BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


Photography QnA: Camera Film

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: Best Photographic Equipment to Buy : Film-Based Camera Equipment : Camera Film

Wondering how to use a camera film advance? Ask your film camera questions like this and more in this Q&A.

Page 1 : 1 -10 of 39 questions

  skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | ...4
Next 10  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Steve Warren
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/1/2004
  1 .  Film-Based Black and White: TMax vs. Tri-X
Hi,
I know there are some of you guys and gals who have not left me all alone in my love for B&W film-based photography. Can any one tell me the main difference between TMax 400 and Tri-X 400? Thanks!

10/15/2005 1:18:31 PM

Andrew Laverghetta
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/13/2004
  I'm not sure but I think TMax has finer grain? Now, I know this quote will be about different film speeds but here's what Kodak's Web site says about TMax 100 and Tri-X 400:
"Proprietary T-Grain Emulsion in Kodak Professional T-MAX 100 Film lets you see every detail with razor sharpness and nearly invisible grain. For more speed with remarkably fine grain and high sharpness, choose T-MAX 400 Film or ultra-fast T-MAX P3200 Film."
"For half a century, black-and-white artists have chosen Kodak Professional TRI-X Film with confidence, knowing its pushability provides an extra stop when you need it. In challenging lighting situations, the film’s wide exposure latitude is very forgiving. And its distinctive grain structure adds realism, while an edge of contrast brings drama to your images."
(http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/blackWhiteIndex.jhtml)
I use TMax 100 and really like it because of the grain. Other people in my photo class use TMax 400 and I can definitely tell a difference even though we're only printing 8x10 at the moment. Doesn't 400 have wider exposure latitude as well?

Hope this helps!

10/16/2005 10:49:24 AM

Michael H. Cothran

member since: 10/21/2004
  Steve,
Kodak can provide you with some technical specs about each film. And you should read as much as you can.
As you probably know, T-Max is a modern film with very fine grain, especially for 400 speed. Properly exposed and developed, it can provide very sharp, fine grained images. In most ways, it out-performs Tri-X hands down.
However, Tri-X is mystical! There are many photographers (mostly with gray hair now) who swear by it (including me). It is grainy, for sure, but what a beautiful grain it is. It has a personality and charm that no other film has, nor will ever have. I soup it in HC-100, dilution B. D-76 is also a great developer for it. 35mm Tri-X will be very grainy, and resemble many of the older street shooter's images. Medium format and especially large format (4x5 & 8x10) produce a sweetness that you cannot get from T-Max, in my opinion.
Don't expect its personality to show too much with "drugstore" developing - you need to do it yourself. Also, FYI - Tri-X (ISO 400) and Professional Tri-X (ISO 320) are really two different films. The pro version has never been as popular and accepted as the "amateur" 400 version. If you want to experiment with the Tri-X mystic, stick with the 400 version.
Michael H. Cothran
www.mhcphoto.net

10/16/2005 7:42:38 PM

Steve Warren
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/1/2004
  Hi Andrew and Michael,
Thanks for the responses. This is exactly what I was looking for. I know so many photographers who swear by TMax, and I like the 3200 version myself, but I do like to go for the older feel, so I'll give TMax a shot and post the results.

10/17/2005 5:37:42 AM


BetterPhoto Member
  Also, Tri-X is a Professional film, requiring different handling and storage and is better bought when it will be used immediately and then returned immediately because it can degrade over time and when exposed to humidity and heat variations. After exposure it needs to be refrigerated in a plastic bag to reduce the effect of condensation on the film but to keep the film better until you can return it to your developer. T-Max is a little more versatile. It has better purchase to develop longevity. T-Max also has a little more latitude for exposure. It can capture detail through a greater range of exposure zones than can Tri-X. Maybe only by a stop. As a rule of thumb, B&W film has a greater range for exposure detail than other films so the differences between B&W film are negligible unless you have a particular need to fill.


Walrath Photographic Imaging
http://home.comcast.net/~flash19901/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

10/17/2005 4:38:47 PM

Nancy 

member since: 3/6/2003
  I know you wished the difference between Kodak products but try the New Fugi Accros. It's ASA 100 and very great contrast. Great for landscapes. I found this film this summer while in Flagstaff.

10/18/2005 12:16:53 PM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  I recently tried the Acros and boy did I fall in love with. my favorite B&W film so far and i've been trying out a lot of kodaks and ilfords lately. so far the best!

10/18/2005 12:19:37 PM

Steve Warren
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/1/2004
  Thanks everyone,

I have love Fuji color stuff, but Acros is worth a shot, so I'll pick up a roll.

Anyone have any ideas as to what I should develop it in? I use TMax developer, but I'm guessing there may be a better choice?

10/18/2005 12:37:45 PM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  I use T-max at the recommended time and I shot it at 80 I believe. anyways developed t-max and have cropped 11x14 enlargements with virtually no grain, and high contrast.

10/18/2005 12:48:46 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Matthew Davis

member since: 6/18/2005
  2 .  Film Developing: C41 Vs. E6 Process
Can someone please save me by telling me what the difference is between c41 process and E6 when developing films at a lab? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

7/9/2005 8:43:02 AM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  Film for color prints is made for C-41 processing. It results in negatives for printing. It's also used for chromogenic black & white films.
E-6 is the most common process for color reversal (i.e., slide) films. The most common are Fujichrome and Ektachrome.
Slide film can be "cross-processed" in C-41 (and vice versa), which results in unpredictable and "arty" color and contrast shifts. But this is not generally recommended (I think some labs may refuse, as it may contaminate the chemicals for normal processing).

7/9/2005 9:12:14 AM

Matthew Davis

member since: 6/18/2005
  Thanx a lot john, your a lifesaver.

7/9/2005 3:43:30 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Norman Fortin

member since: 1/1/2004
  3 .  Large Format Photography
Hello all,
I am interested in large format photography - 4X5 - and have learned quite a bit from several books. I have taken a course on photography, but it just touches on large format. The only thing that I have not been able to find out is what to do with the sheet film after it has been exposed.
I know that you must remove the film from the film holder, but after that, what do you do with it? What do you put it in? In what do you ship it to the processor in?
The film that I have came in a three-piece box and a sealed heavy-duty packet.
Any help will be gratefully appreciated. Thank you.

1/1/2005 9:08:39 AM

Vince Broesch

member since: 6/5/2004
  It goes to the lab in one of those 3-piece boxes. You might have to ask the lab to return your used boxes, and ask if they have a few that they can give you. Of course, you have to keep track of which box you have new film in and which box has exposed film. (You don't need the packet, but put a rubber band on the box to be sure it stays closed tight)
Vince
www.PhotoAgo.com

1/1/2005 3:02:47 PM

Norman Fortin

member since: 1/1/2004
  Thanks for the response, Vince. I thought that is what you are suppose to do, but was not sure. And thanks for the tip about asking for the box to be returned. I would never have thought of that.

