The new C-41 films..
 

The little bit of research I have done shows that both Kodak and Fuji
have some new c-41 color neg films out. I've ordered 5 rolls of both the
Ektar 100 and Fuji 160C to see which I like. I shoot mostly landscapes
and like saturated colors. The main reason I like color neg film is for
the exposure latitude, especially when using old gear with questionable
shutter speed accuracy. Plus I can think more about composing and not be
frantic about nailing the exposure perfect that slide film requires.
Plus DR prints from chromes are a headache compared to RA-4 printing.

In the past I always aimed for 1/2 to 1 stop over exposure to be safe
but not sure how these new films respond. I've read ektar is picky about
exposure and needs to be treated more like it's iso 80 slide film to get
good results? And I read that the fuji 160C is more lenient to exposure
errors, which might suit me better. I know in the past I hated the
results I got from films like 160NPS so I doubt I would care for a low
contrast "portrait" type film now any better. My favorite film was agfa
ultra 50, which of course is gone.

Anyway just thought this might stir some conversation relevant to
medium format cameras instead of the typical digital discussion..

Stephanie

The new C-41 films..
 

On 10-02-28 15:01 , wrote:
The little bit of research I have done shows that both Kodak and Fuji
have some new c-41 color neg films out. I've ordered 5 rolls of both the
Ektar 100 and Fuji 160C to see which I like. I shoot mostly landscapes
and like saturated colors. The main reason I like color neg film is for
the exposure latitude, especially when using old gear with questionable
shutter speed accuracy. Plus I can think more about composing and not be
frantic about nailing the exposure perfect that slide film requires.
Plus DR prints from chromes are a headache compared to RA-4 printing.

In the past I always aimed for 1/2 to 1 stop over exposure to be safe
but not sure how these new films respond. I've read ektar is picky about
exposure and needs to be treated more like it's iso 80 slide film to get
good results? And I read that the fuji 160C is more lenient to exposure
errors, which might suit me better. I know in the past I hated the
results I got from films like 160NPS so I doubt I would care for a low
contrast "portrait" type film now any better. My favorite film was agfa
ultra 50, which of course is gone.

Pretty much all negative colour film can be overexposed by up to a stop
with little danger to highlight detail.

There are also saturated "portrait" films like Portra 160VC that may
appeal to you.

If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

I don't know how the Fuji 160 C responds, but most photogs using its
competitor, Kodak Portra 160 EI it at 100 (giving a nominal 2/3 over).

For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

The new C-41 films..
 

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-02-28 15:01 , wrote:
The little bit of research I have done shows that both Kodak and Fuji
have some new c-41 color neg films out. I've ordered 5 rolls of both the
Ektar 100 and Fuji 160C to see which I like. I shoot mostly landscapes
and like saturated colors. The main reason I like color neg film is for
the exposure latitude, especially when using old gear with questionable
shutter speed accuracy. Plus I can think more about composing and not be
frantic about nailing the exposure perfect that slide film requires.
Plus DR prints from chromes are a headache compared to RA-4 printing.

In the past I always aimed for 1/2 to 1 stop over exposure to be safe
but not sure how these new films respond. I've read ektar is picky about
exposure and needs to be treated more like it's iso 80 slide film to get
good results? And I read that the fuji 160C is more lenient to exposure
errors, which might suit me better. I know in the past I hated the
results I got from films like 160NPS so I doubt I would care for a low
contrast "portrait" type film now any better. My favorite film was agfa
ultra 50, which of course is gone.

Pretty much all negative colour film can be overexposed by up to a stop
with little danger to highlight detail.

There are also saturated "portrait" films like Portra 160VC that may
appeal to you.

If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and you'll
be very safe.

I don't know how the Fuji 160 C responds, but most photogs using its
competitor, Kodak Portra 160 EI it at 100 (giving a nominal 2/3 over).

For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3 to
2/3 apart).


I have not used either the Fuji or the Ektar films, but Mr Browne is spot on
with his suggestion of the Portra VC films. If you want strong colors, try
the Portra VC ("Vivid Color") films in ISO 160 or 400. These films are very
forgiving for exposure. Once I had a flash failure that caused the exposure
to be two stops under- the negs weren't great, but they were printable. I
use both of these films at their rated ISO and get good results.

The new C-41 films..
 

Alan Browne wrote:

If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.


What's a light meter?

Stephanie

The new C-41 films..
 

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).


I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

The new C-41 films..
 

On 10-03-01 0:49 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.


What's a light meter?

Easier to carry around than a heavy meter.

I take your point, in the southwest US I exposed about 20 rolls of 120
and I used my meter on less than a dozen shots.

You can also use
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.ht...ensity%20Chart and
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.ht...%20CHA RT%20B

in the absence of a meter with remarkably accurate results.

However, critical placement of highlights on slide film does require a
spot meter for consistently usable results.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

The new C-41 films..
 

rwalker wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).


I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.


I've had fun shooting B&W film in old box cameras, you never know if you
might luck into good exposures with that brownie :-)

Stephanie

The new C-41 films..
 

Noons wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:49 pm, " wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.
What's a light meter?

Stephanie

LOL! That'll hurt...

I got to where I usually didn't need a light meter shooting outdoors
with print film, most of it seems to be pretty lax about exposure or I'm
good at guessing.. I sure wouldn't be using print film if it requires a
spot meter!! For that matter I never had a need for a spot meter
shooting slide film, a basic incidence meter and knowing how to use it
should work..



I'm using now mostly Ektar100 and Portra400 for colour negatives.
Stopped using 160NPS and NPC essentially because they are not very
scanner friendly. Or rather: they show horrible scan aliasing
"grain", whereas the Kodak film doesn't. I guess that is one film area
where Fuji has dropped the ball compared to Kodak.
Of course: nothing is absolute with film, so keep an ear out for
improvements on the Fuji side.

This new fuji 160's are supposed to be more scanner friendly?




As for exposu I use spot-on rather than the usual "overexpose
colour negative".
Most of those recommendations come from decades ago, when indeed they
were useful.

I found I got snappier looking colors, more contrast and less visible
grain on the over exposure side of things when optically printing. Maybe
with scanning film it's a problem? I'm not sure yet if I am going to
ditch optically printing film, I got fairly good at RA4 printing and I
know it's archival..



I wouldn't bother with modern film like Portra and Ektar: expose it
spot-on the makers claim and only change if you really need an
improvement in shadow detail.


OK I'll try that as a starting point...

The new C-41 films..
 

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-01 0:49 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.


What's a light meter?


However, critical placement of highlights on slide film does require a
spot meter for consistently usable results.


Thanks for a confusing response. :-) You say to meter the shadows in one
post, then talk about how critical metering the highlights are in the
next.. Then talk about how you don't use a meter. Guess that covers all
the bases..

Have you actually shot any of these films in my original post? It's not
like I have never shot film before and was asking for a basic primer on
how to use film here. I was asking for responses from someone who has
actually shot with either of these themselves, if what I have read about
the new ektar film is true etc.

Stephanie

The new C-41 films..