r.t. dowling

Steve Dunn wrote:

 

"As the PGI numbers suggest, 160VC (PGI 40) is quite a bit more grainy than Supra 100 (PGI 27)"

 

Last time I checked, 160NC had a PGI of 30 and 160VC was 33. Supra 100 was 28. Or did Kodak go and screw around with their damn PGI numbers again?

I haven't used it, but this is the information I have about it.

 

Ektachrome P1600

 

ISO 400-3200 (variable by push processing)

 

Grain: RMS 17-38

 

RP: 80-63 LPM

 

Film ID: EPH

 

 

"A color slide film designed to be push processed, P1600 produces better results than Ektachrome 400x when pushed to higher speeds. Color reproduction is similar to that of 400x, but contrast is a bit higher. P1600 has a higher D-max to minimize that smokey underexposed look in shadow areas when normal slide films are push processed. A great slide film when super high speeds are needed."

 

From that description, it sounds like it is basically an ISO 400 film that has been specially optimized for a two-stop push. If you shoot it at 400, it should, theoretically, behave similarly to Ektachrome 400x.

A free roll of film and/or free processing are generally the standard remedies in these situations. This limit of liability was probably written in fine print on the slip you were given when you dropped off your film.

Kodak Portra 400UC. The undisputed champion of ISO 400 color print films.

High Definition 400 is actually the new name for Royal Gold 400. It is not the same as Portra 400UC. This fact has been confirmed by Kodak Technical Support.

 

To answer Gene's question: HD400 is very different from Supra 100. Much grainier, not quite as sharp, and a slightly different color pallette. HD400 (or better yet, Portra 400UC) might be a viable alternative to Supra 400, but definitely not in the same league as Supra 100.

 

Fuji Superia-Reala 100 (not regular Superia 100) is similar to Supra 100 in terms of fine grain. However, it has a bit less saturation and less contrast. It is a very nice film.

I think A&I Color Lab in Hollywood will work with nude images, as long as the

subjects are of legal age. Their web site is www.aandi.com -- you can e-mail them

and they'll give you a prompt, courteous answer. Very good people to work with.

I'm going to be using Kodak Gold 100 tonight for the fireworks. I had planned on

trying Agfa Ultra 100 but didn't have time to get to the photo store yesterday, and

they're closed today. So Gold 100 it is. I'm sure it will be fine.

Any of the Kodak Portra films will scan well, particularly 160NC, 400NC and 400UC. I

don't particularly like the VC variants.

Royal Gold 200 had a PGI of 41, which is lower than Gold 100's PGI of 45. If Kodak takes Royal Gold 200 and repackages it as HD 200 (which seems like something they would do, considering that HD 400 is RG 400), there would be some truth to their claim that it has grain as fine as (or finer than) an ISO 100 film.

Regarding Velvia 50...

 

It will continue to be available in the U.S. for the forseeable future. Fujifilm USA has received a lot of outcry from professional photographers who depend on Velvia 50, and they have no plans to discontinue it -- at least not in the U.S.

According to the Kodachrome 64 datasheet on Kodak's web site, Kodak

claims that K64 is not suitable for exposures longer than 1 second.

Is that true? What happens if you make exposures longer than 1

second on K64?

Just shoot Velvia or Provia, and then take the slide to a lab that has a Fuji Frontier and have them make a print from it. It's that easy!

One of the reasons you won't find Gold 100 in department stores and grocery stores these days is because there just isn't any "need" for it anymore. Today's ISO 200-400 films are just as good, and most people who buy their film at these places are using point-and-shoots and can certainly use the extra speed.

 

There was a time when ISO 100 was considered "general purpose." Then it was ISO 200. Today it's ISO 400.

Wondering if this would be a good choice for fireworks, compared to

Kodak Gold 100, Agfa Vista 100, or Fuji Superia-Reala 100.

There is a press release on the Fuji web site stating that a new

version of Sensia 100 will be coming out soon. I don't recall hearing

about it here on photo.net so I was wondering if anybody knows

anything about it. I'm wondering if it'll be a consumer version of

Astia 100F or Velvia 100F, or perhaps a different emulsion altogether.

Fuji 200 (either Superia or Super HQ depending on where you're located) is pretty good. The grain is comparable to Superia 100, but it isn't as contrasty and the colors seem a bit more accurate. Blue skies show no grain at 5"x7". When I want (or need) to shoot Fuji print film, I generally choose either Superia-Reala 100 (for bright sun or portraits), Super HQ 200 (general purpose), or Superia XTRA 800 (low light or action). I avoid Superia 100 and Superia XTRA 400.

Here is an article that might be of interest:

 

http://www.ritzcamera.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StaticView?tmreturn=true&processRequest=10002&cmd=StaticView&catalogId=10001&staticPage=%2Fetc%2Fcontent%2Frcarticles%2Ffireworks_tips.html&langId=-1&location=NLR06C&capture=TRUE&storeId=10001

 

(It's a very long URL so make sure you copy and paste the entire line)

Kodak "Black & White" (also known for a while as Select Series Black & White +) is allegedly the consumer version of Portra 400BW. T400CN is slightly different.

 

Portra 400BW (and, presumably, Black & White) is supposed to be easier to print on color paper. They say T400CN is easier to print on black & white paper.

Reala would be a perfect choice, especially if you're shooting with a reasonably fast lens, outdoors, on nice sunny or partly sunny days. If you have a slow lens or if you might be shooting any kind of action or in less than perfect light, you'll really need something in the ISO 400-800 range. Some good choices are Kodak Portra 400UC, Fuji NPH 400, and Fuji NPZ 800. These are pro films so you probably won't find them everywhere. If you need a film that you can find in a drug store or grocery store, then I would recommend Kodak High Definition 400, Fuji Superia XTRA 400, or Fuji Superia XTRA 800.

 

Hope this helps. Have a nice trip!

<html><head><body>Today I found a review of Kodak High Definition 400.

Here is the link:<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.photographicage.com/content/issues/volume_01/issue_10/review_txt_2.htm">http://www.photographicage.com/content/issues/volume_01/issue_10/review_txt_2.htm</a><br>

<br>

Enjoy,<br>

-R.T.<br>

</body></html>

Tech Pan probably has the highest resolution of any film currently available, but if someone needs a film for lens testing purposes, color film might be preferable because different lenses often render colors differently. I recently saw a review that compared a Canon 50/1.8 lens to a 50/1.4 and the 1.4 had brighter, more saturated colors. The difference might not have been discernable with B&W film.

NPZ pushed to 1600 is quite nice, as is Konica Centuria Super 1600.

 

How come no tripod?

Does this mean that if I take a roll of Reala 100 and a roll of Superia 1600 to the same minilab, both rolls are going to spend the same amount of time in the chemicals? If that's the case and it works fine, then why do pro labs offer pushing or pulling? What difference would it make?

Get a tripod and take lots of pretty landscape, nature, architecture, still life, etc.

pictures.

I wouldn't bother with Mystic, as they were bought out by another company and have gone way downhill.