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 2 : 11 -20 of 39 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | ...4
Next 10  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Penelope D. Lamb

member since: 8/11/2003
  11 .  Black and White Print vs. Slide Film
What is the difference between print B&W film and slide B&W film? Can they only be used with certain cameras? I have been trying to do research to find out, but haven't come across anything helpful yet.

8/13/2003 4:05:59 PM

Tiffany M. Barkevich

member since: 8/9/2003
  Hi Penelope
As long as you camera and film are 35mm, you can use them when ever you want. The only difference I can think of between the two is when you get them developed, the color of the black on the slide film might be a tiny bit purple-ish.

8/13/2003 7:55:05 PM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  As Tiffany stated, you can use either slide or print film interchageably in your camera. Choose which you want based on what you want as final output (prints or slides).

There is only one B&W slide film that I know of, Agfa Scala 200x. It requires a unique development that is done by only a few labs. See
http://www.agfa.com/photo/products/film/professional/bwrevfilm/

for more information.

Kodak's T-MAX 100 B&W print film can be processed into B&W slides by exposing the film at ISO 50 instead of 100, and using Kodak's T-MAX 100 Direct Positive Film Developing Outfit. See Kodak Technical Publication J-87 for more information:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j87/j87.jhtml

Both the Agfa Scala 200 and Kodak T-Max 100 will result in true black and white slides without color casts.

8/14/2003 6:00:50 AM

Penelope D. Lamb

member since: 8/11/2003
  Thank you guys very much. I just bought 15 rolls of B&W print film and I am looking forward to taking alot of pictures :)

8/14/2003 5:01:56 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Penelope,
I've never had a "purplish" cast to any true B&W film, whether it's transparency or negative . . . or any true B&W print materials for that matter.

Tiffany might be referring to some of the inexpensive B&W print materials, particularly the RA-4 type that are intended to be used for machine prints in color print machines. One in particular that was made by Kodak (now discontinued), and I cannot remember which it is, was not intended for long-term keeping of B&W photographs, but only for short-term use. It had a reputation for its blacks and grays turning deep purplish over time.

As previously mentioned, there is only one B&W transparency film, Agfa's Scala 200X and I've used it occasionally with excellent results. It is among the highest archival films around.

Kodak's TMax 100 was also mentioned. Although it is intended as a B&W negative film, it can be reversed using Kodak's "TMax 100 Direct Positive Film Developing Kit." I don't know of any labs doing this (doesn't mean there aren't any) which means it's very likely you'd have to do it yourself. When used with TMax 100, the film must be pulled by a stop and shot at EI 50. This means the decision to reverse it must be made beforehand. Contrast can be varied with the EI used and appropriate, matching changes to the developing. It can also be used to reverse Kodak's Technical Pan film. However, Tech Pan must be pushed to EI 64 (it's rated at ISO 25) and produces very high contrast results suitable for title slides, line art, etc., not continuous tone photographs. The kit will handle 12 rolls of 36-exp. 35mm, film.

-- John

8/19/2003 9:16:31 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Penelope D. Lamb

member since: 8/11/2003
  12 .  100 Foot Film?
I was looking for film on a web site and I came across a link that said 100 foot rolls. I wasn't sure what they were and there was no descripion. Can somebody please help me.

8/13/2003 3:57:51 PM

Michael Kaplan

member since: 5/27/2003
  Professional photographers who use a lot of film (or anyone for that matter) can buy their film in rolls of 100 feet and fill their own cartridges with as many shots as they want. It is a bit cheaper in bulk but you beed to buy a proper dispenser and blank rolls to refill.

8/13/2003 5:36:05 PM

Penelope D. Lamb

member since: 8/11/2003
  Thank you very much.

8/14/2003 12:07:20 PM

Sharron Prickett

member since: 12/4/2002
  It was very likely film for long roll camera. These cameras are used primarily by school & event photographers.

8/21/2003 4:04:05 PM

Tom Walker

member since: 3/12/2004
  When I take my photgraphs I hate waiting til I finish a 24 exp roll to see them, So I buy 100 ft rolls and load my own casettes with 10-12 exp.
B+H Photo sells Tri-X still but I usually have to have them order color film. Empty casettes run about $6 for 10
new, the last time I bought any, since they're reusable, you don't have to replace them very often

3/13/2004 10:53:13 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Oscar Magtibay

member since: 5/6/2003
  13 .  Airport X-rays
I will be flying to Las Vegas this weekend and I just wanted to ask you guys that if the airport personnel that checks the baggages insist that I run my camera bag through the x-ray machine, would it do any damage to my films? I still have half a roll in both my cameras. Thanks!

7/23/2003 6:43:31 PM

Judith A. Clark

member since: 9/14/2002
  Yes, the xray will distroy the film, but they should not insist that you run it thru. Ask them to hand check your bag.

