Finest grained 35mm film?

Lewis Lang wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . .

A friend of mine has used the DR5 process for quite a few B/W transparencies.
Most
look really good, and that approach makes getting Edupes (Ektaclones) much
easier.
Still something to consider, and the price break is better when many rolls
of film
are sent at a time. Similar situation with AGFA Scala.

I am fairly happy with several true B/W negative films. While it would be
interesting to get some of these reverse processed, it would then be tougher
to do
B/W prints from them, except for some alternative processes. These experiments
are
on my "To Do" list, but not priorities.





With dr5 & Scala don't you lose one of the major advantages of b&w neg film -
the ability to do massive dodging and burning if necessary? Wouldn't you lose a
lot of lattitude for dodging and burning, especially in the highlights, if you
use a b&w positive slide process/film as opposed to b&w neg films?

Yes, going the DR5 or Scala route, or even cross processed C-41 B/W films, limits
printing of images. These are good situations for scanning for publication usage,
or for getting dupes made to send out. I am still undecided if this is a better
duping method than just have the negatives duped.

Cost consideration, if I need the dupes, then the DR5 and Scala methods are
overall slightly less expensive. Getting negatives duped locally is costly per
frame. Some places require submission of images as transparencies, which makes B/W
submissions difficult. Of course, I would never send out originals.

Another direction would be to set-up my own negative duping arrangement. I have
looked at a few different options available used on EBAY, but I am not yet ready
to get one. Using B/W negative film to copy original B/W negatives should give me
fairly nice B/W positives, but it depends upon the equipment. I think I have a bit
more investigation into this stuff prior to making any decision.

I really like some B/W films, as you can tell from previous posts and examples.
There have been very few that I have sent out, mostly due to duping costs and
problems getting good dupes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

Subject: Finest grained 35mm film?
From: Gordon Moat
Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2004 2:34 PM
Message-id:

Lewis Lang wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . .

A friend of mine has used the DR5 process for quite a few B/W
transparencies.
Most
look really good, and that approach makes getting Edupes (Ektaclones)
much
easier.
Still something to consider, and the price break is better when many
rolls
of film
are sent at a time. Similar situation with AGFA Scala.

I am fairly happy with several true B/W negative films. While it would
be
interesting to get some of these reverse processed, it would then be
tougher
to do
B/W prints from them, except for some alternative processes. These
experiments
are
on my "To Do" list, but not priorities.





With dr5 & Scala don't you lose one of the major advantages of b&w neg
film -
the ability to do massive dodging and burning if necessary? Wouldn't you
lose a
lot of lattitude for dodging and burning, especially in the highlights,
if you
use a b&w positive slide process/film as opposed to b&w neg films?

Yes, going the DR5 or Scala route, or even cross processed C-41 B/W films,
limits
printing of images. These are good situations for scanning for publication
usage,
or for getting dupes made to send out. I am still undecided if this is a
better
duping method than just have the negatives duped.

Cost consideration, if I need the dupes, then the DR5 and Scala methods
are
overall slightly less expensive. Getting negatives duped locally is costly
per
frame. Some places require submission of images as transparencies, which
makes B/W
submissions difficult. Of course, I would never send out originals.

Another direction would be to set-up my own negative duping arrangement.
I have
looked at a few different options available used on EBAY, but I am not yet
ready
to get one. Using B/W negative film to copy original B/W negatives should
give me
fairly nice B/W positives, but it depends upon the equipment. I think I
have a bit
more investigation into this stuff prior to making any decision.

I really like some B/W films, as you can tell from previous posts and
examples.
There have been very few that I have sent out, mostly due to duping costs
and
problems getting good dupes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!



Have you considered photographing (copying) a black and white print onto color
slide film. I've done it onto 35mm (My shot "Mourning Flowers" in the
"PORTRAITS" book in the Pro-Lighting series published by ROTOVISION is I
believe, if memory serves, shot originally on Neopan 1600 at E.I. 1000, then
dodged and burned to get a finished RC print which was later photographed onto
slide film (either Fujichrome 50 or some other slide film, can't remember
which). You can also copy the b&w image onto medium or large format too. Its
worth a try, especially if you are good at both making b&w prints (in your own
darkroom or a rental darkroom when you have a batch of them to print) and
copywork (when you have a batch of different prints to copy) :-). Also makes
multiple copy slides of each image very cheap if you do it yourself. Just a
suggestion...


Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

in B&W it has to be either
FUJI HR 1000 l/mm or EASTMAN upl-4, also 1000 l/mm resolution.

Al Doyle
"Ray Paseur" wrote in message
...
In slide films, I prefer the Velvia 100F for landscapes and Astia for
people.
Around Washington, DC, the best printing from slides is done by Chrome.

"Lung Fish" wrote in message
...
I have a couple of rolls of Kodachrome 25 stashed away for a special
trip
in the future, but I am looking for something to really show off the
quality of film enlargements without going to a larger format. There is
some Provia and Pan-F Plus in the fridge as well, but I have not really
changed the film that I use in years (I still have 100ft rolls of
Tri-X).

I figure that I can interchange digital for some things, but I would
like
some very sharp and fine-grained film to load up with this summer.

In your opinions, what are the finest grain and sharpest emulsions (B&W,
color negative, and transparency) available today, and how large would
you
go in prints off of a 35mm frame?

