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
  #11  
Old March 2nd 10, 02:13 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default The new C-41 films..

wrote,on my timestamp of 2/03/2010 4:43 PM:


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..


Print film would require spot metering in extreme lighting situations, where one
needs the full density range the emulsion can give - and a little more if
possible.
A basic incident light meter will cover 99% of the remaining, quite frankly.

I use the spot meter in my 35mm cameras and a Pentax Digital for MF, for one
simple reason: light in Australia is usually of a very high contrast and I have
to avoid blocked out areas at both extremes in just about any shot under sunny
conditions. In some instances I am actually using specific areas of the density
range of b&w film, for which I need very accurate control.

But apart from those extremes, a simple CW meter or my trusty old Lunasix F in
incident mode are all that's needed.




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


They were supposed to, but I've found there is much better now.


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..


If you enjoy the optical printing process and are setup to do it, then the
slight overexposure may indeed be of advantage. It helps to increase the
density of the negative: a slightly denser negative is usually easier to control
in optical printing. Easy does it, but it is indeed at the origin of the
"overexpose print film" adage.


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


Exactly. Please don't take anything I say as an absolute. It's nothing more
than a reference or starting point, after that it's all your own input. That's
indeed the whole fun of it!
  #12  
Old March 2nd 10, 06:07 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
rwalker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default The new C-41 films..

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:35:37 -0500, "
wrote:

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


I've got my fingers crossed. Everything on this particular Brownie
seems to be working smoothly.
  #13  
Old March 2nd 10, 10:23 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default The new C-41 films..

On 10-03-02 0:55 , wrote:
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..


I didn't say "I don't use a meter." I said there are conditions where a
meter is not required. (3. below).

Clarifying the highlight v. shadow metering:

1. Slide film: meter the highlight detail areas @ +2.

2. Negative color film: meter the shadow detail areas at -3.

(You can also meter negatives in the highlights @ +3. But the practice
is to meter for the shadows (-3 ish) in order to assure detail for
printing.)

3. In broad daylight with sun drenched subjects, one generally does not
need a meter if they remember one rule (I'll let you remember or
research that). Even under varying levels of cloudiness, one should
with experience know where the exposure should be and should be able to
work out reciprocal settings. That is where those links are
interesting, Fred takes it on beyond the basics. I don't use his charts
generally, but for night shooting they are excellent starting points
(the first of those 2 links).

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.


Of the films you mentioned, I've recently shot the Ektar 100 on 120 with
fine results - leaning 2/3 stop over as I would with Portra. (EI 64 for
100). This film also scans very cleanly, just as well as Portra 160NC.

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.

The main point being that for just about any colour negative film you
can lean towards over exposure from nominal with little danger of detail
loss. This is why "portrait" and "wedding" film is typically indexed
2/3 of a stop low (eg: rate 160 at 100). (For clothing, this also helps
with detail in dark clothes without losing detail in the white clothes).


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #14  
Old March 2nd 10, 10:25 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default The new C-41 films..

On 10-03-01 7:28 , 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.


With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #16  
Old March 2nd 10, 11:11 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
rwalker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default The new C-41 films..

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:25:18 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-03-01 7:28 , 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.


With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).


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.
  #17  
Old March 2nd 10, 11:27 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default The new C-41 films..

On 10-03-02 17:11 , rwalker wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:25:18 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-03-01 7:28 , 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.


With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).


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...

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #18  
Old March 2nd 10, 11:36 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default The new C-41 films..

On 10-03-02 17:11 , rwalker wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:25:18 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 10-03-01 7:28 , 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.


With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).


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.


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.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
  #19  
Old March 3rd 10, 12:49 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default The new C-41 films..

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-02 0:55 , wrote:


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.


Of the films you mentioned, I've recently shot the Ektar 100 on 120 with
fine results - leaning 2/3 stop over as I would with Portra. (EI 64 for
100). This film also scans very cleanly, just as well as Portra 160NC.


If you reread my original post, THIS is all I asked for. Why you wait
till now to post this seems odd, makes me question if you actually have
used this film or are just trying to "save face".. And the fact you post
nothing other than "fine results" to describe a film seems strange too.


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
exposure? If you reread my original post, you just repeated what I
posted. O.o Oh wait, that's right, a woman couldn't possibly be able to
grasp something as complex as exposing film and retain it...

Stephanie
  #20  
Old March 3rd 10, 01:46 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default The new C-41 films..

On 10-03-02 18:49 , wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-02 0:55 ,
wrote:

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.


Of the films you mentioned, I've recently shot the Ektar 100 on 120
with fine results - leaning 2/3 stop over as I would with Portra. (EI
64 for 100). This film also scans very cleanly, just as well as Portra
160NC.


If you reread my original post, THIS is all I asked for. Why you wait
till now to post this seems odd, makes me question if you actually have
used this film or are just trying to "save face".. And the fact you post
nothing other than "fine results" to describe a film seems strange too.


As I explained (and you quote below) to me it sounded as if you were not
too sure.

I've used it in studio instead of 160VC as I had heard so many great
things about it. In the end 160VC or Ektar would not have made very
much difference for that particular shoot.

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).


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"?

exposure? If you reread my original post, you just repeated what I
posted. O.o Oh wait, that's right, a woman couldn't possibly be able to
grasp something as complex as exposing film and retain it...


Oh boo hoo.

I was just relating it from my POV and experience. That it reflects
your experience you should see as a positive. I've learned a lot of
technical and artistic points in photography (and much more elsewhere)
from women. It's really not an issue.


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.
 




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 07:28 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.