1/1/2005 8:01:32 PM

  Norman,
Vince is correct with the process on downloading your film holders into the boxes the film came in. Collect as many boxes as you can. I have some other thoughts you may be interested in. I shot 4x5 with film holders for close to 20 years before they invented Readyloads, and I have never looked back. I own 60 film holders and a changing bag that went on a lot of jobs. I learned to hate cleaning and loading holders. The problem was keeping the holders and the changing bag clean and free of dust, which shows on film. When you are on the road it makes the job even more difficult. The reason why I accumulated so many holders was to lessen the times I had to download and reload film. I also learned the hard way that when I was traveling - possibly weeks at a time, and had to load/reload every day - I ended up with more damaged film. The reason, as I mentioned, was that it became more difficult to keep film and changing bag dust free. I used anti-static brushes, canned air, and other tools. That dust got on the film and then downloaded into the boxes, where it vibrated between sheets of film and caused scratches to the film. So the more holders I had, the less load/reloading, the less vibration time, the less scratches on film. But then came Readyloads. Ahhh!

1/2/2005 1:00:23 PM

Michael H. Cothran

member since: 10/21/2004
  I use a local lab for 4x5 processing, and they keep a large supply of these
3-piece boxes on hand, as well as a black room for their customers. I go to the lab, enter the black room, and unload my film holders into the boxes they provide. As an added benefit, I can also reload fresh film back into my holders while I'm in the blackroom, so I don't have to mess with a changing bag. This lab is Chromatics, and located in Nashville, TN. Perhaps there's a similar lab where you reside.
Good luck,
Michael H.Cothran

1/5/2005 7:22:49 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Christy Penders

member since: 10/22/2003
  4 .  Slides for Publication
I have taken photos on Kodak 400 film. I want to submit them to a travel magazine that asks for slides or transparencies. I took the negatives to a professional lab to have them made into slides. They want to charge me $5 per slide. Am I doing this the right way? And is that price standard? Any suggestions welcome, as I plan to submit other photos to other magazines and stock photo places and they to ask for slides. Thank you!

11/10/2004 11:49:40 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  That's about right for the price. Maybe you'll find $4.50 somewhere else.
Did that travel magazine tell you slides after you told them that you originally took negatives? Or are you going by what they say they want and you're trying to accommodate? Because if it's the latter, they meant taking the picures with slide film.

11/10/2004 7:22:46 PM

Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member
cammphoto.com

member since: 7/17/2003
  Greg's right. Magazine editors are real fussy about image quality, and a second-generation slide from a 400-speed negative won't have the sharpness, contrast, color, etc., to meet their specs. Most of the photos published in magazines were shot on fine-grain slide films (50-100 ASA/ISO).

11/11/2004 6:51:50 PM

Jacques G-L

member since: 11/9/2004
  Yes,
1- normally a magazine ask for slides.
2- the use of your 400 asa pic depend on the % enlargement they need, for small, maybe they will take.
3- photoshop could make miracle after scanning those pics, but not for a cover page.
4- you ca also pic egain those pics to slides if you have the installation.
5- But, yes for the guys up here, alway use maximum 100 slides for magazine.
6- In the fact, i'm just near using slides W Bronica6X6, every where, because the price and caracteristics; for myself when I need a pic from a slide, I get one enlargement (huge) from a good lab (i canT remember the color of my walls). The only negative I take are 35mm nikkormat, or when I make B/W.
Anyway, how many pic that magazine will take from you (1, 2, 3?), so who's talking about 5 or 10$, compare to the GLORY!!!
ciao

11/16/2004 11:45:02 AM

Christy Penders

member since: 10/22/2003
  Thank you all for your help. Do you recommend taking all my photos using slide film since much of it is travel photography that I would like to ultimately sell? If so, what would you recommend and is it more expensive buying, developing, etc? Thanks again for the help!

11/16/2004 11:57:49 AM

Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member
cammphoto.com

member since: 7/17/2003
  I would highly recommend shooting slides over print film if your ultimate goal is possible publication.
It's easy to get a print from a slide if you want,... but getting a transparency from a print or negative is tough to do, and it will not be of the same quality as the original.

Fuji Provia 100F or Fuji Velvia (50) are both excellent outdoor slide films, and will work well for your travel photos.
For indoor, incandescent lighting,...try the "tungsten-balanced" slide films from either Fuji or Kodak. Both are great for indoor portraits and studio work.

11/16/2004 2:21:17 PM

Christy Penders

member since: 10/22/2003
  Thank you! Thank you!

11/16/2004 2:40:05 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Slides or RAW digital, even low compression jpeg. Magazines care about getting the picture. If the situation calls for higher iso, they'll take it. As long as it's a good picture.

11/16/2004 4:49:15 PM

Jacques G-L

member since: 11/9/2004
  Bob's is totally right! But it is a question of habit and experience in a specific film use. Of corse you will not use a bycicle to contest with a ferrari. You will take a short cut opportunity at a time! Welcome that ferrari for a cross country, got more chance. Anyway, the well known of a film is the best way. Filters cc or sophisticated one is another good way to polyvalent use. For myself I've used a lot of Kodak (not the gold one)portraiture neg Kodak NC 160 ex. for grain, Skin tones, are just beautiful.
Yes slides are less expensive (but not quite sure for 35mm camera). As a 6X6 user I like the kodak E 100 SW slides. Persommaly I would think twice before taking all a trip with slides. When become the moment to show all that to (your wife or husband)-:))others, it is not very practical for every body. But As a 6X6 user several backs make that job.
The best is the knoledge of your slides film, Velvia Provia or ektachrome . For fashion and nature ;KODACHROME 64 Professional Film (PKR). But it still a mess for me when I have to choose for my nikkormat 35mm.
dont forget the WIDE use of the Tiffen 812 (3X3 inch in a bellow),that is another chapter. Human wear garment as camera should wear a good usefull hood.
Ps. sure every body appologise my english (I'm from Quebec)Hiah a separatist:-)))
ciao

11/16/2004 7:16:59 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
REGINA D. YOUNG

member since: 9/13/2004
  5 .  Confused About Best Film Per Situation
I've been reading so many suggestions about the best film to use for various situations that I think I've confused myself. Just to verify, would someone tell me the best film to use for the following?
1) Shooting studio portraits w/flood lights. I've used Kodak Portra 160NC, but now I'm not sure if I need something that is tungsten balanced.
2) Outdoor pics (family portraits, weddings).

By the way, I use a Pentax (I have an old MESUPER, ME and a new ZXL). I have various lenses and a VIVITAR 385 External Flash on a bracket.
Thank you!

9/22/2004 2:03:35 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Kodak Porta and Fuji's nph thru npz are made for portrait. They include weddings in there too.
Kodak has a film made for portraits: tungsten film Porta 100. Fuji has Reala that they say is good for portraits and is good for flouro lighting.