7/24/2003 3:44:58 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  Unless things have changed a lot in the past few months, film under 800 ASA is said to be undamaged by the x-rays when you go through with carry-on bags. Checked luggage is a different matter; your film is likely to suffer damage. Federal law states that you can request hand inspection. Depending on the whim of the checker, you may not get it. Go to ricksteves.com and look for photography under Graffitti for discussions of this problem. Look also at beststuff.com for Bob Shell's comments on xraying film.

7/24/2003 5:40:52 AM

Oscar Magtibay

member since: 5/6/2003
  Thanks so much for your responses! As always you guys are great. Thanks again!

7/24/2003 8:39:09 AM

Mark Carter

member since: 2/8/2002
  I have just come back from a trip to the far east and put 16 rolls of film through about 12 or so airport x-rays and having had them all developed I have noticed no problems whatsoever. All my films were asa800 or less anything more just ask for the manual search.

7/29/2003 7:08:38 AM

Oscar Magtibay

member since: 5/6/2003
  Thanks Mark. I'm excited to see how my pics will come out. They ran my films through the machine on my way to Las Vegas but on my way back I requested a hand inspection and they did. Thanks again!

7/29/2003 9:07:24 AM

Nicky Trainor

member since: 6/12/2005
  I recently took a trip that involved numerous airports in the US and Canada. Some security officers were more willing than others to check my film manually. The first question they all asked though was "do you have 800 speed or higher film"? I picked up some 800 film for my return flights, and it did the trick - no questions asked - they just checked the film manually!

7/6/2005 8:16:45 PM

Daniela Meli

member since: 3/1/2005
  I'm sorry to say that asking to check the film manually does not always work. In my last trip I took a couple of 3200 films to guarantee that all my film would be checked manually and not through the x-ray (a trick I read in bp). The guard was very nice when he handed me a flier with "important information for photographers" that said that the x-ray is not dangerous to film and that ALL films should be checked through the x-ray. I begged the guard to check them manually, I swear I almost cried, but it didn't work (he was very polite though).
At the end, Iím happy to report that the film was not damaged (or not in anyway I can notice), and that even a roll of film that I accidentally left in the checked-in luggage turned out ok.
So I guess you have to try to get the film out of the x-ray, but if itís not possible, itís not the end of the world.

7/7/2005 2:22:30 AM

Oscar Magtibay

member since: 5/6/2003
  Thank you very much for all your responses. I really appreciate it!

7/7/2005 8:44:17 AM

Kerry L. Walker

member since: 12/21/2004
  Carry a couple of rolls of 120 film. TAT can't go through an X-ray machine without being damaged.

7/7/2005 8:51:49 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kristin Young

member since: 7/23/2003
  14 .  Locating Discontinued Film
I have been on a hunt for Ektar 125 for eons. Can anyone tell me if it is still available ANYWHERE and how to get it or if anyone knows of a film that gets a similar color neg? I have read that it was a crazy film but I took some of the most gorgeous prints I have ever taken with that crazy film... nothing has come close. I like rich saturated reds and yellows... and that delivered. Beautiful prints in low and bright light... wow! Please help!

7/23/2003 1:02:22 PM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  I believe the Ektar line became the Royal Gold/Supra line, and the 125 was changed to 100. I think High Definition 400 is all that survives of the Royal Gold line. Kodak's regular Gold 100 gives pretty saturated reds, otherwise you might try the Portra line, especially Portra 160VC and Portra 400UC.

7/24/2003 8:58:02 AM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Kristin,
Kodak Ektar 25, 125 and 1000 (in the consumer line) evolved into the Kodak Royal Gold line of films: 25, 100, 200, 400 and 1000. Sadly, nearly all of them are gone now too. All that remains are the ISO 200 and ISO 400 under the new "High Definition" name. You may not see much about the ISO 200 version, but it is available from B&H Photo Video in NYC.

I used Royal Gold 100, and was sadly disappointed when it was discontinued. I found it very odd they would continue Gold 100 (under the name Bright Sun) which is horridly grainy. You might drop Kodak a letter letting them know you'd like an ISO 100 film too. I was disturbed when Royal Gold 25 (aka Ektar 25) was discontinued.

7/28/2003 12:30:41 AM

Ron DenHollander

member since: 8/27/2000
  Kodak sells the royal gold 100/200/400 here in Ontario at its Kodak image centres. I buy alot of it and get excellent results.

7/29/2003 5:31:03 PM

Ken Henry

member since: 10/11/2000
  I also used royal gold print and the older Agfa optima was really good too. Because I do critical architectural photography for money in 35mm prints 8"x12" up to 20"x30" I must use the best film available. (unless the client requests positive I use Provia).
I do a lot of film testing to 8x12" prints. Gold 100 produces the sharpest prints and fine detail and texture, but I have to increase my lighting in low lighted areas to keep the grain problem
down.

Reala is so smooth everything is soft.
I am now using Fuji NPC 160, it's smooth, sharp, and saturated.

