Jump to content

What would you chose from this list if you had extra money


Recommended Posts

<p>I need more 120/220 Slide film and Negative film Got opinions on these films and the price?<br>

I have Kodak in the freezer but it is running low I don't want a blow by blow aginst Kodak but with the 220 being this price if that is low... I am here.<br>

I think I need more 220 than 120 but I can go short if I need.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Velvia, and Astia are both good transparency film , although it looks like the Velvia is out in the 220 size. NPS is also a good film. It looks like you shoot a little of everything in your gallery, I would get a few rolls of the different films and see what you like, as IMHO Fuji does not have any really bad film.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Astia is great, but Velvia 100F is aslo a fantastic general purpose film. Good skin tones, and punch (they fixed the Velvia 50 skin tones "problem" with 100F), especially with yellows. Go with Asia if you like normal saturation, velvia 100F if you like things juiced up a bit. Go all 220, as it may be discontinued soon (not available in Europe any longer), and its a lot less of a hassle than changing rolls every 10-16 shots. - Unless you are using a Holga or some other camera that cant shoot 220, which I doubt you are.<br>

Also, buy all slide, dont waste your time with print film, IMO. Print fiilm is great in 35mm for giving you pain free easy prints, from just about anywhere, but slides are so much better. With Medium Format, you have to go to a Pro Lab to get enlargements anyway, so you might as well shoot slide and have them enlarge that. Only use negs if you shoot regularly in very high contrast, terrible shooting conditions and need the extra lattitude. Even then, you will need custom burning/dodging/photoshopping to try and pull that dynamic range out and put it on a print. Its not so easy, and you wont get this in your prints unless you do it yourself, or pay a lot extra to have it done. Anyways, if you have a decent meter and shoot slides, your prints will look good without all the extra work.<br>

((As for slides lack of dynamic range, well it still has much more than either print paper, or straight (non-RAW) digital files. ))<br>

Anyways, thats my view. (Even though I still "slip" and indulge in Negative Film occasionally)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you like slide film, now is the time to enjoy it, if you still have a good E-6 lab to send it to. It's only a matter of time until the E-6 infrastructure collapses entirely. But, you're trading punchy colors for a serious lack of dynamic range.<br>

Ultimately, there are no "bad" films in 120 or 220 size. Only the pros use those sizes, and they don't buy junk. You can't go wrong with any choice, so long as it's the right film for the subject.<br>

What would I buy? Maybe some 800Z, but in 35mm. Processed and printed on a Fuji Frontier, bright colors without excess exaggeration.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gee, just looked at the Kodak clearance sale there. I'd say grab a lot of the (very discontinued) 220 size Ultra Color 400. Never going to be anything like that again if you want a really high-saturation C-41 film in 220. The new Ektar 100 isn't even available in 120, to mention 220. There's just not enough market for high-saturation films to sell in 120 or 220.<br>

Just don't use it for portraits...</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Already got the 220 Ultra color. : )</p>

<p>Thanks as for Slide film I use Dwayn's for the 120 and just send the 35mm through the Wal-mart send out service. I just ordered a Reberbished V700 to replace my 4490 because I am also getting into 4x5 so I will need the larger scanner with better DMAX......</p>

<p> You guys are OK I hope you all got some too at those prices I know 220 is hard to find but I have some in the freezer and I love that I can hold 24 in the Camera because I use a Pentagon P6 and a Kiev 6c 6s so I tend to shoot it like a Texes sized SLR. LOL</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've been gone from Kodak for 3 years and I have no information an any specific plans to maintain or discontinue anything. Having said that, I can make some educated guesses. Many of the MF films were very small volume coat-outs of 35mm products. The exception was the Portra line (especially 160 NC) where MF consumed the majority of square meters of coatings. Film sales have dropped dramatically in recent years, but I suspect that MF has not dropped as fast as 35mm since digital has trouble competing with MF. If the percentage of MF is growing, it will be around longer. There are several styles of MF format. 70mm is pretty much gone. (One of my former coleagues who had to deal with the stuff says good ridance.) The 120 format was introduced in about 1900 with 2A Brownie. The technology is ancient, but anything that has lived this long has some inertia that will keep it going. The next format likely to fall is 220. I have no idea of when this might happen, but 220 volume is small compared to 120. In the process of "SKU rationalization" small volume formats will be considered for elimination.</p>

<p>My recommendation would be to keep a 220 back if you have one. Consider the purchase of a 220 back if you could really benefit and you can get a good deal. If cash is tight, I wouldn't buy a new 220 back at full price.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...