9/22/2004 4:40:48 PM

REGINA D. YOUNG

member since: 9/13/2004
  Gregory,

Thank you for responding! So, would you recommend the Kodak Portra T100 (I assume the name is something like that) for flood lighting? And then stick w/the Portra 160NC for outdoor and weddings?
Thanks, so much!

9/23/2004 5:08:08 AM


BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  Hi Regina,
I would recommend trying them and seeing what you like. No one here can tell you what to use, only what they use. And what others use should not have any influence on what you wind up using.
Also, remember to ask your lab if they have a recommendation for optimum results. It's not just your camera, but processing and printing, which I assume you leave to them, is a big part of the process.

9/23/2004 11:54:04 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  That's right, because I've never used Porta. So make your own choice after a roll. All I can tell you is I like Fuji over Kodak.

9/23/2004 2:25:01 PM

Michael McCullough

member since: 6/11/2002
  I really love Fuji NPC 160 for indoor and outdoor portraits and fashon work really great film and do highly recommend it for your needs ,try it I think you'll like it much!!!!!!

9/28/2004 9:58:35 AM

Norbert Maile

member since: 7/28/2004
  Not sure what type of bulbs you are using. There are "daylight" bulbs available and do not cost too much. The only thing is, they have a short life. A 500w bulb has a working life of about 6 hours, so you use them only when needed, and record the time so you know when they are not effective any more.They cost less that $10 here anyway. The plus is, you can use any film that you like. I usually expose a 400 film at 360. The tone is quite nice. No filters, special film needed, and you can use the same film outside or in, since both are daylight!

9/28/2004 10:10:45 AM

REGINA D. YOUNG

member since: 9/13/2004
  Thanks, everyone, for the great replies. Norbert, I'd like to follow up /you....Where can I get the 500w 'daylight' bulbs? This definitely sounds like something worth checking in to...What brand/type of film are you using as per your reply?

9/28/2004 2:08:59 PM

Norbert Maile

member since: 7/28/2004
  I'm up here in the great white north. Not sure where you are. I can buy daylight bulbs in most any good sized camera shop that sells lighting equipment. I too was struggling with the problem of film and lighting. I was told that Fuji pro film would work with flourecent lighting especialy if printed at a lab using digital printing. They said just expose it right and they will fix it. Then I asked about studio lighting for portrait work and they showed me the daylight light bulbs. Too easy!!! Now I can use any color film that I like! They said that anything over 500w would need a ceramic socket though. Cheaper plastic sockets could handle 500w and less in your lighting shade. The lower wattage bulbs have less working life span so watch out. You need to set up your lighting and turn it on when needed and off again shortly after.They are a bluish color when not on. The bulbs will still work after that time but will not be daylight quality anymore. I guess the coating breaks down after time from heat.

9/28/2004 4:45:39 PM

REGINA D. YOUNG

member since: 9/13/2004
  Thanks so much for the help! One more question....Do you use a dimmer on your lights? I'm considering buying one, but I'm on a tight budget (just starting out) and wonder if it is worth the money?? Thanks!

9/29/2004 5:06:05 AM

Norbert Maile

member since: 7/28/2004
  I am on a tight budget too so improvise is the key word.I don't use a dimmer. I use different wattage bulbs in each of the three lights. The main light being 500 watts, fill 350 and side 350 then just move them closer or farther for effect. The lights can get hot so you may want to have a little fan around to make your subject more comfortable. Use a reflector in front also for fill light under the face. That can be almost any white board or plastic.The library has good books and you can put together alot of ideas to make what suits you your own. A dimmer could be used and made for you by a friend with only a little electrical knowledge for about $20. Not a bad idea! I will have to think about that.

9/29/2004 6:33:10 AM

REGINA D. YOUNG

member since: 9/13/2004
  Norbert -

It sounds like you have alot of good ideas and definitely more experience than I.....Would you consider giving me your email address - I would love to 'pick your brain' from time to time?

9/29/2004 8:10:25 AM

Ken Henry

member since: 9/16/2003
  Go to smithvictor.com They have it all, dimmers for high wattage lights, light bulbs, light systems. I burned up a couple of dimmers from the local hrdwr store.

Since you can correct daylight negative film, I do not use the 6 hour life blue bulbs. I use the 3200k 500w @ 60 hours life and the 250w @20 hours. And they put out more light. The blue bulbs are 4800k.
I also use blue metalized reflective umbrellas from fjwestcott.com which correct 3200k to 5500k daylight, very accurate, soft lighting and cooler. And there is no lose of light.
I may also drape or hang from the ceiling a 4ft x 6ft white cloth in front of the umbrellas for softer light. I don't use sheets, they block out too much light.
Or just use white or silver umbrellas and the lab will color correct for you.
Yup, you still need a fan or two.

9/29/2004 3:25:16 PM

Norbert Maile

member since: 7/28/2004
  Sure. It's: mailefamily@primus.ca

9/29/2004 5:19:51 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Siobhan 

member since: 9/15/2004
  6 .  Cameras and Magnets
Not sure if this is the right area to ask but I just realized today that I had put my magnetic name badge into a bag with 5 rolls of used films. Are they just destroyed? Is there anything you can do to minimize the effect? How bad are magnets for films? Thanks.

9/15/2004 6:35:02 AM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  No effect. Film is unaffected by magnetic fields.

9/15/2004 6:42:42 AM

Terry M. Gunderson
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2004
  Yep, no effect with magnets, just don't take them through an X-ray machine at a local airport. Ask for hand inspection of them.

9/29/2004 12:16:11 AM

Siobhan 

member since: 9/15/2004
  excellent! thanks for the good news!!!

:-)

9/29/2004 2:48:12 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Jim Zimmerman

member since: 2/28/2004
  7 .  Wedding Photography with Kodak Portra
I've noted some recommending exposing their wedding shots at 1 full stop overexposed to "insure there is no underexposure". Thinking specifically of the Kodak Portra 160NC film, what is the general view on this? Do any who are doing so find the photolabs have problems with this? And most important - are the results truly superior? Any thoughts about the 160 vs the 400 if you know the couple will not want any prints larger than 8x10? Thanks everybody!

Regads

2/28/2004 6:56:20 AM

Terry L. Long

member since: 2/12/2004
  I shoot slide film therefore, I can't speak from experience in shooting print film such as your Portra 160NC. However., your meter doesn't care if you're shooting slide or print film, it's still going to read the same. So for white objects, such as the brides wedding dress, you'll need to overexpose to keep it white instead of neutral grey (I'm not sure of the characteristics of Portra 160 but I usually overexpose by 1/2 to 1/3 stops with my Provia 100F). Don't change your ISO to overexpose, just use the f/stop or shutter speed to overexpose. That way your lab won't have any problems. I recommend going with the 160 because the 400 is just too grainy, even at 8x10.

