anand_n._vishwamitran

<p>E6: Kodak E100G or Fuji Provia 100F (if you can't find E100G).<br>

E6 MF: Fuji Astia 100F which is still being made<br>

If you want to stick to C41, shoot Portra 160. It's <a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1475-25">saturated enough</a> for me.</p>

<p>Paul Neuthaler, good one :)<br>

Peter Maxwell, I think the problem is you are still shooting digital ;)</p>

 

<p>Move over Ferraris and Arnold abs.<br>

<a href="

 

<p>Robin, the XPAN shot looks flatter to me. Hard to say whether I am prejudiced!</p>

<p>Two pictures taken minutes part to show that resolution matters even if the end result is just a jpg.</p>

<p>Both are film scans, scanned at 4000dpi, levels/curves in Photoshop, downsized for Web viewing.</p>

<p>#1 Hasselblad XPAN, 90mm f/4 lens shot wide open, Fuji Provia 100F<br>

<a href="http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1213-22">http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1213-22</a></p>

<p>#2 Mamiya 7II, 80mm f/4 lens shot wide open, Fuji Provia 100F<br>

<a href="http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1216-2">http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1216-2</a></p>

<p>Even at this size, the Mamiya shot looks more compelling to me.</p>

Mike, your suggested analogy of comparing different emulsions within 35mm is more apt than mine. Still, it doesn't

negate my statement that resolution matters. For example, 35mm images made by Velvia 50 command more

presence/depth than Superia 100 ones - so lpmm does seem to matter.

 

Another myth in my opinion is that print size matters. My experience is that even compressed as web jpgs, greater

resolution shines through. Product shots and food images look more than real coming off off a medium format sensor

- regardless of whether they are 1000px wide or 1000cm wide.

It is a complete myth to say that megapixels *don't* matter.

 

Were that not true, people would never have cared to shoot medium format film.

 

A higher resolution image - all other things like subject/sensor/film choice/processing techniques being equal - means

an image with more 'presence'. Ask anybody who shoots medium format or 4x5.

<sorry if this is a repeat post, having problems posting>

Two points for you to consider:

 

1. Canon and Nikon have a history of leapfrogging each other in product capabilities - the EOS 1D, the EOS 1Ds, the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm being just a few quick examples prior to the D800.

 

2. If you look at the 1Dx's resolution and max frame rate, Canon's DIGIC processors are moving 18MP x 14fps = 252 MPps worth of data. Drop the fps down to a 1Ds Mark III level of 5fps, we have a possible max resolution 252/5 = 50.4MP. So the tech for a 50MP camera is already there.

 

Taking both of the above points together is why you don't want to switch to Nikon unless your livelihood depends on 36MP pictures. Given the D800's almost certain success, a mega-megapixel Canon camera will be a market reality sooner rather than later.

<p>Two points for you to consider:<br>

<br /> 1. Canon and Nikon have a history of leapfrogging each other in product capabilities - the EOS 1D, the EOS 1Ds, the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm being just a few quick examples prior to the D800.</p>

<p>2. If you look at the 1Dx's resolution and max frame rate, Canon's DIGIC processors are moving 18MP x 14fps = 252 MPps worth of data. Drop the fps down to a 1Ds Mark III level of 5fps, we have a possible max resolution 252/5 = 50.4MP. So the tech for a 50MP camera is already there. And given the D800's almost certain success, it will be a market reality sooner rather than later.</p>

<p>Taking both of the above points together is why you don't want to switch to Nikon unless your livelihood depends on 36MP pictures.</p>

<p>Like E100G, only <a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1520-10">warmer</a> with <a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1505-1">tasteful colors</a>.</p>

<p>For exposures 4 minutes and above for Fuji Provia 100F, Fuji's data sheets suggest two things: (a) +1/3 stop exposure compensation (b) a color correcting filter to compensate for color shift.</p>

<p>My question is, is the +1/3rd stop needed if I were to dispense with the filter i.e. if I plan to do color correction in post.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Karim, words are cheap aren't they? You will need to show us a scan of Portra 400 35mm that doesn't exhibit grain. My Coolscan 9000 consistently shows Portra 400 to be grainier, and to my eyes, less sharp than Portra 160.</p>

<p>35mm Portra 400 is grainy and lacks resolution. Medium format is<a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1509-10"> another story.</a><br>

Portra 160 on the other hand is capable of <a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1475-25">extraordinary resolution</a>, 35mm or otherwise.</p>

<p>Thank you again to all the posters in this thread.<br /> <br /> I threw all the old stuff I had, and mixed a fresh batch of developer, stop, fixer and photo-flo. Worked like a charm. 2 weeks later, I mixed fresh developer and photo-flo but re-used stop and fixer. No problem again - <a href="http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1504-34">good images</a> resulted.<br>

<br /> So the stale developer was definitely the problem first time round. Lesson learned.<br>

Thank you to all!</p>

<p>Stephen, rolls 2 and 3 were from a Leica M7. I suppose it is possible that the film never got exposed, but there is no way of telling now, is there? I don't believe I used the fixer first since all working solutions are in well-marked bottles, so assuming the film did get exposed, it must be as Clay/Leigh say that the developer was completely inert. </p>