Ken

7/30/2003 9:56:03 PM

Kristin Young

member since: 7/23/2003
  Thanks all for the responses! I would like to know if it is possible to special order Royal Gold from anywhere in Canada? Also, please fill me in on Portra? Is this a new Kodak line or another brand entirely? Thanks again!

7/30/2003 11:02:50 PM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  Can't help with the Canada question, but Portra is what Kodak calls its professional line of print films.

7/31/2003 5:20:51 AM

Tracey Lytle

member since: 8/26/2003
  This is for Kristin. I have finally found a place to get Portra film. (portra 160 vc) I've seen results from a wedding photographer and it's excellent. It's about $11.00 (cnd) for 1 roll. I buy it from a place in Lindsay, Ontario. Maybe if you call them they can order it for you or in the least tell you from where they get it. "Kenlin Photo" (705) 324-9552. They are very pleasant to deal with.

Good luck.

10/26/2003 12:16:59 PM

Kristin Young

member since: 7/23/2003
  I will try them out--excuse my amateur status but what is vc?

I am also interested in the Fuji...I took some very Ektar-ish shots with Fuji 200 printed on Kodak paper...the colors were rich and had a very 70's Polaroid look!

Thanks!

10/26/2003 12:23:51 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Portra was originally released in two basic versions, "NC" and "VC." There is now a third, "UC."
NC = Neutral Color
VC = Vivid Color
UC = Ultra Color

The neutral has subdued saturation and is one of the most favored films for portraiture and weddings. Within Kodak's Portra line, VC runs second for that application, and is more often used for general work. Both NC and VC come in 160 and 400 speed. NC is very slightly finer grained than VC. There is an undesignated 800 also (no NC or VC designation). UC is very saturated and I would not recommend it for portraiture or weddings; it's more for commercial work in which highly saturated color is desired. Extreme saturation usually wreaks havoc with skin tones and this is why I wouldn't use it for portraiture or weddings. IIRC the UC is only available in ISO 400.

You can find out more about Portra on Kodak's web site in the professional area.

-- John

10/26/2003 5:52:58 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kathy Lewis

member since: 7/1/2003
  15 .  Wedding & Portrait films
Is there a quality difference in the following film types:

These are offered in Portra NC & the price difference is substantial. This film would be used for weddings & portraits.
IMPORTED Film made outside the USA and imported for us. This may also be referred to as "GREY".
USAW Film manufactured in the USA for Worldwide distribution.
USA Film manufactured in the USA for domestic distribution.

7/1/2003 8:46:06 AM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Kathy,
Sorta looks like you copied and pasted this from B&H's web site . . .
:-)

If you talk to Kodak about the Imported and USAW film, they will ply you with the "FUD Factor" . . . a strategy created by IBM, and still used by IBM to dissuade customers from buying someone else's computers. What does "FUD" mean? Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

Kodak will attempt to strike fear into your heart by telling you there is complete uncertainty surrounding how the film was handled as it was done *outside* their official distribution channels, leaving you with doubt about whether or not it's still good stuff.

I buy the "grey" stuff from B&H, and if that's not available, the "USAW" stuff. I've NEVER had any problem with it. Just looked at two of the Portra 160NC boxes in my refrigerator. Both were "grey" orders. The box of 220 states it was made in the U.S. and packaged in England. The 35mm 5-roll "stick" states it was both made and packaged in England.

The USAW and USA is pretty much as B&H states. AFIK the difference is the USAW is made in the U.S., packaged for export, and was wholesaled to B&H outside Kodak's domestic distribution channels, but unlike the Imported made in the U.S., sent out and brought back, it never left the U.S.

I originally gave all this some thought about a number of years ago. If I order film from B&H and it gets shipped to me in Indiana via UPS, it gets subjected to unrefrigerated conditions for several days. Depending on weather and season, what it is subjected to varies. However, it's not that long, I refrigerate it as soon as it arrives, and again, I've never experienced any problem with "bad" film. Someone who is concerned with extremely critical color accuracy and/or consistency across many rolls might think differently. However, in my experience with wedding work, which has moderately high color accuracy/consisetncy requirements (but not extreme) the lab used to print the negatives has overwhelming influence over outcome compared to things such as film lot numbers. It's for that reason I'm not concerned with it. If there is a problem sometime in the future that is attributable to the film, I will become concerned with it. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to save $$$ with the Imported and USAW pricing.

7/2/2003 11:23:31 PM

Angela K. Wittmer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2003
  I too have used the High Definition... I thought it was too bright (vivid) of color for portraits. My son used it for sunset photos and it did respond well to that

Angie

7/22/2003 1:01:44 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Christine 

member since: 4/4/2003
  16 .  New Kodak Film
I wanted to know if anyone knew of Kodak's newest film (HD) High Definition and if they used in Wedding Photography. What was the outcome?

6/26/2003 11:50:22 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  I've used 400 High Definition. I'm unimpressed. Blues and yellows are unnaturally bold. I used it only for urban scenery, I wouldn't use it for anyone's wedding. The Portra films are too good to use anything else.