2/29/2004 6:25:31 AM

Andy J. Lastra

member since: 3/1/2004
  Jim,
While I agree with most of what Terry has written, I do respectfully disagree with the notion that 400 speed film is too grainy. If you haven't already, try Fuji NPH400 film rated at 320 and process it normally at a good lab. do the same with Fuji NPZ 800 but rate it at 640. you'll get terrific color saturation and contrast and enlargements to 8x10 will be fabulous, particularly for the photojournalist type shots during the reception, etc.

I have no experience with Kodak's Portra 160 because I prefer Fuji NPS 160, which I rate at 160 and process it as such. Certainly, you can play with the exposure settings on your camera and bracket your shots but the reality of this is that if you're taking candids photojournalistically, the shot may only be there for a few seconds and then its gone so speed counts and you may not have time for bracketing. Formal portaits, however, allow you the time to over and under expose a third to a half either way and practically speaking, thats what I do with formal portraits. I've had no problems at all with my local lab printing at the speeds indicated.

3/1/2004 12:04:15 PM

Gene 

member since: 2/17/2002
  Jim:
Hopefully I can shed some real light on your question. I not only have been shooting with Portra 160 & 400 film for a few years now, we also operate a professional color lab and I can truthfully say Kodak really did there homework when they came out with Portra film. It is a TRUE 160 ISO, there is no need to adjust ISO settings, it only makes it harder for Your lab to produce a quality print for you. We have seen amazing color results even when Negs have been 2-3 stops underexposed. The same for Portra 400 (also no grain problem).... Your Shooting weddings, so you want to produce the most pleasing skintones possible, no other Film Mfg. comes close. The Dmax (Blacks) have more shadow detail than any of the Fuji films and even the whites are Exceptionally clean.
We have noticed the the Fuji films have a hard time producing clean whites they all want to show a Magenta cast in the Brides Gown when the skintons are correct. This is VERY IMPORTANT: We all want to save money. BUT STAY AWAY from the Grey Market Kodak Films..Pay the extra few cents a roll and purchase from a reliable source, that way you know the film is fresh and has been stored properly. And in closing be sure your lab is processing the film properly and you'll be rewarded with fine prints to show to your Clients.......Gene

3/3/2004 6:25:53 PM

william 

member since: 9/9/2003
  Jim, I use Kodak Portra 400 UC for almost everything outdoors. It has outstanding latitude. The range that it is able to capture detail is phenominal. Skin tones are very accurate and the whites are very white. I intentionally photographed a great white heron standing in front of a large dark green tropical plant in bright sunlight just for a test. There was detail in both the white heron's feathers and the leaves of the plant. I have had 8x10 enlargements done at the local mini lab using a Noritsu processer. There has been no noticeable graininess or color shift. All my prints are printed "normal" at my request, so there is no adjustment of color balance or density. That way I can determine if I have made exposure mistakes. The Portra 400 UC is a fine print film and will allow you a faster shutter speed and use of filters if you wish. It is advertised as having the same grain rating as the 160 that you are using. Try it! Best Regards, Bill

3/3/2004 7:13:58 PM

Jim Zimmerman

member since: 2/28/2004
  I really appreciate the responses and the good information.

I'd read some good reports on Portra's ability to handle underexposure, so the recommendation I read in a book (to overexpose by a stop) really had me wondering about it. In fact, I was wondering if overexposing wouldn't have negated some of the advantages built into Portra. From what you folks have told me I'll stick to its rated speed (in cameras that I know produce good results at speeds near the film rating). I'll test beforehand (though its hard to replicate the circumstancs of a wedding and reception), make sure I meter and compensate to insure a good white gown, and of course go with quality processing. And I never do gray market film, so that's not an issue. I'm still undecided on the 160 vice 400, so it sounds like I'll also be testing and comparing the two. I've always preferred very fine grain and suspect my personal taste will run toward the 160, though. I'd like to try the Fuji (for my general shooting I often use Fuji products), but the lab I'll be using for this event uses Kodak paper and I am a believer in matching the film to the paper. So for this event that's the way I'll go, and test the Fuji another day.

Again, thank you all, you help and advice is greatly appreciated by this guy just starting down the professional path (after years of shooting portaits and weddings as a favor to friends and generally losing my shirt on the deal).

Regards,

JimZ

3/3/2004 7:18:42 PM

Greg McCroskery
BetterPhoto Member
imagismphotos.com

member since: 2/27/2003
  Jim,
I agree with Andy, I've been shooting weddings for 13Yrs -- generally using medium format. I have used both the Kodak Portra and Fuji Professional films. After comparing negs from several weddings shot Portra 400 and Fuji NPH 400, settled on sticking with the Fuji because of the exposure latitude. Using the same exposure settings the NPH captured more highlight detail in wedding gowns, and more details in dark areas such as tuxedos. (I know Kodak would want to argue with me, but that's my real life experience.) There's no reason not to use ISO 400 or even 800 for images up to 16X20 shooting 35mm -- the grain technology is just too good. As far as over or under rating your film check with your professional lab doing the printing. My lab, Pounds Inc., says to rate my Fuji at the stated ISO -- they should know, and I'm am totally happy with the prints they do. Remember that as soon as you start over exposing film you increase the grain effect.
God Bless,
Greg

3/3/2004 9:18:30 PM

Roy A. Meeks
Contact Roy
Roy's Gallery

member since: 10/21/2003
  Jim, I shoot 40 to 50 weddings a year here in the Mississippi Delta using nothing but Porta 400NC inside and outside. I have gotten outstanding results using 400NC. Have tried all of the Portras, even the 160, but still go back to 400NC. Prints as large as 30x40 look great and not grainy. I just find that the portra films do everything I need to do shot at the recommended settings with no adjustments in ISO

3/4/2004 2:45:38 PM

Jim Zimmerman

member since: 2/28/2004
  William, Greg, and Roy -

I'm astounded at the capabilities of both the Kodak and Fuji that you are describing (being primarily a black & white guy, I never much followed the happenings in color negative films). Huge enlargements from not only the 160 (which I'd expect), but the 400 (or even the 800 Fuji) too? It sure sounds like these recent films were a huge step forward ... sadly, probably just in time to be eclipsed by digital. But now I'm anxious to try them!

Again, I can't thank everyone enough for weighing in on the subject - your info has me actually getting excited about the testing I'll be doing!

Jim

3/4/2004 3:34:11 PM

Andy J. Lastra

member since: 3/1/2004
  Jim,

WHOA on the comment about the films being "eclipsed" by digital. Don't buy into the marketing hype by manfacturers of camera equipment trying to get you to switch to digital. Certainly it has its place...its a TOOL just like using different formats is. Fuji for one is hard at it developing new products and rumor has it they're listening to folks who have thought out loud about developing an ISO400 Velvia....would be pretty cool. Prime example of why not to get so caught up in the marketing blitze: about seven or eight years ago, Olympus came out with the Stylus Epic point and shoot for about $180.00. when it came out, equipment gurus thought it was the next best thing since sliced bread....a point and shoot with a 35mm lens with a constant 2.8 and a spot meter? No way. Olympus knew what they had and still do. you can find the little camera STILL for about $80.00...in a kit it sells for just under $100.00.