<p>Paul/Charles, would oxidation of Rodinal be a problem too, or does this vary with developers? Interesting ideas on blowing air & using marbles! I would not have thought of either.</p>

<p>Russ/Craig, point well taken about simplifying things. The reasons I picked Rodinal were (a) I liked the look of images I saw posted on the Web (b) it was different enough from what my local lab uses (xtol). Even had I used D-76 and the same film throughout, I dare say I would have committed the same mistakes I did here. Also, I don't do this for a living, a large part of the fun is in experimentation and variety, so why restrict myself to a 'safe' combination - I want to commit mistakes early and often, just a different philosophy. </p><div></div>

<p>2 follow-up questions:</p>

<ol>

<li>The original batch of fixer/stop bath/photo flo remain in plastic bottles at room temperature with tight but not airtight caps. Does anyone see a problem with this?</li>

<li>Developer/Fixer/stop bath/photo flo stock solutions that I purchased remain in vendor packaging - plastic bottles at room temperature. I suppose that is ok?</li>

</ol>

<p>My underlying concern is how to preserve stock solution (vendor product) and working solution. I would hate to have my 4th roll ruined! Thank you for helping me learn and observe best practice.</p>

 

<p>Thank you to all who responded! I seem to have had beginner's luck in the first 2 rolls. Leigh's comment summed up consensus pretty well, and Bob Sunley seems to be advocating discarding PhotoFlo too (contrary to some of the others).</p>

<p>Based on this, I plan to treat Rodinal as 1 shot, reuse stop and fixer for a few rolls (thanks Clay for the 'snip' test) and to be safe, mix PhotoFlo only as needed. In general, I'll just be aggressive discarding chemicals: they are far cheaper than my memories. </p>

<p>To answer some of the questions that sprang up:<br>

Clay, roll #2 was developed a day after roll #1 (but roll #2 used a fresh batch anyway). Roll #3 was 3 weeks after roll #2 i.e. with diluted Rodinal that had been sitting for 3 weeks.</p>

<p>Russ, no frame numbers are visible in the 3rd roll. What should I conclude from this?</p>

<p>> Lex: Are you sure the film wasn't overlapping, preventing free circulation of the developer and fixer?</p>

 

<p>There was some of this as well because I hadn't wound the film properly on the steel reel. In addition, there were spots with almost colorless scum behind which the negative was mostly well-developed. </p>

<p>> Lex: BTW, that's a terrific photo of the slightly blurred hands on the piano. Sometimes the best "portraits" don't show faces, but reveal more through suggestions and glances.</p>

<p>Thank you Lex! Coming from someone who I've learned from a lot by just lurking and reading, I'll take this as a huge compliment :) Here's one more where the whole face isn't shown. Focus was on the left eye.</p><div></div>

<p>To be clear about my developer re-use, I did not re-use chemicals that had already developed film i.e. I discarded the solution in Rolls 1 and 2 that had been used to actively develop film. What I did re-use was the remainder of the working solution that I had created.</p><div></div>

<p>I ruined a roll of B&W film after successfully developing 2 rolls earlier. What am I doing wrong? Specifics:</p>

<p><strong>Roll #1: </strong>Tri-X @ ISO 250, 9:15 <br /> Found scum on some frames, moved to distilled water for my 2nd roll</p>

<p><strong>Roll #2:</strong> Pan F+ @ ISO 50, 11:30<br /> Fantastic negs, great contrast, decent shadow detail, exquisitely sharp. I was really looking forward to the 3rd roll.</p>

<p><strong>Roll #3:</strong> Acros @ ISO 80, 15:00<br /> <strong>Result</strong>: Undeveloped, blank negatives. Disappointed.</p>

<p>So what did I do wrong? I have a theory and I'd like to confirm this.</p>

<p>For Roll #1, I created Rodinal working solution 1+50 in a bottle. I threw this out for Roll #2 because I noticed scum on the final negatives, and re-made developer using distilled water.<br /> <br /> I re-used what was left of the Rodinal 1+50 working solution for developing the 3rd roll.<br /> <br /> Could this re-use be why? If so, do I need to be similarly wary of stopbath, fixer and photo-flo i.e. can working solution for the last 3 be re-used?<br /> Thank you.</p><div></div>

<p>The doom and gloom here is way over the top. The world has always been coming to an end.<br>

Let's shoot some film. The new Portra is brilliant. </p><div></div>

<p><a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/grsr.aspx?caid=COG2&sort=2">This page</a> has a few pages of images, all taken with the Contax G2 system.</p>

<p>I would go with the Neopan 400 actually.<br>

You're already shooting 160NC/400NC, and since you;re open to Photoshopping, should be able to simply desaturate selected photos to get a monochrome look close to XP2 (XP2 is C-41 film).<br>

Neopan 400 is harder to mimic within software, however, so I would pair that with 160/400NC to capture moments in a more unique manner.</p>

<p>First light at Canyonlands National Park.<br>

Leica M7, 28mm f/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH, Kodak E100G.<br /><a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1269-15">Sunrise at Mesa Arch</a></p>

<p>Do I still have to travel to take pictures, or can I zoom in from my living room couch?</p>

<p>For a short review of Velvia 100F which compares it to Velvia 50, <a href="http://www.garudaimages.com/w3rootg/reviews/rvp100f/rvp100f.aspx">this link</a>.</p>