6/26/2003 1:11:22 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Christine,
I agree completely with Doug. I've used Kodak Royal Gold 200 for editorial work at public events. It has been very good for that. The types of public events I shoot are amenable to its saturation. The new High Definition used to be called Royal Gold 400 and I'd have some reservations about using film that grainy for the editorial work.

However, I wouldn't think of using it for a wedding. Not only is it too saturated, it's also contrastier, not to mention the grain. White dresses would get blown out, black tuxes would look like caverns and enlarging anything would prove to be a challenge. My recommendation is the same as Doug's regarding weddings: Kodak Portra. My clear favorite among the entire line of Portra is 160 NC.

6/26/2003 6:39:27 PM

Vincent Lowe

member since: 4/2/2000
  Just a note for those in the UK and some other European countries - for some reason Kodak are not marketing the ISO 400 film over here. The version sold here is rated at 200, so it's probably a different film. See Kodak's UK website...

http://wwwuk.kodak.com/UK/en/consumer/highDefinition/?type=35mmFilmHD

I've ordered a roll to try it out.

7/1/2003 10:21:03 AM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Vincent,
Kodak's U.K. site doesn't have a data sheet for the ISO 200 High Definition being sold in Europe. I'd bet dollars to donuts what you're seeing in the U.K. (and elsewhere in Europe) is Kodak Royal Gold 200 with a new name.

The PDF data sheets for the U.S. ISO 400 High Definition and Kodak Royal Gold 400 are identical except for a name change and deletion of reciprocity failure data from the High Definition 400 data sheet.

This is not the first time Kodak has changed the name on a consumer film and marketed it in a manner that leads consumers into concluding it's something new. Note that their packaging and advertising does not actually state that it's a new film . . . but it does everything else a company would do to introduce a new product. A year or so ago, Kodak did the same thing with their family of Kodak Gold films. What used to be Kodak Gold 100 is now called "Bright Sun" and Kodak Gold 200 is now called "Bright Sun & Flash."

-- John

7/1/2003 1:27:08 PM

Vincent Lowe

member since: 4/2/2000
  You may be right John, though a trawl of various photo forums (fora?) leads to total confusion with some saying it's the same while others say it's different. Some say one is better for scanning while the other is better for prints (I forget which way round it is now!). One fact though is that while Gold 200 is still on sale here, HD is a lot more expensive. At Jessops (the UK's biggest photo chain) Gold 200 retails at £4.70 for 36 while HD is £4.99 for 24 exposures.

I've just picked up a 500mm mirror lens on eBay and was looking for a high-speed film to try with it. As I said above, totally conflicting opinions on the web so in the end I've ordered one each of HD200, Gold 200, and Fuji Superia 400 to see which I like the best. HD will have to be really special though to justify the extra expense.

7/1/2003 2:18:26 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Kodak sometimes uses different names in different locales around the world. For a good number of years Kodak had two families of consumer color negative films: Gold and Royal Gold. IMHO, the entire Royal Gold line was much better than the "bargain basement" Gold films which were intended to capture the "least expensive film buyer" market segment. They were being clobbered by Fuji. The entire family of Kodak Gold films are horribly grainy. Pull up the data sheets and look at their print grain indices compared to Kodak's other color negative films, consumer and professional.

There are a couple of bottom end pro films sold primarily in 3rd World regions that are actually Kodak Gold 100; places where refrigerated storage is unlikely and the true pro films are not economically marketable. Not available in the U.S., but if one pokes around Kodak's on-line data sheet library, the data for them are there.

Most of the old Gold line is still around, albeit with different names again. Gold 400 became Kodak Max and Gold 800 became Kodak Max Zoom in the U.S. followed by the 100 and 200 renaming as posted before.

The premium Royal Gold line has been broken up. Royal Gold 25 was identical to Ektar 25, a pro film. It was discontinued a number of years ago upsetting its users considerably (albeit they were small in number). It still holds the record for being unquestionably the highest resolution color negative film ever made. Royal Gold 100 recently disappeared here without much fanfare (much to my disappointment). Same happened to Royal Gold 1000. ISO 200 and 400 are all that was left and are being resurrected as "High Definition" in an apparent attempt to boost their sales. Time will tell whether or not they sustain an increase.

A Cynical Aside:
Kodak seems to believe nobody wants a consumer film slower than ISO 200 and the world would be a much better place if consumers simply used ISO 800 for everything. Kodak's advertising here has been pushing Max Zoom very hard as the universal panacea that can cure anything that ails photography, including chopped off heads and feet, and a few other common gaffes committed by consumers that have nothing to do with film. I was ROFL after seeing one of their commercials on television several months ago. Kodak makes some outstanding films including what's left of the Royal Gold family (the Gold films aren't among them). Their product/business strategies and marketing methods leave me baffled though.

-- John

7/1/2003 3:00:34 PM

Vincent Lowe

member since: 4/2/2000
  As they used to say on that very funny TV programme 'Soap'.... Confused? You will be!