Load this little sucker with 800 speed film and it'll blow your doors off. I know some PJ folks who carry it everywhere because of the outstanding lens and image quality even in low light. Pound for pound, its the best film camera in the world.........no digital, no hype, just film and superb image quality.....and its not going away any time soon. See, its sort of like what jewelry dealers have done to us......we've been SOLD on the idea that an engagement ring has to be a diamond...brilliant marketing......but years ago, couples simply chose what they liked....sapphires being very popular, but like sheep, we kept following this marketing trail. IMHO Kodak is making an enormous mistake by converting much of its focus to digital.......For me, it doesn't matter much because I only shoot one Kodak film as it is.....Portra 400 Black and White.............otherwise I shoot black and white slide film from Agfa, black and white negative film from Ilford (XP2), and color neg film from Fuji. Now I realize that there are many, many people who will take issue with what I just wrote and thats terrific because thats the kind of dicourse we want to encourage. Just keep in mind that some of the most accomplished shooters in the world shoot both film and digital and to a person, they have no intention of switching completely to digital.........personally,I, like many out there, would rather spend the time shooting than sitting in front of the computer downloading and fixing images and scanning, etc, etc, etc......it takes a heck of a lot of time in front of a computer. In the three days it takes for me to get my slides and prints back from the lab, I've been out shooting more stuff and talking to my son and doing some woodworking and enjoying the company of my fiance. go get an Olypmpus Stylus Epic for $79, load it with 800 speed film and shoot the roll and then see if you can get that kind of resolution and color saturation with a digital camera........you won't. See ya.

3/5/2004 5:26:07 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Aaron Vogel

member since: 4/24/2003
  8 .  Kodak vs Fuji
I have heard people talk about the differences between Fujifilm and Kodaks film. In anyones opinion, is one better than the other (especially in regards to 100 speed slide film)? I know it varies, but are there any clear , overreaching pros and cons between Ektachrome and Velvia?

2/22/2004 10:04:26 PM

Steven  Stovall

member since: 1/29/2004
  Kodak is generally a warmer film than fuji. So for sunsets, fall leaves, and other simular situations where you want to enhance the warm tones, I would suggest kodak. However for everything else, Fuji is the best all around film. I especially like the new velvia 100f for slides and the reala for prints. Both are exelent 100 ISO films.

2/22/2004 11:07:17 PM

Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member
cammphoto.com

member since: 7/17/2003
  Fuji Provia 100F is my slide film of choice. Its true-to-life colors, fine grain, and overall sharpeness are tough to beat. Velvia is good for fall foliage, or any time you want richer, exaggerated colors.

I used to shoot Kodachrome 64, but it is getting harder to find as time goes by. (Plus, the special processing requirements for KR films have always been a hassle.)
I've never cared much for Ektachrome, except for 160T which I've used for indoor, studio work and copying. I haven't tried Fuji's tungsten-balanced films yet, but I plan to.

2/23/2004 5:35:35 AM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  Kodak's ISO 100 Ektachomes are just as fine grained as those from Fuji. Color balance is a very subjective thing and what is best for one person is not for another.

Kodak is not generally "warmer" than Fuji. Some films are (like print film Gold 100 v. Superia 100) but others aren't. Ektachrome comes in many "flavors": E100G (neutral color balance), E100GX (warmer balance), and E100VS (vivid saturation). Similarly, Fujifilm comes in Provia, Astia, and Velvia flavors.

Try each and determine which you like best for a given situation.

2/23/2004 9:02:24 AM

Robert Bridges

member since: 5/12/2003
  One more thing to chew on: My experience has been that the fuji is also cheaper by a significant amount then the comparable kodak films. Why this is I have no idea, and it may just be a regional thing. I still like the old velvia, I like the astiaF and I agree the new velvia is a very good but also contrasty film which many around here feel is better rated at 125-160 ASA depending on what you shoot.

The fuji tungsten film is EXCELLENT!
Don't over look agfa films - sometimes hard to find but have a nice color pallete
too.

2/24/2004 8:52:32 AM

Denise N

member since: 4/15/2003
  Kodak is far a more superior film. I use nothing but Kodak because I always know my film will come out crystal clear and true to colors. Fuji is cheaper - but you get what you pay for.

2/24/2004 8:55:53 AM

  I remember it this way:
Kodak comes in yellow packaging because it comes out yellower.
Fuji comes in green because it really brings out the greens.
Unless it's fall, I wouldn't touch Kodak. More expensive does not mean better quality! The industry is not that honest.
You'll see the difference in their digital cameras as well. Kodak digitals are not very highly recommended because of their coloring.

2/24/2004 10:25:34 AM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  A fine mnemonic if it works for you, but not for me. Kodak boxes were primarily yellow for 50 years before they created a color film and has nothing to do with denoting a warmer color balance. The lab making your prints has far more influence on the color balance than the brand of film.

2/24/2004 11:12:13 AM

Robert Brosnan
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/17/2003
  I was strictly a Kodak man for years. (25+) I have now switched to Fuji and I am more then pleased. It's color are as good as Kodak or even better. I just shot an entire wedding with Fuji NPH400 and I only had 1 bad print. (probably a flash problem) The price is always better then Kodak, no matter where you go. Even the professional films. I am now using Fuji ink jet photo paper, it's also cheaper then Kodak's, and far superior. For quick shoots I buy rolls of 12 exp at Ritz Camera. Usually around $1.00 to $1.89. Find a Kodak 12 exp for that. I can't.

2/24/2004 2:52:54 PM

Robert Bridges

member since: 5/12/2003
  In response to the concerns of price, lab, and cost of fuji vs kodak I offer this tidbit.
There is a place called the Slideprinter in my town (Denver) it advertizes nationally and some of you may have used their services. They are good folk. Anyway I was talking to the owner one day about films and she told me that the fuji rep stops in weekly, always gives free film to who ever is there, that fuji gave them an ice box to store film and made no demands about it being only for fuji. That the kodak rep who lives near by seldom if ever comes to visit.....Am not sure what exactly but I think this anecdote says something important about the two companies and why fuji is doing fine and kodak is not.

2/24/2004 3:10:50 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  It's the Hatfields vs. the McCoys

2/24/2004 3:29:52 PM

Ken Henry

member since: 9/16/2003
  I have two viewpoints. Artistically I'll use the appropiate film and filters, and normal to extreme exposures to portray what "I" see. They are Reala, 800NPZ, Agfa Otima 100 and 400, Ultra, Agfa Portrait, Kodak high definition, Fuji NPC & 1600.

