a lot of difference certainly not enough to see a real world shadow detail increase. I know because I have shot both. That third (quarter?) stop won't net you enough shadow detail to to make a visible difference in most situations. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2009 18:12
|
|
|
I'm looking for some film with the least amount of graininess possible...is Ektar 100 a good place to start?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 01:18
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I'm looking for some film with the least amount of graininess possible...is Ektar 100 a good place to start? In the C-41 world, yes, otherwise, slide film is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 01:33
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:In the C-41 world, yes, otherwise, slide film is the way to go. I would love to do slide film, but nobody in my area processes it and mailing it off kind of sounds like a pain in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 01:54
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:I would love to do slide film, but nobody in my area processes it and mailing it off kind of sounds like a pain in the rear end. Try Wal-Mart, you fill out the envelope and drop it off, they send it out to a pro lab. I haven't done it myself yet, but other people say it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 02:12
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Ohh, I really don't know much about TMZ besides what I have read, I mostly use Delta 3200. I thought we were comparing Delta 3200 to Tri X, my bad Oh that makes more sense now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
"This is E6, if we put it through the machine it will come out black  "-CVS Photo Clerk, 2009 On the plus side, I was just given 9 rolls of Velvia 50 by the guy I assist for. He thought he had a bulk loader to give me too, but apparently he must have gotten rid of it long ago. I'll probably look around for another one, anything in particular to look for/look out for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 05:41
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I'll probably look around for another one, anything in particular to look for/look out for? The boxy one that Freestyle sells (as opposed to the wedge-shaped one) is good. It's what I use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 12:07
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Try Wal-Mart, you fill out the envelope and drop it off, they send it out to a pro lab. I haven't done it myself yet, but other people say it works. Really? I haven't been in a Wal-Mart in years, I had no idea they still had photo labs. Will they send out 120 film too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 17:37
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Really? I haven't been in a Wal-Mart in years, I had no idea they still had photo labs. Will they send out 120 film too? The key to this is to not talk to anyone. They have their in-house services, and then there is a "mail out" service, which takes a week or two and goes to a fuji lab. Just put the 120 in and send it out, it will get processed and sent back. If you ask the walmart people about it, 90% of the time they will have no idea (there is no slot for this in their pricing book if you ask them to look).
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 17:41
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:The key to this is to not talk to anyone. Yeah thats generally my rule of thumb for wal-mart
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2009 18:29
|
|
|
Here's a side-by-side of the Bessa and 7s if anyone cares, size difference wasn't as big as I thought it'd be. Shot at really high ISO, too lazy to grab flash or tripod.  Anyone ever had a problem with camera leatherette "expanding" and starting to come loose? The back pad on my R3a finally gave up the ghost on Saturday, and I've noticed the front sections have a similar problem. It no longer seems to fit down in the little depression for it, so I'm not sure what I should do about re-gluing. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure this stuff is rubber. HPL posted:The boxy one that Freestyle sells (as opposed to the wedge-shaped one) is good. It's what I use. The Bobinquick Junior ($50) or the Legacy Pro Lloyd ($25) one? The Bobinquick is boxier but the cheaper one also looks less wedge-y than the other ones I've seen. As cheap as the Arista films are it'd take a long time to break even. With the Bobinquick for example, about 125 rolls of Premium 400, not counting cannisters. What are some more expensive color films I should consider to make it more worthwhile? For B&W I'm fine with the Arista stuff, unless there'a an ASA 100 film that's radically different/better than Fomapan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2009 20:28
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Anyone ever had a problem with camera leatherette "expanding" and starting to come loose? The back pad on my R3a finally gave up the ghost on Saturday, and I've noticed the front sections have a similar problem. It no longer seems to fit down in the little depression for it, so I'm not sure what I should do about re-gluing. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure this stuff is rubber. Contact cement should be good for the leatherette. Make sure to clean the surfaces real good first in case there's oil or grime or whatever that's making it come off in the first place. The Bobinquick Junior is good. The most important feature that it has over the Lloyd is the frame counter because sometimes I space out and forget how many times I have turned the crank. I bulk load because I shoot a lot so even if I'm saving a buck or two on a roll, it adds up quickly. A 100' roll of Delta 400 is $61 CDN. A 36-frame roll of Delta 400 is $7 CDN, so assuming I can get roughly 18 full rolls from a bulk roll, that's like half the price with bulk loading. Plus I don't have a bazillion spools and cannisters to throw out afterwords. There's very little waste with bulk loading. You end up throwing out a few odd pieces of tape and film ends and that's about it. For 100 film, I'd definitely recommend Legacy Pro 100 from Freestyle. It's rebadged Fuji Acros 100, which is one of the sweetest B&W films around for the price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
