Film for New York: Results

<p>Thanks again to everyone who posted advice in response to my question(s) about film for photography in New York. Here's that original thread:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00WO8x</p>

<p>I eventually tried a mix of Velvia 50 (rated at 40), Ektrachrome EBX100, Tri-X 400, and Fuji Pro 160C. Some results can be seen on my Flickr account, as follows.</p>

<p>A mix of films, mainly slides, from New York:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/7709253@N08/sets/72157624260751888/</p>

<p>Some shots from Chicago, mainly Fuji Pro 160C:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/7709253@N08/sets/72157624241195234/</p>

<p>Some TRI-X 400 shots from New York:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/7709253@N08/sets/72157624135573735/</p>

<p>Overall I was pleased with the performance of the Velvia 50, I didn't see too many shots where dynamic range became a problem. The EBX 100 looks, to my eye, almost as good as the Velvia, and is sometimes hard to tell apart. The Tri-X is ok, but I prefer the look of some shots I took recently with Fuji Neopan 1600. Somehow teh Tri-X looks grainier but the relatively low quality scans may be a factor.</p>

<p>Biggest pleasant surprise of all was how well the Pro 160C turned out, I love the look of the colours this film produced.</p>

<p>Overall it's yet another reminder that this sort of thing just cannot be replicated in digital, not straight out of teh camera anyway.</p>

<p>All thoughs welcome.</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

JC</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I find that with Tri-X or any B&W film other than the C-41 B&W films that if you don't do them yourself then you will never know what you could have gotten.</p>

<p> Glad all the others turned out well for you andyou had a great trip.</p>

<p>Thanks, Larry. Yes, absolutely, I must get some proper scans done. BUt I have the negatives so I will have a look at those.</p>

 

<p>Well I meant that you need to process the B&W yourself but rescanning the negatives may be better as most places just over correct and you get more grain than you really have.</p>

<p>Ah right, well I didn't do any of the scanning myself - in both cases the scans were made by the processing lab. But I assumed the negatives were probably fine, and the overly grainy look to the TRI-X was down to the low-quality scan. The other side of these sorts of scans is that they match the printed version, i.e. both the print, and the scan, are actually cropped from the centre of the negative, so you lose some edge areas, I think. A couple of shots where I was careful to exactly frame teh content ended up coming back with crucial areas missing!</p>

<p>The photo titled "57th" in your black-and-white gallery wins hands down for me; I could easily see it hung in any of the big exhibition halls of the world. There's a hard-to-describe "classic" feel to it. Agree with Larry that automated scans don't do justice to b&w negatives in terms of grain.</p>

<p>As regards Fuji 160c, I used it on a trip to Croatia last year, specifically for ultrawide shots - I have a great ultrawide lens for my M42 screw-mount SLR cameras, but none for my digital system.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9821754-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="363" /></p><div></div>

<p>Thanks very much indeed, Zoltan. Although I can't see it hanging in any galleries (except Flickr) any time soon, you're not the first person who's said they liked the 57th Street Subway shot.<br>

Both your pics are good, I particularly like the one of the boat, a good range of well-rendered colours there.</p>