For my architectural work for income I use Fuji Reala. Why? Sharp, I love Velvia and Provia, but nobody can print chromes as sharp as Reala. I do not know of any other print film (I have tested them all) which can produce accurate rich colors for both interior and exterior. Requires very little correction if any. And finally, it doesn't get blown out by high contrast bright sunlight scenes. So I'm getting details from both sunlight and shadow areas.

All the above is my opion. Ken Henry

2/26/2004 8:46:31 PM

Robert Bridges

member since: 5/12/2003
  Here's a variation on the above - a question and a problem to be solved. I will be shooting a trade show down the road. I have shot there before and the lighting basically sucks. It is a mix of sodium vapor, daylight balanced florescent, and photo flood lights ....these three are the overheads - then various displays will use tungstens/and god knows what else. In the past I have used the Fuji Press and its ok but it tends to be too red. Flash is out of the question both from a logistical and an expense persepective. Am wondering (Ken) if Reala would be a decent choice?
I have never used that film so I have no clue. I can and no doubt will have to do some back end color corrections.......any suggestions?

Rob

2/26/2004 9:42:46 PM

  I don't like Kodak. I usually go for AGFA as the coloring is better and the shorts clearer, as least with my camera.

When I last used an Kodak 200 film the prints had a golden shine. It was nice on some prints but above all it didn't really fit.

If you can't get your hands on AGFA, FUJI is quite an adequate alternative.

2/27/2004 10:35:52 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Clearer shorts? Is that see-thru underwear, or you just need a new laundry detergent?

2/27/2004 2:19:49 PM

Ken Henry

member since: 9/16/2003
  Hello Rob,

Reala would be my only choice to use in extremely mixed lighting. Fuji Press/Fuji Superia, (the same) do have a magenta cast . I do not quite understand why you would not use flash, as this will help reduce some color casting. Logistics? Expense perspective?...I use 433D dedicated Sunpak Flashes...$79.95 from bhphotovideo.com.
I have shot trade shows and here is what I do. I use a light weight tripod, flash bracket, Lumiquest pocket bouncer with the silver insert, this is good for wide angle.
My camera settings are manual to the average overall ambient exposure, not under the direct lighting. I use a light meter at the subject plus one exposure(shutter speed). Or you can use your palm of your hand plus one exposure. The flash is on auto/TTL, used only for fill in.
But wether you do or don't use flash you will need to make corrections from your first run of proofs.
Because of the accuratecy of Reala you will probably be making minor corrections at the proccessor. Should you need more understanding on how to make color and density corrections contact me at kenhenry@adelphia.net

2/29/2004 3:38:39 PM

Brenda Tharp
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 6/9/2003
  Aaron, You can see by the numerous answers how we all feel so individually about film! The key to remember on this is that, as human beings, we all respond to color differently. Some of us are even color blind to a certain degree in some areas. Think about it this way: if you were amongst 5 painters, each of you would choose a unique color palette based on your emotional feelings about color, and how you respond to color. With photography, it's the same. So to really decide what film you want to use, you have to experiment. Try some of the Kodak and Fuji films side by side if you can. Do a test. Get yourself two camera bodies, and load one with a Fuji 100 and the other with a Kodak 100 slide film. Shoot the same subject under identical lighting conditions, and compare the results. Do this for several situations: full sun, shade, overcast days, low light, etc. Then look at them on a daylight balanced (5500 degree Kelvin) light table, for true color evaluation. Note also the contrast that each film will have. Choose the film that speaks to you the most, that more 'accurately' represents either what you want to express or what you remember the scene to have been like.

There is more than one right answer! Good luck, Brenda

3/1/2004 10:39:53 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Cathy B. Sylvester
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/1/2002
  9 .  Film-Based - Infrared Film
I've been reading about various types of film. I've only used slide film and negative film. But, recently I saw some photographs made with infrared film. They appear to be black and white. I don't ever recall seeing this film for sale anywhere (for example, B&H) and certainly not at local camera shops. Can anyone explain what infrared is, a time when it would be better to use it, and where to get it. Also, any special equipment necessary to make it effective.
Thanks a million.

12/14/2003 10:42:41 AM

  HI Cathy:
B&H sells infrared film. With an 25 red or opaque filter, the film records light on the infrared spectrum. Just type in "infrared photography" in your search engine to see many illustrations of this film. Without one of the aforementioned filters, the images will look like regular black and white film.

12/14/2003 11:39:18 AM

Cathy B. Sylvester
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/1/2002
  Thanks Tony. I have a red filter and have used it with regular b/w film. It appears to give better contrast when used and film is developed. I always tell my lab that I've used it. I'll try B&H and try the film, compare it to what I've done and see what differences there could be.

12/14/2003 1:06:20 PM

Sreedevi  Kashi

member since: 6/10/2003
  B&W infrared film is hard to find, harder than color infrared. But like Tony said, B&H or any other professional photo store will have it. Infrared film senses infrared wave lengths which exist where there is the most heat, so basically it records heat. I would use 28 red, or an even deeper red filter. For B&W it produces amazing pictures. The pictures themselves will not look truly B&W as the film records the heat as red.

It is also incredibly, incredibly sensitive to light. If you have one of those cameras where you can see that little bit of film when you look on the back cover- you could ruin the film. You really have to load your camera in the dark, because even that will ruin the film.

You could also choose to rate it differently. Personally I find rating it at ISO 25 works wonders, as it allows you to record a lot of the movement of heat. Now, this won't necessarily be very dramatic, but you'll see different grades of red in your shots, where the heat is moving. It's interesting, and rather serene.

Make sure when you get the film developed, you take it to a professional photo lab, and tell them what ISO you shot it at. They develop it for the way you shot it.

Try experimenting with color infrared as well. It's especially outstanding in scenic shots on a clear, sunny day, or when the sun is rising and setting.

12/17/2003 6:14:53 AM

  Hey, cathy!
Infrared red film, used with a 25 red filter, records images with the hottest (temperature wise) parts of the images as the highlights and the coolest (again, think heat, not color temperature) appearsing as the lowlights. So for instance, if you go outside and shoot a grove of trees on a sunny day using regular film, the leaves will appear more or less medium in tone, depending on their actual color and your exposure, but on infrared, they'll look white. Also, infrared film has a very beautiful, organic, high-grained quality to it that is different from any other high grained b&w film. I my experience, you'll get the best results "in the field" with this film. Always bracket widely -- the results are often un predictable. Use tungsten lights if shooting in stduio -- strobes don't "heat up" the subject, nor does indoor natural light, so the results can be rather uninteresting. NOTE: This film is highly sensitive and must be loaded and unloaded in the dark.

12/20/2003 9:07:32 AM

Cathy B. Sylvester
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/1/2002
  Thanks to everyone for taking the time to give me advise. I definitely am going to try this film and techniques associated with it. B&H was out of it and I'm on a waiting list for it. My local "pro" film shops are SO expensive and I try to save $$ where I can. I appreciate your help, and will post my results; no matter how they are!