7/1/2003 3:16:25 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Yes, I believe it applies, I think, oh, perhaps maybe not, oh, I don't know, it's so befuddling my brain hurts.

;-)

-- John

7/1/2003 5:35:49 PM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  Skip the problems with film and go ditigal. Go to photoshop and your in complete control of everything.

My choice, Fuji S2 Pro

7/1/2003 7:39:45 PM

Vincent Lowe

member since: 4/2/2000
  Well, going off topic here and I don't want to turn this thread into a digital/film controversy, but a few points..

1) I do have a digital camera and use it quite a lot.
2) I also have a Bronica SQ 6x6 kit, including 5 lenses, bellows etc - the picture libraries I send them to still want medium format.
3) The online photo library that I submit to (alamy.com) will not accept a file size of less than 48mb (they will accept files from a digital camera with a minimum of 16mb but want them extrapolated up to 48) so scanned 35mm is still the best route for me.
4) I also have a 5x4 field camera which I love to use on occasions.
5) I have three OM1/OM2 bodies and a full range of lenses, bellows etc which I would have to replace.
6) When I go off backpacking for a couple of weeks I would have to hire a porter to carry all the spare batteries for a digital camera!
7) The Fuji is about twice as big and bulky as the OM1.
8) I would have to sell all this gear to be able to afford a 'pro' digital camera and lenses (and the camera would be obsolete in a couple of years!)
9) I'm an electronics engineer by trade and I just don't trust electronics!
10 er.. that's it.

PS - nothing against digital and I'm a member of the Digital Imaging Group of the Royal Photographic Society. It's just not the answer for certain things. Sorry to go on a bit.

7/2/2003 11:17:24 AM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Vincent,
I'm a Luddite too:
OM-1n, OM-2n, OM-2S and OM-4
[OM-2S = OM-2sp in U.K.]
M645j and M645-1000S
Rollei 35S
Contax IIIa (nearly as old as I am and my favorite camera for non-pro work)
No digi's in the house.
No video camera either!
:-)

Looked up the weight on the Fuji. By the time batteries are bolted onto it, it's twice the weight of a "single digit" OM body. About the same as carting around the M645.

I have a "day job" and do weddings on the side. I work the weddings solo; no assistant. The kit for that is substantial and includes monolights, stands, brollies, camera brackets and flash heads for them, not to mention the cameras and lenses. Everything has backup, or a backup plan. A typical indoor job employs 3 camera bodies; some require 4 (includes a medium format rig). Could do the indoor jobs with two, but it can require changing lenses, exposure settings, short-rolling one type of film for another, and shuffling film speed settings when doing so. Too much opportunity for error.

Some are converting to shooting weddings with high end digital, but it radically changes the entire workflow. Can't imagine doing it solo. My burn rate averages 50 frames per hour. Don't want to fuss with memory and battery management for making 350-400 photographs in 7-8 hours, about 250-300 of which will end up in a proof book.

I have backup batteries and a charger for the bracket mounted flash gear, but have never had to use them. A fully charged set can run the entire show. 35mm film reloads can be done in under a minute. Also cannot imagine six hours of shooting candids hand holding a bracket with camera and flash that's nearly twice as heavy as what I'm already using. Visions of tennis elbow run through my mind.

Digital has its advantages for some types of work, but for other types of fast-paced work making hundreds of photographs running solo, I haven't been able to devise a viable workflow that would allow using it. Everything I've seen written about it describes having at least one assistant to handle a laptop computer, and the memory and battery logistics.

BTW, the OM-1n with its mechanical shutter has been great for use with monolights. Cord it to a PC->shoe adapter in the Shoe 4, set shutter to 1/60th, set aperture to flash meter reading (usually f/5.6) and Rock 'n Roll. Don't even have to turn it on. Could use the PC socket next to the lens mount, but don't like to. Too much risk of pesky X/FP switch being accidentally set in the wrong position.

Back to the original thread:
I use Portra 160NC as the primary film for weddings. It has the restrained saturation and very wide latitude required for white dresses next to black tuxes. That same latitude also allows for some exposure deviation with candids if flash range is stressed to the max. For available light work during a ceremony I use Fuji Press 1600 or TMax P3200 (at EI 1600/Push 1 if there's enough light). Consumer films are too punchy with saturation and have too much risk of losing detail in either the white dresss or black tuxes. They're made for general purpose photography spanning a wide range of subject material, not portraiture or anything heavy with skin tones. In addition, if Portra NC is printed well by a pro lab, colors are very accurate. Bride's have an incredible eye for remembering *exactly* the color of her flowers, the bridesmaids dresses, and even the floor and walls where the wedding took place.

-- John

7/2/2003 12:59:26 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Karrie Smith

member since: 3/5/2003
  17 .  Slide Film vs. Negatives
What are the advantages and disadvantages to using 35mm slide film over negative film?

6/25/2003 11:34:00 AM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Karrie,
IMO there are no advantages or disadvantages, but there are definitely differences between them. It depends on what you want to create for the photograph.

