Antarctica print film

Hello Bill,

Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have
dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about
writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films.
To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to
write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I
will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as
a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Gordon Moat wrote:

Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have
dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about
writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films.
To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to
write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I
will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as
a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that. / Ciao!

Gordon, thanks for the follow-up.

E200 is rather out-of-fashion now. Even before the digital onslaught
Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people
who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh?

Otherwise I think your article would probably belong in Photo Techniques
magazine. I'm interested in E200 because it's versatile and low contrast
but I'm not sure how many other people are.

So I'd be happy to read any comments you might have.

Gordon Moat wrote:

Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have
dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about
writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films.
To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to
write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I
will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as
a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that. / Ciao!

Gordon, thanks for the follow-up.

E200 is rather out-of-fashion now. Even before the digital onslaught
Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people
who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh?

Otherwise I think your article would probably belong in Photo Techniques
magazine. I'm interested in E200 because it's versatile and low contrast
but I'm not sure how many other people are.

So I'd be happy to read any comments you might have.

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have
dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about
writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films.
To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to
write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I
will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as
a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that. / Ciao!

Gordon, thanks for the follow-up.

E200 is rather out-of-fashion now. Even before the digital onslaught
Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people
who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh?

Definitely. Fuji Provia 400F is a pain to scan on most film and drum
scanners. The grain is indeed more noticeable than taking E200 and pushing it
to ISO 800 (actually a three stop push with exposure compensation considered.

I probably use more E200 than any other film. It is very even in colour
saturation, and quite good for natural subjects, or even for mixed lighting,
or night exposures. It would be nice if Kodak updated this film with even
smaller grain, though I don't know if they will ever do that.

I suppose with all the slow zoom lenses out there now, that ISO 400 is
something people find more useful. Both push and pull processing cost extra
at nearly all labs, so not too many people do that.



Otherwise I think your article would probably belong in Photo Techniques
magazine. I'm interested in E200 because it's versatile and low contrast
but I'm not sure how many other people are.

I am familiar with that magazine, and I have a few copies that I have kept as
great reference material. I guess that would be a consideration, though I
could just post something on my web site. Maybe there is not much interest in
E200.

I like the lower contrast as well, and that even up to push three settings,
there is little noticeable change in contrast. It even works well at ISO 100,
and pulling, though I prefer Fuji Astia 100F as a low contrast ISO 100 film.
If I had to do so, I could probably do 90% of my work using just E200.



So I'd be happy to read any comments you might have.

It might take me some time to write it up, though I will let you know.
Currently, it is several notes and many image examples. There is also Kodak
Ektachrome P800 and Fujichrome MS100/1000 for comparison, both of which were
my previous low light film choices. P800 is now really expensive, and I would
expect it to be discontinued soon. MS100/1000 has already been discontinued.
The advantage over E200 of both of those was the ability to go even higher in
push processing settings, though the results were much more apparent grain,
much higher contrast, and somewhat strange colour shifts.

My basis to determine push characteristics started by investigating long time
exposures, and reciprocity characteristics. That originating point gave
information for me that indicated possible push settings and exposure
compensation. Testing determined my thoughts to be correct. All this
knowledge extends the possibilities of colour photography under low light
conditions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have
dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about
writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films.
To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to
write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I
will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as
a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that. / Ciao!

Gordon, thanks for the follow-up.

E200 is rather out-of-fashion now. Even before the digital onslaught
Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people
who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh?

Definitely. Fuji Provia 400F is a pain to scan on most film and drum
scanners. The grain is indeed more noticeable than taking E200 and pushing it
to ISO 800 (actually a three stop push with exposure compensation considered.

I probably use more E200 than any other film. It is very even in colour
saturation, and quite good for natural subjects, or even for mixed lighting,
or night exposures. It would be nice if Kodak updated this film with even
smaller grain, though I don't know if they will ever do that.

I suppose with all the slow zoom lenses out there now, that ISO 400 is
something people find more useful. Both push and pull processing cost extra
at nearly all labs, so not too many people do that.



Otherwise I think your article would probably belong in Photo Techniques
magazine. I'm interested in E200 because it's versatile and low contrast
but I'm not sure how many other people are.

I am familiar with that magazine, and I have a few copies that I have kept as
great reference material. I guess that would be a consideration, though I
could just post something on my web site. Maybe there is not much interest in
E200.

I like the lower contrast as well, and that even up to push three settings,
there is little noticeable change in contrast. It even works well at ISO 100,
and pulling, though I prefer Fuji Astia 100F as a low contrast ISO 100 film.
If I had to do so, I could probably do 90% of my work using just E200.



So I'd be happy to read any comments you might have.

It might take me some time to write it up, though I will let you know.
Currently, it is several notes and many image examples. There is also Kodak
Ektachrome P800 and Fujichrome MS100/1000 for comparison, both of which were
my previous low light film choices. P800 is now really expensive, and I would
expect it to be discontinued soon. MS100/1000 has already been discontinued.
The advantage over E200 of both of those was the ability to go even higher in
push processing settings, though the results were much more apparent grain,
much higher contrast, and somewhat strange colour shifts.

My basis to determine push characteristics started by investigating long time
exposures, and reciprocity characteristics. That originating point gave
information for me that indicated possible push settings and exposure
compensation. Testing determined my thoughts to be correct. All this
knowledge extends the possibilities of colour photography under low light
conditions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have
dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about
writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films.
To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to
write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I
will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as
a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that. / Ciao!

Gordon, thanks for the follow-up.

E200 is rather out-of-fashion now. Even before the digital onslaught
Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people
who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh?

Definitely. Fuji Provia 400F is a pain to scan on most film and drum
scanners. The grain is indeed more noticeable than taking E200 and pushing it
to ISO 800 (actually a three stop push with exposure compensation considered.

I probably use more E200 than any other film. It is very even in colour
saturation, and quite good for natural subjects, or even for mixed lighting,
or night exposures. It would be nice if Kodak updated this film with even
smaller grain, though I don't know if they will ever do that.


I second the E200 thoughts, I use it a lot doing interior photography.
I might just give it a try in 4x5.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Gordon Moat wrote:

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:

Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have
dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about
writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films.
To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to
write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I
will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as
a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that. / Ciao!

Gordon, thanks for the follow-up.

E200 is rather out-of-fashion now. Even before the digital onslaught
Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people
who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh?

Definitely. Fuji Provia 400F is a pain to scan on most film and drum
scanners. The grain is indeed more noticeable than taking E200 and pushing it
to ISO 800 (actually a three stop push with exposure compensation considered.

I probably use more E200 than any other film. It is very even in colour
saturation, and quite good for natural subjects, or even for mixed lighting,
or night exposures. It would be nice if Kodak updated this film with even
smaller grain, though I don't know if they will ever do that.


I second the E200 thoughts, I use it a lot doing interior photography.
I might just give it a try in 4x5.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

What is E200? Never heard of that one??? I have found that Kodak 200 print
film is the most grainy film I have ever used. It is about as grainy as 800.
Fuji's 200 is not as bad but it still has more grain than their Superia 400.
Smitty

Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

What is E200? Never heard of that one??? I have found that Kodak 200 print
film is the most grainy film I have ever used. It is about as grainy as 800.
Fuji's 200 is not as bad but it still has more grain than their Superia 400.
Smitty

Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

What is E200? Never heard of that one??? I have found that Kodak 200 print
film is the most grainy film I have ever used. It is about as grainy as 800.
Fuji's 200 is not as bad but it still has more grain than their Superia 400.
Smitty

Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200,
though I will mention some other films with that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!