12/20/2003 9:15:09 AM

Sreedevi  Kashi

member since: 6/10/2003
  One thing I forgot to mention. Generally, when you focus, for infrared it's slightly different. If you have a manual focus camera, look at the focusing ring. You'll see a red line next to the center. This is for infrared. So when you focus on your subject, look at the distance and move that distance to the red line. It's sometimes good to use a higher DOF just as a precaution.

12/20/2003 3:57:39 PM

Cathy B. Sylvester
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/1/2002
  I have several cameras; all Canon SLR EOS brands. I often use the AF mode but usually use the manual mode. Thanks for telling me about the red line. I'll have to go look. I don't recall ever noticing it. I'm looking forward to trying this film as I'm sure others are now that we've had this discussion.

12/20/2003 4:05:20 PM

Adam Pozek

member since: 7/8/2003
  Having read many of the IR posts, here is my 2 cents worth. IR film does NOT record heat. If it did, one could not hold an unprocessed roll in hand without completely fogging it. It records the IR wavelength of light which is invisible to the human eye. Human skin and foliage turn a glowing white. The sky and water go deep black. B&W IR film IS easier to find. Adorama & B&H carry it, as do many local pro camera shops. There are 4 basic types. Kodak HIE has the strongest IR effect and is easiest to find. Konica is also good, but it is only shipped to the USA once a year. Good luck finding it. Ilford also has a B&W IR film, but the IR effect is fairly week. Macophot IR has been making a strong showing of late. Kodak & Macophot Aura are the only 2 that give the halo effect. An opaque red filter (87) gives the strongest results. www.cocam.co.uk/CoCamWS/Infrared/INFRARED.HTM is an exhaustive IR resource. Kodak EIR is the only color IR film available. No opaque filters are required. Using combos of red, yellow & green filters create very interesting results. Check out www.irphoto.net.

12/23/2003 7:57:20 AM

T Lee

member since: 11/5/2001
  Hi Cathy,

I also have an EOS camera. Depending on the EOS cameras that you have, you will want to be careful with the film. Many of the "newer" cameras have infrared film advance mechanisms. My local camera shop has an "expert" there, that refuses to sell me infrared film, because he knows which camera I have. (S'ok, the other guys who aren't buffoons will let me buy it and experiment.)However, you should know up front, that depending on how fast you shoot, either the bottom of the frame and sprockets will be fogged ( since film loads upside down and the image records upside down) or as far as 2/3s of the frame will be fogged. This is based on pictures and accounts that I have found on the internet as of now. I have not been able to attempt it yet. If you are going to shoot it, keep it very cool, and dark til you load it, load it in the dark, (darkbag is excellent for this) and make sure you use the film all in one shot and fairly quickly. Then, get it intosomething cool again, get it processed as soon as possible, and make sure the lab knows what it is. Some photographers tape the top of the plastic container, just to give the lab technician pause to look at it before they potentially destroy the film.

Don't let all this discourage you however, I have seen contact prints on the net of slightly fogged sprockets and only slightly into the picture. If you gauge for this, you can still come up with some beautiful pictures.

12/29/2003 11:29:08 AM

Adam Pozek

member since: 7/8/2003
  Cathy & T Lee,

I shoot with a Nikon N80, which also is supposed to create the fogging issue due to the internal IR film advance. I have run countless rolls of Kodak, Konica and Macophot IR film through the camera with no problems. The sprocket area sometimes shows fogging, but I have never had the fogging encroach on the image area.

IR is challenging and a lot of fun to shoot. Many people claim to know a lot about this film, yet they often have very little experience actually shooting it.

Please do not be discouraged! Experiment and have a blast.

If you have any questions, I would be glad to share my experiences with you or anyone else who might be interested. Feel free to e-mail me at adam@adampozek.com.

Happy Shooting!
--Adam

12/29/2003 12:29:07 PM

T Lee

member since: 11/5/2001
  Hi Adam!! Thank you so much for the additional information! I might yet contact you for more information. :)

I managed to find the articles that I mentioned above, that support what you say as well, in case Cathy wants to do some reading.

http://www.jonlayephotography.com/infrared/EOSinfrared/EOSinfrared.html
http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-ir/
http://burningcam.com/00/infrared/

They all mention fogging, but not in a crippling amount.

Good Luck!
stormi

1/1/2004 1:55:02 PM

Cathy B. Sylvester
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/1/2002
  Okay, here's another question for you guys. I was planning to take this film to a photography shoot in New Orleans. I thought it would be interesting to use it with some of the shots I had planned to make. If I could get the effect I want it would be worth it. So, I'm looking for Konica, Macophot IR, or Kodak HIE (however, several of these are out of stock at B&H - hopefully they'll get it in before I leave in a couple of weeks). I load this in the total darkness. I'll use my Elan 7, although I do have several cameras and plan to shoot the whole roll (which is no problem) pretty quickly and rewind it completely and unload it in the dark. I have a commerical lab I use. He uses "true" black and white process. What, if anything, do I tell him about this film when I take it to him? I really am not concerned about the fogging from what I have learned from you guys. It seems that if it happens at all it will be minimal. It could even add to a dramatic shot. What say you? Thanks for all the help - Cathy

1/1/2004 5:16:00 PM

Adam Pozek

member since: 7/8/2003
  Cathy,

New Orleans is a great place to shoot IR. You can get some nice effect in the French Quarter with the old buildings, wrought iron, etc. Although, you will really enjoy shooting IR in the garden district. Since IR is difficult to expose and focus, be sure to bracket at least 3 shots and use a small aperture for max DOF.

Kodak HIE will probably be the easiest for you to come by on short notice. I think Konica is imported in March of each year, so it will be near impossible to find for the next few months.

The only thing to remember to tell your lab is just to remind them it is IR film. I usually tape the lid on the cannister with masking tape and write IR on the top in red letters. I use a pro lab here in Atlanta that specializes in B&W of all kinds, and I have had a couple of scares with them not paying attention to the cannister I handed them.

Good luck, and I would love to see some of your results. I'm sure they will be great!

--Adam

PS You ask at the end of your message "What say you?" You must have recently seen the Return of the King.

1/1/2004 8:17:12 PM

Cathy B. Sylvester
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/1/2002
  Thanks Adam and everyone. Wish I could just take you all with me. Wouldn't we have a great "road trip"? I'm going to get my film this week. Am kind of nervous about traveling with my camera equipment with the security being what it is now. The Garden District and Royale St. is where I planned to shoot the IR film. I'll set my camera for bracketing. You guys never let a gal down. And, by the way I did just see Return of the King - didn't realize I had used that expression, "What Say You". How funny. I guess it rubs off. Good movie.

1/1/2004 9:58:02 PM

Adam Pozek

member since: 7/8/2003
  I've never had any problem with carry-on x-rays damaging IR film. Just be sure not to put in your checked luggage. Those x-rays will fry all your film in a heart beat.

