gene crumpler Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Well, I've finally given up completely on 35mm photography. I've been using Kodak Supra 100 for scanning. Is there anything that is comparable in either 120 or 220? I just got a 13 inch printer and plan to get a Epson 3170 or 3200 for MF negatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dale_dickerson2 Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Try KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 400UC or 160VC Film... Both have about the same grain and the do a very nice job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmanthree Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Ditto on the Portra 400 UC, but there's something else to consider: If you're going to scan, then you'll get much better results with a 35mm chrome and a dedicated film scanner than with a MF neg and Epson 3200. the 3200 is nice, but no match for a dedicated film scanner. I've scaned 35mm Velvia 50 and produced very nice 20 x 30 prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbq Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 A probably stupid question: why not use slide film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_drew4 Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Dittoes on the Portra choices, and Fuji Reala is excellent too. Personally I have used Agfa Optima 100 for gonzo prints, but in terms of scanning, Portra is currently my preference. I love Supra 100 & 400 too. The Epson 3200 is a fine unit, and yes, I compromised to get started. A MF film scanner would be sweet! You may find MF shooting will help your 35mm technique, so don't give it up, maybe just shelve it for a while? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendrik Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Hi, I use Portra 160VC & NC all the time - great results. I'm not going to go into the pro's & cons of flatbed vs dedicated scanners any more than saying - a MF adaptor on a Nikon film scanner costs more than a Epson 3200 complete. If you realy want the best scans get a Imacon drum scanner. If you know what you're doing 13" prints will be no problem with the Epson 3200. I have made lifesize prints off this scanner without problems. Rubbish in rubbish out!! Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert goldstein Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 I find that Reala is the finest print film for landscapes and almost everything else, except under cloudy skies, and I would recommend it over any of the Portra films, regardless of the format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oskar_ojala Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Like other, I would prefer Portra 400UC and Reala for your application. I also sometimes prefer the low-contrast look of Portra 160NC. I would use more Optima, but it's hard to come by in 120 here and I mostly shoot slides anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olivier_reichenbach Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Are you telling me that you can still find Supra 100 and 400 in 120 format? I thought it had been replaced by Royal Supra (born of the marriage between Royal Gold and Supra films) more than a year ago. I liked Supra, and I can't find it anymore in Montreal, nor can I Royal Supra. So far. I am very satisfied with my Epson 3200 for MF. At least for prints up to A4. I don't know for anything bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_martin5 Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 If you plan to use a flatbed scanner for film, you may want to wait for the Epson 4870 since it has digital ICE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 I wasn't aware Supra or Royal films were *ever* made in 120 or 220 format. UC 400 is the most logical substitute for Supra. Don't forget slide films like Provia 400F. Less exposure lattitude than UC or Supra, but more color saturation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene crumpler Posted January 6, 2004 Author Share Posted January 6, 2004 I've been using Supra 100 in 35mm. I've got a minolta scan dual which will get 2400dpi resolution. However, I've not made digital prints much over 8x10.5 with good results. The 35mm scans from the minolta just don't produce decent 13x19 size prints. My general impression has been that negatives scan better than slides. I've thought about using Velva, but the general wisdom is to shoot negative film if you are shooting for prints. I have no interest in slides, few have MF projectors, including me. My only interest is print making, color and B&W. I've been printing B&W for about 50 years and just got into color 3 years ago with the use of computers. Negative films have more latitude, as I generally shot B&W MF without metering. I shot film for many years before I ever got a light meter. What my ultimate objective is to reduce the bulk and weight of equipment that I carry for long trips. My goal is to carry one hasselblad, two lenses and two backs and a tripod. I've been carrying both the blad, lenses, backs and a contax G, two lenses and it is just getting to be more than I want to deal with. The ideal is to use 100 film for color and B&W; setup, shoot B&W, switch magazines and shot color. As to the scanner, I'm going to try an inexpensive scanner like the epson 3170/3200 to see if I really want to produce exhibition size color prints. My first love is B&W! If I really get into large color prints, I might consider a $2-3k film scanner, or an upscale digital back or camera-(I have a number of top-of-the-line nikon lenses). But at that point, I could just get large C prints for the ocassional 16x20. I gave up on 35mm B&W about 4 years ago, when I was still struggling with 35mm tech pan to get so-called 4x5 quality. It suddenly dawned on me that I already had about 6 MF cameras and it hit me, why 35mm, Duh???(That rusty old engineering degree did kick in) My web site- http://home.att.net/~nikonguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audun_sjoeseth1 Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Gene: Like you, I've left 135-film (I wasn't satisfied). I carry a 503CW (+Metz 45CT-4 when needed), CF50-FLE, CFE80 and CF150 + tubes if needed. I use 2 A12 + A16 and E24 backs, WLF + 45 degree finder. But I use Fujichrome Provia 100F and Astia 100(F) (+ some Kodak Ektachrome 100), and I'm satisfied (these films shall be easy to scan). I plan to buy an A3+ printer and an Epson 3170/3200/4870 scanner. I also plan to develope my own B&W-films, and scan them. I work mostly hand held, but I need a new tripod (want a light weigt Gitzo Carbon). I use a Nissin D4001i light meter for 2d+3d insident + flash and reflected metering, the only thing I miss is spot. In the future I think I'll buy a 350mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_drew4 Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Sorry for the confusion above . . . gee whiz! I use Supra 100 & 400 for 35mm tasks, not 120 as was interpreted. I like Supra for 35mm only. Judging by the "pounce factor" a lot of you feel like it would be great as a 120 choice? Again apologies for my dangling participles or whatever . . . :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene crumpler Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 Went by the local shop and the only thing they had in 220 was Kodak Portra 160. So that's what I'll be shooting with the next two weeks on our cruise through the Panama Canal. I've shot a little Reala in 35mm and was pretty happy. It's about time for a large order from B&H, so I'll get some then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now