HPL posted:Contact cement should be good for the leatherette. Make sure to clean the surfaces real good first in case there's oil or grime or whatever that's making it come off in the first place. You can get a used Watson 100 for like $10 on eBay. Works fine and much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 03:07
|
|
|
killabyte posted:You can get a used Watson 100 for like $10 on eBay. Works fine and much cheaper. Of course you can, or you can buy the Lloyd loader brand new from Freestyle for $25 and avoid the eBay wheel of fortune. I'd gladly pay the extra $15 for peace of mind. I'd seriously recommend the AP/Bobinquick if you plan on loading a lot because it wastes the least amount of film because of its good light trap and it has a gauge on the side to indicate how much film is left on the roll plus it has the frame counter as I mentioned earlier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 03:16
|
|
|
I was fortunate enough to have acquired a mint Contax 167mt body with Carl Zeiss lenses (S-Planar 1:2.8 f=mm macro, Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200 telephoto,Distagon 2.8/25 wide angle, Sonnar 2,8/120 telephoto,and a Planar 1,4/85) from a family member. Being completely new to manual focus film photography and photography in general, I'm beginning to figure out how to operate the 167. So far I've shot about 6-8 rolls of cheap Kodak Gold 200 with fairly satisfactory results. I'm looking to spend about $100-$150 on a variety of c-41 film to take advantage of all these lenses! What would be a good mixture of film types to get me started? I will be shooting landscapes, general nature (animals & plants), city life, surfing action shots, macro, and perhaps some indoor family gatherings. Emphasis on Surfing action shots, macro and outdoors. Here are some examples of what I will be shooting and also my first attempt at using a manual focus film camera. Using Kodak Gold 200: .jpg) .JPG) .JPG) .jpg) .jpg) edit: one more for the curlews! .JPG) Google Butt fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 04:58
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:where'd you take this? i could've sworn it was o'melveney park in socal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 05:04
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:words...cool camera... I recommend Kodak Porta 400NC. Fast(ish) tight grain, and natural colors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 05:05
|
|
|
Nedsmaster posted:where'd you take this? i could've sworn it was o'melveney park in socal.  8th-samurai posted:I recommend Kodak Porta 400NC. Fast(ish) tight grain, and natural colors. Google Butt fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 05:13
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:That was taken at Natural Bridges on the west side of Santa Cruz, ca. Same location of that surf shot at the top, one of the best waves we have! If you want tack sharp macro go with either slide film or Kodak Ektar 100. Those will have the tightest grain. I use Porta 400 mostly for people stuff but I really like the color palette.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 05:32
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:If you want tack sharp macro go with either slide film or Kodak Ektar 100. Those will have the tightest grain. I use Porta 400 mostly for people stuff but I really like the color palette. I've been looking through some sample photos of the Porta 400. I quite like the tightness of the grain, but I find the colors to be a little too subtle..also read that this film is not very forgiving. For sure getting some rolls of Ektar 100 for the macro stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 05:52
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:I've been looking through some sample photos of the Porta 400. I quite like the tightness of the grain, but I find the colors to be a little too subtle..also read that this film is not very forgiving. All print film is fairly forgiving compared to digital/slide. Take a look at the VC version if you are looking for more saturated colors. Fuji makes some nice film but I mostly shoot stuff made but the great yellow father.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 09:41
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:I've been looking through some sample photos of the Porta 400. I quite like the tightness of the grain, but I find the colors to be a little too subtle..also read that this film is not very forgiving. As stated above, if you want color saturation go for Portra 400 VC (Vivid Color) or any speed VC version. 160 NC/VC are great if you can shoot that slow. Otherwise the 400 speed version is awesome as well (can only speak for the VC, haven't shot 400 NC but have seen prints from it which look very nice). Portra is pretty drat awesome overall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 09:57
|
|