All-in-all, I have had great luck with the security folks. The one time I was in a rush and copped an attitude with them, they may life difficult for me. Every time I have been polite and friendly to them, never a problem. I even had one guy tell me he was planning a trip to go photograph in Alaske, and he started asking me for tips.

1/2/2004 1:52:55 PM

Cathy B. Sylvester
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/1/2002
  One more questions (puleeze). I intended to shoot this infrared film through my 25 Red filter. Someone told me I should use an Opaque 87 Red instead. Any suggestions? One over another? Calling all experts here...
Cathy

1/14/2004 9:37:25 AM

Adam Pozek

member since: 7/8/2003
  Cathy,
You can certainly shoot IR with a Red 25 filter; however, the IR effect will not be nearly as strong.

However, your lab guy is still partially correct. The #87c opaque blocks all visible light, so all that is left is IR. Thus a stronger effect. Of course, that means longer exposures and trying to compose, focus and shoot something you cannot see. If shooting Kodak HIE, I usually set my ISO at 25 or 50. I then meter without the filter in place and use these settings. I then add the filter and shoot.

Since IR focuses on a different plane than visible light, normal focusing does not guarantee a sharp image. If your lenses have IR marks on the barrel, you can focus as normal and then adjust your focus ring to the nearest IR mark. I simply stop down my lens and shoot at the smallest aperture I can. Again, this means even longer exposures.

There are two places I can recommend to get the 87c. The first is at www.adorama.com - click "Filters" then "Infrared Filters."

If you use round, screw-in filters, any of these should do nicely. However, if you use square filters (such as the Cokin P Series), your only option is get a Kodak gel filter. These things are $30 each and are extremely flimsy. I once set one on some soft grass while I changed lenses. A blade of grass punctured it and made it useless.

An alternative is Singh Ray (www.singhray.com). Their filters are of high-quality, thick glass and are (in my experience) indestructible under normal use. They do not advertise their opaque IR filters, but they will make one on request. Singh Ray filters are fairly expensive ($120 +), but the quality and durability make them well worth it if you plan to shoot a lot of IR.

--Adam

Adam C. Pozek
Adam Pozek Photography
Alpharetta, GA, USA
adam@adampozek.com
www.adampozek.com
www.irphoto.net

"There is nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea." --Ansel Adams

1/14/2004 5:01:15 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 

BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  10 .  Buying Film
Where do the pros buy their film?

I have things lining up for me to do some shoots, and I want to buy film at the best price possible.

Can you buy film wholesale somewhere?

Any suggestions?

11/22/2003 2:46:56 PM

  Buy film at http://bhphoto.com

11/23/2003 6:40:06 AM


BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  Thanks Tony.

They were one place I was looking at.

Obviously, care of film is very important. Therefore, purchasing from a reputable establishment is probably wise.

11/23/2003 9:03:49 AM

  One more thing, Jerry. You'll probably see two prices, one for US and one for gray market. The price difference can be substantial. Inquire further with your salesperson as to the nature of gray market film, because it can be classified as grey market for several reasons. I have used grey market film with no problems.

You can also check with Hunt's photo in Melrose, MA for film, also.

Good luck!

11/23/2003 9:10:24 AM

Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member
cammphoto.com

member since: 7/17/2003
  Thanks Jerry, for posting this question re: wholesale film. I too, am looking for an alternative to retail.

Thank you, Tony for the info.... Have you ever used "grey market" Fuji Provia 100? If so, how was it, and what is the approximate shelf life?

11/23/2003 2:37:23 PM

  Hi Bob:

I've used grey market Provia100, although not for a while. Not sure about the shelf live, but I put it in the freezer immediately and, being a professional, I shoot it up pretty quick anyway.

11/23/2003 4:14:40 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  HELLO!!! I'm shocked that anyone suggests Fuji Provia 100 film is "gray market!" After all, isn't Fuji film a Japanese product and exported to the USA. And, what about Agfa, Konica and Ilford film?

PopPhoto had an interesting article this month - do's and don'ts regarding spending for photographic "stuff." While many argue that PopPhoto "never met a piece of equipment it didn't like," the article did indicate it's folks [or, at least, the author] never had had a bit of difficulty with imported film. My own experience confirms this.

Remember, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Leica cameras and lenses, Tamron, Vivitar and Sigma lenses, Slik tripods, etc. all are imported. The gray market designation usually reflects the fact that this equipment doesn't come with US warrantees and may not be repairable, under warrantee, in the US. Gray market items may also be missing batteries, straps, etc. It doesn't necessarily imply any difference in actual quality of the item itself.

11/26/2003 5:49:23 AM


BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  Can anyone discuss "gray" market film, or point me to some good resources.

I think I read that the difference is the intended market. If Ilford, for instance, is made and packaged for the USA, it is not gray market film. But, if it is made for Indonesia, and winds up in the USA, then it is gray market.

From my understanding, the latter situation is cause for concern because the quality and care for the film cannot be guaranteed.

I will not use any gray market film yet for pro shoots. However, due to the low price of gray market film, I will experiment with it on my own.

One of my worries is that there are likely to be large variations in quality. You cannot control for the “gray” part of the world the film came from. Each time you order film, it may be totally different circumstances.

Does any one have results they can share; good or bad?

Jerry

11/26/2003 7:03:51 AM

  Never had a problem. I wouldn't worry about it. But, there is an element of risk. Just keep it in the freezer until you use it and in the freezer until you get it processed, if there's a time lag between shooting and processing.

11/26/2003 7:07:03 AM

Bob Cammarata
BetterPhoto Member
cammphoto.com

member since: 7/17/2003
  I was under the assumption that Fuji manufactures the film and supervises the importation to its various markets
around the world. Referring to the "grey market"...in this particular case, means that another importer...not Fuji, is responsible for bringing it over to the U.S., and their quality control standards during shipment may not be as high.
Unless I'm mistaken...the two films themselves, are identical.

11/26/2003 8:22:43 AM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  Once agin, check out one of the photomagazine. Often, stores like Adorama list all kinds of film - like, for example, Kodak made for international sales [whatever that means.]

11/26/2003 8:33:32 AM

Buddy Purugganan

member since: 1/2/2004
  TRY B & H ( www.bhphotovideo.com) Adorama(www.adorama.com ). They sell a vast variety of films for 35mm and they have great packages too.

1/2/2004 7:26:17 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  I've heard also that with gray market it could mean that something like film, you don't know if it's been sitting out in some loading in 100+ heat in a country in the desert somewhere for a month or two. And that u.s. market is supposed to be handled and shipped in better care.
But if gray market means that it can be missing batteries, straps, etc.... that etc. dosen't sound too good to me.

1/2/2004 7:48:22 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
  skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | ...4
Next 10  >>

Copyright © 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.