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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |