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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for a long
time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two? -- ------------------- Keep working dumbo needs the money |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank Pittel
wrote: : I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for : a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two? Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a camera, where there may be important money at stake. Bob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank Pittel : wrote: : : I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for : : a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two? : Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a : camera, where there may be important money at stake. I've already bought a couple of rolls of each and am shooting them. Just checking to see if others have any experience with the films. -- ------------------- Keep working dumbo needs the money |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
Graham Fountain wrote:
: On 6/07/2011 4:42 AM, Frank Pittel wrote: : Robert wrote: : : On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:18:12 -0500, Frank : : wrote: : : : I've been wanting to shoot the iso-3200 film from Kodak and Ilford for : : : a long time and think now is the time. Any preference between the two? : : : Why wouldn't you want to try both of them yourself? It's not like choosing a : : camera, where there may be important money at stake. : : I've already bought a couple of rolls of each and am shooting them. Just checking to : see if others have any experience with the films. : My personal preference is to the Kodak. Could be because of : my developing, but I found that although Kodak seemed to : have larger grain, it had a smoother tonal range. I've only : shot 1 roll of the Ilford, and it seemed very contrasty. : Could have been my developing, but I didn't like it that : much. I prefer HP5 pushed to 1600 as a fast high contrast : film over Ilford 3200 - it's cheaper and I prefer the result. : From the Kodak, I've found optically printed 8x10 & 5x7s : from 35mm have clearly visible grain (which IMO can add to : the look), while on the other hand I've scanned, done : minimal digital grain removal, & printed to 6x4 and had : prints that look smooth and sharp. : Personally, I don't use it for times when I need 3200ISO - I : use it for the look the film gives. I've even used it in : bright daylight. I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot of very visible grain when printed at 8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could add a lot to the image. -- ------------------- Keep working dumbo needs the money |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
On 2011-07-08 18:53 , Frank Pittel wrote:
I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot of very visible grain when printed at 8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could add a lot to the image. Surely. The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push. Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push process 2 or more stops. That will give you interesting contrast, tone and grain effects as well. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
Graham Fountain wrote,on my timestamp of 13/07/2011 6:51 PM:
The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push. Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push process 2 or more stops. That will give you interesting contrast, tone and grain effects as well. erm... do that & you'll have an interesting effect all right - if you can extract anything from the black neg. I assume you either mean underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to *12800*), or you mean to *overexpose* by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then *pull* process by 2 stops. If you mean the latter, Kodak 3200 should give a fairly normal neg - IIRC it is technically an 800ISO film anyway. Of course: the totally incorrect advice was noted before. Why bring it up again? Ah yes: you have half the world in the sin bin... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
Graham Fountain wrote:
: On 9/07/2011 11:36 PM, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2011-07-08 18:53 , Frank Pittel wrote: : : I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot : of very visible grain when printed at : 8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could : add a lot to the image. : : Surely. : : The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push. : : Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push : process 2 or more stops. That will give you interesting : contrast, tone and grain effects as well. : : erm... do that & you'll have an interesting effect all right : - if you can extract anything from the black neg. : I assume you either mean underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to : *12800*), or you mean to *overexpose* by 2 stops (EI 3200 : to 800) and then *pull* process by 2 stops. : If you mean the latter, Kodak 3200 should give a fairly : normal neg - IIRC it is technically an 800ISO film anyway. I've always heard that with zone system type testing it works out to ~800iso but has the interesting quality of being a truly "pushable" film with significant desnity increases in shadows resulting from extended development time. I shoot little to no 35mm anymore so most of this is me playing around. Although if I like the Ilford stuff I could see doing more with it in 120. -- ------------------- Keep working dumbo needs the money |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Question for those still shooting film
On 2011-07-13 09:08 , Frank Pittel wrote:
Graham wrote: : On 9/07/2011 11:36 PM, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2011-07-08 18:53 , Frank Pittel wrote: : : I'm assuming that the 35mm iso3200 films would have a lot : of very visible grain when printed at : 8x10. :-) Depending on the composition, grain could could : add a lot to the image. : : Surely. : : The other use of very high ISO films is abusing push. : : Underexpose by 2 stops (EI 3200 to 800) and then push : process 2 or more stops. That will give you interesting : contrast, tone and grain effects as well. : : erm... do that& you'll have an interesting effect all right : - if you can extract anything from the black neg. Indeed - as Frank said, 12800 vice 800. Just didn't think it through as I wrote it. Didn't see your post either as I filter out gmail.com posts. -- gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question: Shooting Indoor Motocross | BD | Digital Photography | 0 | November 16th 07 12:00 AM |
Question about shooting in RAW mode.. | the_niner_nation | Digital SLR Cameras | 57 | July 21st 07 10:20 PM |
Shooting 50 ISO slide film | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 28 | August 20th 06 08:26 PM |
Question about how volume event shooting... | Randy Howard | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | May 3rd 06 05:30 PM |
Shooting film to develop later, much later. | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 20 | April 14th 06 03:51 AM |