John P.
We have the same initials! To change the course of this thread a bit, I'd like
to deal with a
more basic question. All my serious photography has been in B&W, and some
years ago. I burned
out, then slowly crept back in using color, since I no longer had a darkroom.
I shot color neg
material. The I started shooting Velvia, etc. fairly recently. My impression
is that Cibas
made from transparencies are far better than anything I ever got from any print
film. Pricey,
though. Actually, I did experiment a little with Ciba when I had my darkroom,
so I know I
could do it again. Do you agree that Cibas are the best color prints?
John Pendley
John A. Prosper wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, John Pendley wrote:
>
> |
> |
> |Christopher Biggs wrote:
> |
> |> John Pendley <jpendley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and
> spake thusly:
> |>
> |> > For B&W, it used to be Tri-X all the way--in HC110, 1 to 31. I've been
> out
> |> > of it for awhile, so don't know about T-MAX. A lot of people seem to
> like
> |> > it. But I got beautiful 11x14's with Tri-X, processed right.
> |>
> |> T-Max does magic with grain structure to give finer grain at the same
> |> speed. The hidden cost is that it's less "tolerant" of exposure and
> |> processing variations. Some people consider that the T-Max films are
> |> best left for the studio where everything is under perfect control,
> |> while Tri-X still rules in the field.
> |>
> |> > As for color, you can't beat Velvia.
> |>
> |> But not for people, and certainly not indoors!
> |>
> |> A low contrast portrait film like Kodak Portra or Fuji NPH is
> |> indicated for that application.
> |
> |Hi, Christopher,
> |Thanks for the feedback, especially re: Tri-X. I'd have spotted the
> limitations of Velvia
> |if I shot people, or if I shot indoors. (Actually, I do, but usually with a
> Stylus and
> |print film.) But almost all my "serious" stuff is landscapes/nature, etc.
> I have tried
> |the new Ektachrome 100VS. It's terrific, and faster, but it hasn't yet won
> me over from
> |Velvia. Given the difference in color rendition between the two, it'll
> probably end up
> |being a matter of choosing one or the other based on application.
> |John
>
> For portrait photographic prints, try Agfa's Portrait 160, Fuji NGH
> 160, or Kodak Portra. Both Fuji and Kodak also market 400 ISO
> versions of these films. For portrait transparencies, try Fuji Astia
> or Kodak Elite; both are 100 ISO.
>
> For landscapes/nature, the *BIG NEWS* is that Fuji has a brand new
> transparency film called *Provia 100F (RDP III)* which is *the most
> grainless film ever made*. RMS granularity index = 8!: Velvia's &
> Kodachrome 25 = 9. It is also said to be extremely pushable: up to 2
> stops! with little efect on color and tone. I am still awaiting my
> first brick of this material from B&H. Undoubtedly, Fuji is going to
> incorporate the new "Super-Fine Crystal" emulsion technology employed
> in Provia 100F into all their professional slide films, including
> Velvia, for even sharper slide films.
>
> I strongly suspect Kodak is trying to cook up a response to all this,
> as evidenced by their very recent cancellation of their Kodachrome 25
> & 64 lines.
>
> When the film giants slug it out, photographers win! ;-D
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|