A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Medium Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The new C-41 films..



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 3rd 10, 05:39 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
rwalker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default The new C-41 films..

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:27:54 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

snip


After doing some research on line, I seem to run into a variety of
opinions about what the aperture and shutter speed are on the old
Brownies from the 50s. The consensus seems to be something like 1/45
and F22. I figure either flash or bright sunlight. I'll know for
sure when the film comes back from the developer.


What kind of flash did you use?

It occurs to me that a Brownie might not x-sync. It might be M, F or
ME. So your flash might fire a little early with the Brownie that you
have...


I actually have one of the old proprietary flash attachments that
Kodak made for this model Brownie. I have a few dozen flash bulbs.
They can still be found once in a while on e-bay, though they are
getting harder and harder (and more expensive) to find.
  #22  
Old March 3rd 10, 05:42 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
rwalker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default The new C-41 films..

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:36:06 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

snip

You may have found ...
http://www.brownie-camera.com/

Various places seem to indicate an M sync - if you used an X-sync flash
your shots will be after the flash fired.


Yes, I have seen that web page. I am tempted to try hooking up an
electronic flash to one of my other Brownies at some point. I have a
couple that have sticky shutters that I might use as test projects,
and if successful, I'll try it on my good Brownie.
  #24  
Old March 3rd 10, 09:30 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default The new C-41 films..

On 10-03-03 0:48 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-02 18:49 ,
wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:



Given the high contrasts in the southwest over a large part of the
day, the Ektar would have been very nice when I was there. (It may not
have existed then).



Why in the world would you use a high contrast film to shoot in high
contrast conditions? O.o That makes absolutely no sense at all.


High saturation (the film's main suit) fits the southwest colours.
That's why.

Indexing the film low reduces contrast.
That's why.

Further, compared to slide film (that I normally use in MF) it is not as
high contrast.
That's why.




The tone of your post seemed someone very unfamiliar (or out of date)
with film exposure that I related what I could for your possible
benefit.



???? What part of my post made it sound like I am clueless about


Why do you use extremes like "clueless" when all I said was
"unfamiliar" or "out of date"?



Clueless is no more extreme than "very unfamiliar" and you failed to
point out what part of my post came across as my needing the basics of
exposure explained to me.


Clueless means 0 knowledge.

I don't have to "point out" anything to you about how I replied. I
simply gave the info your post inspired me to give. As I said in the
prior post, if that overlaps with what you already know and posted, then
no harm, no foul.

Now Stephe, why don't you stop obsessing over what I say and start
saying something original yourself? What are your projects for your
renewed interest in MF film shooting? You say you do landscapes. What
sort? Where? What's the goal?

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #25  
Old March 3rd 10, 10:04 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Geoffrey S. Mendelson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default The new C-41 films..

wrote:

Why in the world would you use a high contrast film to shoot in high
contrast conditions? O.o That makes absolutely no sense at all. That
would be like saying "I have this super contrasty B&W negative so I'm
going to want to print it using a high contrast paper"...


Just my point of view, but high contrast subjects SHOULD be rendered with
a high contrast medium. If you use a low contrast media to render it, it
becomes average in contrast, which makes it look like a one-hour-lab print.

In printing terms, everything averaged out to 18% gray makes "nice" but
boring prints.

I used to love taking pictures in Philly during November at around 3pm with
the original Ektar 25. The air was clear (unusual for Philly), the light was
sharp and highly directional. Ektar rendered it perfectly.

It's a shame, two moves, a marriage and 20 some years, I've lost those
negatives (and prints). :-(

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel
N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
  #28  
Old March 4th 10, 01:04 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Geoffrey S. Mendelson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default The new C-41 films..

wrote:

If I was shooting a very high contrast scene, I'd be concerned that a
high contrast film would either blow out the high lights or block up the
shadows, even with "perfect" exposure. Especially if you are scanning
the film like Allen does, making it "high contrast" later is easy (you
have some control of what you can lose and not ruin the image). Doing
the reverse is impossible. That's why it didn't make sense he would pick
that film for that application..


This to me is a lot of what is wrong with photgraphy these days.

It all started with APS. Kodak figured out they could sell more pictures if
the camera communicated the exposure and other details to the printing machine.

The computer in the APS printing machine could use the information magneticly
encoded on the film to produce more homogenous looking, i.e. "good" prints
from various exposure conditions.

The outcome of this research was that one could use low resolution device
to determine the "best" color balance and exposure for the print by looking
at the negative, and did not need the information on the film, or to record
it at all.

So APS died a slow death, and people got the same print quality from 35mm
and eventually other formats.

Digital photography lends itself well to the whole concept because everything
is processed. Even RAW files are really "cooked", because except for a handful
of Sigma cameras, no camera has a single sensor that records all colors.

If someone reading this does not know what I am talking about, look up
Bayer sensors.

So people assume that in order to produce a photograph, you have to work within
the limits of the medium and produce prints that look like they came from a
one hour lab.

To be unkind, I don't care. I know that film has limitations, I understand
what they are and the limitations of printing (both digital and not).

I am not looking to produce a digital print that looks good on your inkjet,
or poorly adjusted monitor, web page, etc. I don't want the low contrast,
high saturation of an LCD display, and so on.

I want to take a photograph of a high contrast scene and have it printed on
photgraphic paper in such a way that the print evokes the original scene.
I don't want it to "look good".

Can digital photpgraphy produce the same results. Not really. Will it be able
to in the future? Probably. If you compare the quality of digital cameras
and prints made 10 years ago to today, you see a large improvement.

Will it continue? I hope so.

Will film continue? I expect that eventually it will fade away due to the
high cost of raw materials and production, and the improvment of digital
photography. I'm hoping that day is far off.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel
N3OWJ/4X1GM
New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or
understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation.
i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia.
  #29  
Old March 4th 10, 08:54 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default The new C-41 films..

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:


I want to take a photograph of a high contrast scene and have it printed on
photgraphic paper in such a way that the print evokes the original scene.
I don't want it to "look good".

Can digital photpgraphy produce the same results. Not really.


If you read my posts, I'm returning to film for all the reasons you
stated. That said, I'm just not sure using a high contrast film to
record a high contrast scene would produce a "print that evokes the
original scene" if the highlights AND the shadows are both blown out. YMMV

Stephanie
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Want to be in Films? [email protected] Digital Photography 0 March 20th 07 04:23 AM
Old films Lassi Hippeläinen Medium Format Photography Equipment 13 October 28th 05 08:46 PM
Speaking of sheet films (Tri-X /Bush thread) --Hows the J&C House brand in 4x5 thru 11x14? Efke sheet films? jjs Large Format Photography Equipment 0 October 25th 04 05:24 PM
Two Odd Films Neil Purling Large Format Photography Equipment 16 August 13th 04 08:06 PM
Films F.C. Trevor Gale Film & Labs 1 October 23rd 03 12:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.