|
I'm kind of on the fence about Portra. VC is too wild and NC is too blah. If there were something in the middle, I'd buy a truckload. That's what I liked about Reala, it's a nice balance. Unfortunately, it's starting to get hard to find in 120 format.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 16:11
|
|
|
I absolutely love Portra 160 NC, especially overexposed a bit. The dynamic range is wild, and you can do a lot with the scans in post. It also doesn't butcher skin. That said, lately I've also been fiddling with Fuji 800z a bit too. It nice on cloudy days when I'd like to keep some depth of field with closer subjects, and the colours are a bit less wild than say the Portra VCs, though its still pretty contrasty, as you would expect from an 800 speed film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 17:20
|
|
|
I was pretty happy with my last roll of 160NC, though it was a little pricey for my tastes. Then again I've been utterly spoiled with bulk packs of B&W 120.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 20:38
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I was pretty happy with my last roll of 160NC, though it was a little pricey for my tastes. Then again I've been utterly spoiled with bulk packs of B&W 120. I think I've shot 8 of the rolls of semi-expired 160NC (actually I guess 7, since one came out blank) that I got from Kodak, if anyone wants to see any samples I can try scanning some of the recent stuff over the holiday weekend. I wasn't really happy with the drug store scans from the first batch, so I decided to do these myself whenever I get time. TBH the stuff from the last game was okay but nothing special, a bit like USF played  I also shot the one roll of Ektar, which didn't look radically different from the 160NC in the 4x6's I got. Scans may tell a different story, we'll see. Overall I'm finding that I prefer black and white though. Having to take color into account when you're making a composition adds a totally new layer to taking a picture, and B&W just feels more comfortable for me. When I switch from one to the other it takes me a little while to get in the mindset of "seeing" the other way. Plus, I like being able to do my own processing even though I'm still in the very beginner stages: I like DIY stuff so it's psychologically satisfying, it's cheaper (both the film and developing), and I don't have to worry about someone with no investment in the shots mishandling them. Also I'm kinda colorblind and with B&W it's nice knowing that I'm not missing anything. Now that I've got an f/1.2 lens I may look in to trying some of those ASA25 films, I was running up against the max 1/2000s shutter speed wall shooting in the afternoon. Anyone have any experiences with it? My one roll of K25 is long gone 
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Nov 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2009 22:04
|
|
|
I got a Canon F-1 and a Nikon N70 from craigslist today for $100. Yayyy new toys
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 11:01
|
|
|
I'm guessing "VC" means Vivid Color and "NC" means Natural Color?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 16:52
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I think I've shot 8 of the rolls of semi-expired 160NC (actually I guess 7, since one came out blank) that I got from Kodak, if anyone wants to see any samples I can try scanning some of the recent stuff over the holiday weekend. Yeah, i'd like to see how it is compares to fuji pro 160.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2009 18:28
|
|
|
So I went to purchase film at my local shop. He said Portra NC/VC were discontinued and he doesn't carry them, so I ended up getting a roll of Fuji Reala 100 and Kodak 400. All shots have small post adjustments. I REALLY like the Reala, super tight grain. I tested the 100 in daylight and low light sunset conditions.    The 400 turned out a nice sunset and daylight macro shot.   Kodak 200 for comparison: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 01:03
|
|
|
Portra hasn't been discontinued.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 01:21
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Portra hasn't been discontinued. Interesting. Verbatim from the dude at Bayphoto "NC has been discontinued for like 5 years", I asked him if he carried an equivalent to nc/vc and he pointed me to the Portra UC. Regardless, I think I'll be ordering some Reala.  edit: Is there a major difference between Reala 100 and Fuji pro 160s/c? Google Butt fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Nov 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 01:33
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Interesting. Verbatim from the dude at Bayphoto "NC has been discontinued for like 5 years", I asked him if he carried an equivalent to nc/vc and he pointed me to the Portra UC. He is an idiot. Porta "UC" has been discontinued for years. NC and VC are still going strong. Hell I bought 70 bucks worth of 400NC last weekend. Reala is nice if you can get away with 100 film. I used to shoot it a bit in 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 04:41
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:He said Portra NC/VC were discontinued  Question: For slide film, do you generally lean toward underexposing or overexposing? ie. like how on print film, it's better to overexpose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
krnhotwings posted:If Portra were to be discontinued, I'd be really really sad. edit: actually, generally it's better to get your exposure right 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2009 06:05
|
|