Prints from negatives are actually "photographs" of the film. All manner of tweaking color balance, contrast (through print material selection) and adjusting for minor exposure error can be performed in making the print.

With "slide film" (also called "chrome," diapositive, transparency and reversal), the transparency is the film that was in the camera. What you shot is what you got. Colors will be bolder and there is a "look" to positive prints made from slides that prints from negatives don't seem to have. Slide film also has a narrower latitude. This is the difference between brightness of something that comes out pure "white" withough any detail and the brightness of something that comes out deep "black" without any detail. Most of the time, exposure is set for proper mid-tones with the highlights and shadows falling where they will (with some exceptions).

Because negative films have a much wider latitude, exposure is often set to preserve details in most of the shadows. (The shadows can be dark, but not so dark that detail is lost on the film.) The negative is printed to preserve details in most of the highlights (exept the specular ones).

I use both transparency and negative films, in B&W and in color. Which film I use depends on who the photograph is for, the subject material, and what I want a print to look like.

-- John

6/26/2003 7:06:06 PM

Maynard  McKillen

member since: 3/5/2003
  Dear Karrie:
If you overexpose a slide, you're stuck with an overexposed slide. The same is true if you underexpose a slide. You won't care to put them in a projector and wow your friends, and your lab may be hard pressed to make an acceptable print from such slides. Scanning such slides and, in Photoshop or some similar program, tweaking their levels, contrast, brightness, altering their histograms, making masks and otherwise attempting to correct for less than optimal exposure can be time consuming.

This underlines the importance of metering carefully when you expose slide film, and avoiding compositions that have a greater range of brightness than the film can capture.
If you present your lab with color print film that is underexposed or overexposed, there is a modestly greater chance that (if they use the proper spell or incantation during the printing process) you will receive acceptable prints. As John mentioned above, color negative film has a wider exposure latitude than color slide (transparency) film.

In the old days (I'm getting old enough that I can day that!) you might take slides during a vacation, and wow (yawn) your neighbors with a slide show. The tendency of slide films to render color with better-than-real-life saturation made the Ozarks, Puget Sound, and Monument Valley look even better than they were. Those travel postcards for sale in souvenir shops were largely shot on slide film. If you submitted images to a magazine for publication they preferred them in the form of slides. Notice I use the past tense above. The advent of digital imaging has made this less so.

Closets across this great nation may still contain countless slide trays full of family vacations and other milestones. Trays used to be the storage method of choice. Consider how you might store slides you've taken, and what will you do to help other people see your slides? Slide projectors work better in darkened rooms, slide viewers might have to get passed around if you care to show slides to several people at once, lupes force you to squint, and light boxes allow you to see and compare many slides at once but do not magnify the image.
Ah, but the color rendition... wow...

6/27/2003 10:26:29 PM

Jim Covill

member since: 12/17/2000
  The obvious is: negative file is optimized to produce decent prints-cheaply and slides to be shown via projection methods. Slides, typically, don't print up as well a negatives - you can get first rate prints slides, but at a greater cost. At one time slide film was significantly cheaper than print film (with the prints) - this is no longer the case.

When all in said and done how do you play to primarily display your photos - On the wall/in a album or at planned gatherings/large number of people. For the former, print film is a good choice, the latter - slide film.

As previous posters have mentioned the exposure latitude of negative film is very forgiving. Slides (in slide trays) are harder to lose but take up more storage space. A formal slide show if properly setup can be quite fun (but don't overdo it - it can get very boring very quickly - always leaving the audience wanting more).

Jim

7/1/2003 3:51:34 AM

Robert Bridges

member since: 5/12/2003
  slides vs color negatives: A couple of things 1) most (read 90%) of the publications and agencies I deal with still prefer to have the original image on a slide and not a print. 2) While many publishers/agencies are fine with you sending them a CD or scanned images via email if they wish to purchase they will want you to send them the original and will in that case greatly prefer a transparency. 3) While slide film does have a narrower latitude then print film the exposure you would make for a good slide is closer to the exposure you would make for a digital image then that of a print and digital. 4) Most pro labs can make excellent prints from a slide without having to make an interneg AND you can make excellent prints yourself with almost any Epson printer and some time. 5) Because slide films have a narrower range of exposure latitude then print films they force you to become more disciplined both in terms of your metering skills and more importantly your observation of the light AND the elements of the scene............print film as someone above noted with the proper incantations can still produce an acceptable image. Hence the issue is how much do you want to work? Finally 6) If you buy in bulk slide film is still cheaper then print film overall.......and yes those pesky labs will correct your poorly exposed print film so that you will have no clue what the proper exposure was unless you ask for a contact sheet which will cost you an arm. So, all things considered in mind there is little choice really for color work.
Rob Bridges