Lewis Lang wrote:

Subject: Finest grained 35mm film?
From: Gordon Moat
Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2004 2:34 PM
Message-id:

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Another direction would be to set-up my own negative duping arrangement.
I have
looked at a few different options available used on EBAY, but I am not yet
ready
to get one. Using B/W negative film to copy original B/W negatives should
give me
fairly nice B/W positives, but it depends upon the equipment. I think I
have a bit
more investigation into this stuff prior to making any decision.

I really like some B/W films, as you can tell from previous posts and
examples.
There have been very few that I have sent out, mostly due to duping costs
and
problems getting good dupes.


Have you considered photographing (copying) a black and white print onto color
slide film.

I have tried a few like that, though the main thing is that I have many more
images in B/W that are only in negative and contact sheet form, mainly because
most of my images get scanned, not printed chemically. I really should print more
of my B/W.

I've done it onto 35mm (My shot "Mourning Flowers" in the
"PORTRAITS" book in the Pro-Lighting series published by ROTOVISION is I
believe, if memory serves, shot originally on Neopan 1600 at E.I. 1000, then
dodged and burned to get a finished RC print which was later photographed onto
slide film (either Fujichrome 50 or some other slide film, can't remember
which).

One advantage of photographing prints is that it shows the effects of burning and
dodging. The only other way I could do that to get to a dupe, is to flat scan the
print, then have a transparency output on a film recorder, though that costs
almost the same as a straight dupe from a negative.

You can also copy the b&w image onto medium or large format too.

Tempting . . . I know one place with a 4" by 5" film recorder, and a couple with
large format duping set-ups. Cost is another consideration, though it might be
worth it for portfolio items. If I get more into the Polaroid 665 P/N film, a
large format dupe would be the only option.

This also gives me an idea that I might be able to use my Polaroid printer to
dupe some B/W. One issue with that would be the need to cut the negative to fit
into a slide mount, since that is all that fits into the Polaroid printer. If I
cut a negative that small, it might be tough to print it later, or use it in an
enlarger.

Its
worth a try, especially if you are good at both making b&w prints (in your own
darkroom or a rental darkroom when you have a batch of them to print) and
copywork (when you have a batch of different prints to copy) :-). Also makes
multiple copy slides of each image very cheap if you do it yourself. Just a
suggestion...

Yeah, I might just wait until I get a batch together, and rent a darkroom. If I
can gather up enough to do, it would actually be the lowest cost method. Besides,
I think I need to keep up my B/W printing skills.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
http://www.agstudiopro.com Coming Soon!

BIG SNIPS

This also gives me an idea that I might be able to use my Polaroid printer
to
dupe some B/W. One issue with that would be the need to cut the negative
to fit
into a slide mount, since that is all that fits into the Polaroid printer.
If I
cut a negative that small, it might be tough to print it later, or use it
in an
enlarger.

I would (hopefully) never cut the negative down to one frame for the reasons
you mentioned plus extra risk of damage from handling/dropping/etc. If you
must, shoot dr5, Scala as you would not need to do dodging and burning
(actually I don't think you can on the Polaroid printer) or make finished
prints and do copy or scans and film recorder outputs from that so you don't
have to touch your original negative much less cut it up and slide mount it.
Minimize handling/damage whenever possible. Don't be penny wise and Polaroid
foolish ;-) :-).

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Lewis Lang wrote:

Subject: Finest grained 35mm film?
From: ThomasH
Date: Mon, Jun 7, 2004 8:41 PM
Message-id:

Chris Brown wrote:

In article ,
Lung Fish wrote:

In your opinions, what are the finest grain and sharpest emulsions (B&W,
color negative, and transparency) available today, and how large would
you go in prints off of a 35mm frame?

AIUI, Fujichrome Velvia 50 is the finest/sharpest (colour) film currently
available, with Velvia 100F coming a close second.


?? No it is not, for long time no more actually. Provia 100F
was the sharpest, but now the new Velvia 100F and the Astia 100F
are even finer. Please see the web page of Fujifilm.

Bill Tuthil maintains a well regarded table of films and their
characteristics:

http://creekin.net/films.htm

You can see all these values in a condensed form.

Thomas


No, that's not the case, regardless of tables/data. The new Fuji films are
_finer grained_, _not sharper_ than Velvia 50. There is a website with test

Indeed, I stand corrected, I confused here these both
characteristics. Bills table shows by the way Velvia 50
sharper than the other films, except foe the new Velvia 100F.

Thomas

comparisons that makes this very obvious with detailed image comparisons. Wish
I could find the URL...

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Tony Spadaro wrote:
: Tech Pan is the smallest grain B&W film I've ever used but it can be a bitch
: to process. Next I would put T-Max 100. But I never use any B&W film except
: Kodak.

I've found that Delta100 is a very close second to Tmax100. It has tight grain and
tonality.
: --
: http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
: home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
: The Improved Links Pages are at
: http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
: A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
: http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
: "Lung Fish" wrote in message
: ...
: I have a couple of rolls of Kodachrome 25 stashed away for a special trip
: in the future, but I am looking for something to really show off the
: quality of film enlargements without going to a larger format. There is
: some Provia and Pan-F Plus in the fridge as well, but I have not really
: changed the film that I use in years (I still have 100ft rolls of Tri-X).
:
: I figure that I can interchange digital for some things, but I would like
: some very sharp and fine-grained film to load up with this summer.
:
: In your opinions, what are the finest grain and sharpest emulsions (B&W,
: color negative, and transparency) available today, and how large would you
: go in prints off of a 35mm frame?



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------