800 speed color film....

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by xcapekey.com, Jan 20, 2005.

  1. i was sent out to shoot some portraits for the local paper on a bar owner who's
    establishment was turning 5 this weekend...i didn't want to pop a flash as that just about
    kills things most the time so i loaded my cams up with fujipress 800 and found an open
    door to sit him by...luckily it afforded a decent glimpse of the bar behind him with some
    nice sidelighting from the other door in the bar...shot with an m2/50mm hexanon and
    m4p/21mm kobalux....<br><br>
    <img src="http://www.xcapekey.com/images2004/alex_0004.jpg"><br><br>
    <img src="http://www.xcapekey.com/images2004/alex_0003.jpg"><br><br>
    <img src="http://www.xcapekey.com/images2004/alex_0001.jpg">
     
  2. In the second shot (I presume made with the 50 at a wide aperture), those not-quite circular spots reflected off the chrome barstool legs, would that be what people are referring to as bokeh?
     
  3. Do you mean 2.8/21 Kobalux?
     
  4. some different colored billiard balls would have been nice to have been set up.
     
  5. Nice, Russ. These days ISO 800 negative film (Fuji in general) is all I use. The grain is very even, the colors are muted, it is cheap and it can be developed quickly. It also has nice exp. lat. And it desaturates nicely in Photoshop.

    The middle shot is very good. The last shot is probably what your editor would want.
     
  6. I like the first two shots. In the last shot, it looks like the guy is cold.


    CZ800, sold in multi-roll 36 exposure packs as Press 800, is a swell film. It has rich color and good latitude for an 800 speed film.


    For newspaper shooting, CZ800 is a fine film, as most images don't get printed larger than 4x6, so grain isn't an issue. Then too, the hard copy is on newsprint so the greater apparent resolution and finer grain of a slower film would be lost anyway. Unfortunately for Fuji, I don't know any newspaper or editorial shooters who are still using film, except for a few feature pieces, like Russ's.
     
  7. thanks for the comments...yes...the 21mm 2.8 kobalux....i also managed to pop off a roll
    of neopan 1600 which i've yet to develop...i'm in the middle of a move and am trying to
    set up my darkroom....

    for now, shooting with the leicas is still a viable option for me...the paper comes out twice
    a week so my deadlines can still be met with film....i usually drop my color neg off at the 1
    hour photo place, pick up the negs in fifteen minutes...do a quick edit with my loupe and
    scan some selects with my minolta scan dual iv and email them to my editor...of course,
    i'm making practically no money with this but am getting some clips and building my
    portfolio,,,,
     
  8. Very nice, I have started to shoot alot of Fujipress 800, in brighter light I shoot it at 400.
    I like the second image out of all three, seems to be comtemplating a question.
     
  9. Why are the highlights green, and why am I the only one who noticed?

    I looked at this shot and knew immediatley it was either Press 800 or Superia 800. Both notorious for crossover like this.

    Please get some NPZ.
     
  10. I've heard the the 800 NPZ is great film and the documentary style commercial photographer telling me that said it solved a lot of problems on a shoot for him. Didn't need correction. I've got some that I'm going to try and will post if anything intereting comes out of it.
     
  11. "Why are the highlights green, and why am I the only one who noticed?"


    1. We are merely human and your sense of color is keener, like a dog hearing a high-pitched wistle. :-{)


    -OR-


    2. Your monitor is better-balanced the the piece-of-crap monitor in my office, where the highlights appear, if anything, a bit blue.


    I do agree with Scott, though, that NPZ is a better film.
     
  12. Mr Eaton:

    "Why are the highlights green, and why am I the only one who noticed?"

    Maybe because the seven who posted before you just don't care and don't feel it
    necessary to remark. But more likely, because they are all morons, and you are soooo
    superior to them.

    "I looked at this shot and knew immediatley it was either Press 800 or Superia 800..."

    So did I after reading Russ' post.
     
  13. Why are the highlights green, and why am I the only one who noticed?

    Quite possibly because there is some fluorescent light present and the print has been (presumably) balances for the daylight component. On second thought, I think it may be a general cyan cast which is also killing the facial colour. The recommendation of NPZ is a good one. The 800 press is better in artificial lighting, but not for (natural) skin tones.

    Russ, I would have liked to see you get the bar owner more involved with something, anything! He looks quite bored with his five years. Either playing on his pool table, drying a glass, or whatever was to hand in the bar. Even holding a glass to the the camera as in 'cheers' would carry the story well for a local newspaper.
     
  14. Hey this is color negative. I'wonder how it was processed/scanned to have such a green cast. I would search a better lab before using pro film.
    00AqhE-21466484.jpg
     
  15. BTW burned-out highlight how much overexposure ?
     
  16. <4020.net>
    I've been using both Fuji Press 800 and NPZ for years now. Basically I use the Press film for mucking around and NPZ for important shots (the film has better colours and slightly lower contrast).
    There's a good reason (at least in Australia) why 800 Press is $AUD 4 cheaper a roll :?)
     
  17. i guess i'll have to switch to npz now ;)...thanks for the tips...

    has scott ever responded to anyone with anything positive to say? or atleast in a halfway
    decent respectful way?
     
  18. Right, Russ. It's a shame Scott so often tends to comment in this pretentious, self-
    promoting, condescending and disdainful manner. When he's not downright rude. He may
    have interesting things to say, from time to time, but who cares? He only provokes hostile
    reactions.
     
  19. Scott's an interesting one. He was banned a couple of months ago then allowed back for some silly reason. He's about the only person I know that would need a parachute to jump off his ego!
     
  20. Dave, Russ, regarding Scott Eaton, you might be interested in going to the "Film and
    processing forum." If you go all the way down the page to the "Older questions by
    category" and go to the "Processing film" category, you will find a thread that I initiated
    entitled "Bad results with HC-110" from Jan. 13th. Read it. At a certain point, Mr Eaton
    speaks, in his usual pretentious and rude way. I answer him, with a certain dose of
    irony, but politely, and prove him entirely wrong. Then, another member comments on
    Mr Eaton's manners, or lack of. And suddenly, bam!, the moderator locks out the thread
    because we happen to criticize Mr Eaton. I just couldn't believe it, so much so that I sent a
    private e-mail to the moderator.

    That may explain why he's back on these forums, and in particular on the Leica forum
    where all he has to say is that we're a bunch of idiots toying with expensive and useless
    Leica equipment.
     

Share This Page