7/1/2003 3:45:08 PM

Elaine C. Carbone
BetterPhoto Member
shuttereyedesigns.com

member since: 1/5/2003
  I myself am partial to slide film because of the color saturation and sharpness . I take a lot of pictures every where I go especially on my lunch hour . I work in the city of Boston so there is a lot of photo opportunity. Lighting is very important especially shadow contrast . I do not like prints because they leave me flat. It is cheaper to have a roll of slide film to have developed than print film. I have aquired a film scanner to scan and edit my slide into prints ,but I choose what I want to print to my own satisfaction. I have not ever had any problem with the narrow lattitude ,you become more aware how to take the picture dealing with lighting,contrast ,& metering. I shoot mostly in aperture preferred mode With centerd weighted all of the time with my Nikon N80 or 8008. Matrix I find takes an all around metering ,with slide you want more control in your metering as much as possible. This is more challenging and what the art of photography is about which is creating. Yes I have had sum blunders ,but after you learn how to munipulate your camera to create the best end result. It is well worth it in the long run. Elaine Carbone

7/5/2003 11:55:22 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Karen Lewis
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/2/2003
  18 .  Black and White Film
Can some one tell me what the difference is between the true B/W film and the B/W film (c-41) that you process the same way as colour? Is the quality the same as true B/W?? What are the pros and cons?
Any info would be great. I have never used B/W film and would like to try it.

Thankyou to everyone, past and present who answers my Q's. I'd be lost without you!

6/22/2003 3:47:15 PM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  I'm told the grain characteristics and tonality of the c-41 black-and-whites is excellent.

If you want to learn the Zone system and will be including your own development as part of the process, you can develop your own silver-based black-and-white, but it's best to leave C-41 processing to the shop.

One big advantage to C-41 B&W is that it scans much better. Silver halide crystals in silver-based film give most film scanners fits.

6/23/2003 5:34:45 AM

Karen Lewis
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/2/2003
  Thanks Doug for your response. Greatly appreciated!

6/23/2003 11:35:12 PM

Sharon 

member since: 4/12/2003
  I have found that most local labs process B&W C-41 with poor results (muddy looking, very grey tone). I had decided not to use this type of film again until I had seen it correctly processed. Ask your lab to see samples of this type of work before trusting them to your film. You can print your own prints with the negatives, it is mostly the incorrect use of paper. Good Luck

6/24/2003 6:38:55 AM

Melissa Williams

member since: 3/29/2003
  I used to shoot traditional B&W all the time, but now I just use the C-41 because it's so much more convenient. And when printing, the printer machines like it alot better because they can read the DX coding better. I don't have any problems with muddiness. Maybe the place you took it to just wasn't printing them well? Most local labs print everything blah unless they take the time to color correct the pictures. They're too lazy and set the machine to auto and everything comes out a kind of blah. I've seen color pics come back so blue everyone looked like Smurfs! You'd think they'd care...

6/24/2003 8:08:40 PM

Karen Lewis
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/2/2003
  Thanks for your responses Melissa and Sharon. After getting my first roll just back from the lab I wasn't doing hand stands over the result. Although they were exposed correctly, I found them murky and flat. As I've never used the good old fashion b/w I had nothing to compare with. I'll try a few different labs and see how those come out in comparison. Thanks!

6/25/2003 5:34:31 AM

Nicole  Daniel

member since: 6/2/2003
 
 
 
To add to the other responses: when I use c-41 B & W film there seems to be no true black and no true white, there are just various shades of gray, dark, light, etc. However true B & W film almost always has very clear black and white areas. Below is a picture using c-41 B&W film as you can tell there is no true black or white areas.

6/30/2003 3:12:55 PM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  www.winsoft.com is where you want to go. For $21 you get an incredible slideshow with added music. It's very easy to use.

7/1/2003 5:33:10 AM

Jean-Hee Lee

member since: 10/22/2002
  If the results are murky, check if the film was developed in c-41 chemicals. In a beginning darkroom class I took, one person brought in c-41 b+w by mistake, and was developed in b+w chemicals, which turned out murky.

7/1/2003 10:48:18 AM

Robert Bridges

member since: 5/12/2003
  C41 B&W film cannot be processed (well) by the traditional developers you bought off the shelf. It is b&w film which is made to be developed in COLOR film developers.........Basically I suspect it is a way for film manufactures to give the buying public the illusion they are getting true black and white film when in reality they are getting deeper into your pocket book. I teach in a community college and always warn the students DO NOT BUY THIS STUFF for a couple of reasons 1) it screws up our chemicals 2) it seldom develops fully in either D 76 or T-Max or god forbid some of the two part developers we use. 3) Prints from them always look bad (i.e., poor contrast - muddy) and lastly while fine for special effects in my mind its sort of like trying the make a purse out of a sow's ears..........you want b&w there are many great b&w films available.

Rob

7/1/2003 3:54:13 PM

Melissa Williams

member since: 3/29/2003
  Did you know that if traditional B&W is run through a c-41 machine, not only will it ruin the chemistry, but it will leave black stuff in the machine and mess it all up. I haven't actually SEEN it happen, but it's what I've heard.

7/2/2003 12:06:58 AM

Jean-Hee Lee

member since: 10/22/2002
  To clarify, when I developed the film in b+w chemicals, it was an experiment, not something I normally do. It is possible to have very acceptable prints on b+w paper from c-41 film, and it is a more affordable way to have black and white photos for those people who don't have ready access to a darkroom.

7/2/2003 8:42:42 AM

Kristine 

member since: 1/15/2002
  I have to agree with Robert(Bridges). I have my own darkroom and develop "TRUE" B&W film...T-Max 100. I am very leary about these companies messing around with my stuff and have no desire to use c41 processed B&W film. I know that others don't have the time ,money,or desire to mess with developing their own film(it's not for everyone I know).But i'll tell you it sure is a blast having creative control over what you are doing and going for that perfect picture..i guess you can call that "quality control".I can spend hours in there doing what I love to do.

7/7/2003 2:55:26 PM

Melissa Williams

member since: 3/29/2003
  Yeah, I WISH I had my own darkroom. It'll be years before I can afford it. And then I'd never come out. I love printing my own stuff (when I'm not pulling my hair out angry at stubborn dust particles). There are so many neat things you can do. I still want to play around with liquid emulsion some time. When I had access to a darkroom I'd stay in there as long as possible and after a while my contacts would get irritated so my eyes would burn as soon as I walked outside into daylight. It kept getting worse so I had to go buy regular glasses. My contacts were absorbing the chemical vapors and over time it became a big problem. But I still miss the dark room.

7/7/2003 4:11:29 PM

Seb N. Sikora

member since: 10/10/2003
  I used to work at a jessops, and you should see the damage 'proper' b&w does to an automated development machines with c-41 chemistry in them :( The film comes out sticky, as if the emulsion has been partially etched away!

As for b&w film, I really like hp5, and neopan 1600 / kodak tmax 3200. I really like the moody grainy shots they give without flash, especially when pushed 6400+

Seb-

10/10/2003 9:12:01 AM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  If you're digital, desaturate the color, adjust the contrast/brightness or use curves and your done. Burn to a CD and send to a lab or print from your computer.

Very simple.

10/10/2003 1:13:39 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kathy 

member since: 6/13/2003
  19 .  Prints and Proofs
What is the difference in a print and a proof? I can have film developed into prints or proofs.

6/18/2003 6:52:49 PM

John A. Lind
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/27/2001
  Kathy,
A long time ago, proofs were made using materials and methods that were not "archival" as they were intended for temporary viewing and decision making about ordering prints . . . deliberately in the event they were kept or "lost." Prints were made using archival methods and materials.

Today, the difference is more often with the care taken in color balancing and more attention paid to the printing process. In general, what are referred to as "proofs" today are usually inexpensive "machine prints" with the printing machine running totally on "auto" mode, with color balancing perhaps done with the first frame, or first few frames to be printed. A pro lab making true "prints" should color balance each one individually, to ensure it's consistent with all the rest, and take more care with inspecting them, even if they're still using a print machine to make them.

These are broad generalities. You should ask the lab that offers these what their definitions of "proof" and "print" are, and exactly what the difference is between them.

6/23/2003 7:31:12 PM

Kathy 

member since: 6/13/2003
  Thank you very much for the response. What I need for my purpose is prints.

6/23/2003 7:37:25 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
June Hyland

member since: 6/5/2003
  20 .  ISO Film Settings
On my camera(Canon EOS 3000)I can change the ISO speed. Can I change this film speed several times on the same roll of film ie... some sports shots using a hi speed; then some shots using slow speeds??

6/18/2003 6:21:49 AM

Jon Close
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2000
  You can ..., but the film's sensitivity to light doesn't change. If you increase the ISO setting the autoexposure will set faster shutter speeds/smaller apertures, but this effectively underexposes the film. Print film generally has pretty wide exposure latitude, so that you can get useable (but not optimal) results from -1 or -2 stops underexposed up to +2 or +3 stops overexposed. Eg. for ISO 400 film you can rate it from ISO 1600 (-2 stops) to ISO 50 (+3 stops). If you make a wide variance in ISO settings frame to frame on a single roll you will need a very attentive printer to adjust the printing of each frame as the negatives will be of wildly different densities.

Slide film has much narrower exposure latitude, generally giving useable results in the range of +-2/3 stops (eg. 400 speed film rated no higher than 640, nor lower than 250). Some slide films are amenable to "push processing", so that you can expose the entire roll at +1 or +2 stops and inform the lab to give the film that many stops of extra development. The film stays in the chemical solution longer to bring up the otherwise underexposed image. This cannot be done frame by frame, but for the entire roll only. The result usually has greater grain and more contrast than normally developed film.

Increasing the exposure rating on print film is often called "pushing," but the C-41 print film chemistry generally does not respond to extra development time the way black & white and slide film does. The only advertised exception to this is Kodak's professional Supra/Portra 400 and Supra/Portra 800 print films.

6/18/2003 12:46:10 PM

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

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