r.t. dowling

Fuji Crystal Archive when using Fuji or Konica films.

 

Kodak Royal when using Kodak films.

 

Agfa Prestige when using Agfa films.

Royal paper is heavier/thicker. I'd say it's worth the extra dollar.

You'd need to take it to a pro lab. If you take it to any average 1-hour place and ask

them to push it, they'll look at you like you've got 5 heads or something.

For grainy slides, try the following:

 

Kodachrome 200; Ektachrome 400x/EliteChrome 400; Ektachrome p1600; Ektachrome Infrared EIR.

 

You could also try Sensia 400 or Provia 400F, pushed a few stops, if you prefer Fujifilm.

I've heard nothing but bad stories about PerfectTouch processing. Give it a try, but don't expect any miracles!

Scott, you do realize that Busch Lite is the Kodak Max 800 of beers, don't you? ;-)

There's no excuse for not answering a customer's e-mail. I don't care whether the business owner is computer illiterate or not. If he isn't going to answer e-mail, he shouldn't have published the e-mail address. That's like putting an ad in the yellow pages of the phone book, but never answering the phone.

Whether it's true or not depends on who you ask. Some people say yes, others say no. Last time I asked Kodak tech support, they said yes.

 

I've shot both and I personally can't tell the difference.

 

If it's just a photo class, I don't see why you should have to pay twice as much for the pro version if the amateur version will do just as well. If you were shooting fashion catalog photos and needed critical consistency, that would be a different matter.

Wow. That sucks. Live and learn, I guess. :-/

Konica Impresa 50 is excellent, as long as you can tolerate the slow speed. The colors

seem to be a bit more accurate when I've rated it at ISO 32. It is extremely sharp and

has the finest grain of any print film I've used so far (never did get a chance to use

Royal Gold 25 before Kodak killed it).

My local pro lab charges $7 to process slide film, which includes plastic or cardboard

mounts (your choice) as well as optional text imprinting on the mounts.

 

If I don't mind waiting a couple weeks, I send my slide film to A&I using prepaid

mailers from B&H. The cost is $5.49 and they do a fantastic job.

 

The local grocery store charges $4 to process slide film. The slides usually come back

a little bit dusty, but nothing too serious. I'd say they do a better job than Kodak/

Qualex. I wouldn't hesitate to use them if I had no other choice.

 

So... yes, you can get slide film processed just as inexpensively as print film, if you

know where to look.

 

To answer your other question: yes, you can get 4x6 prints when using slide film. The

most affordable way to do that is to get your slide film processed normally, then look

at your slides, and then pick out the best ones that you want printed. At that point,

you can take the slides to a lab that has a digital machine (such as a Fuji Frontier, or

the Agfa/Noritsu equivalents), and these labs can usually make excellent 4x6 prints-

from-slides for less than $1 each. My local pro lab does it for $.75 each, printed on

Kodak Royal paper. Or, I can spend about $.50 each by taking the slides to Wal-Mart

where they'll be printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper (which seems to be a very nice

match for Fuji slide films).

Press 800 is a good film. Superia XTRA 800 is the same emulsion, and may be less expensive depending on where you buy it. NPZ 800 is even better. But they're all pretty decent films, especially compared to the ISO 800 offerings from Kodak.

My mother has a color glossy 8x10 photo (from the mid-'70s, on Kodak

consumer paper). She recently decided to put it in a new picture

frame, only to discover that it was stuck to the glass. She tried to

remove it carefully but it started to tear, so she gave up. Is there

any way to remove the photo from the glass without causing further damage?

It sounds like you'll need at least ISO 800, and in that case, Fuji NPZ is by far the best possible film for the job.

Scan the slide and upload the digital file to Adorama Digital Pro-Lab (featured here on

photo.net). They'll print it on Kodak Royal paper. I've done this a few times and the

results have been astounding. 8x10 prints are only $2.99.

In my experience, the colors of 400F are a bit more "cool" than 100F (i.e. more blue).

Yes, the same is generally true of negative films. In fact, negative films usually fare a

bit better than slide films when it comes to age.

 

6 months past the expiration date is usually no big deal, and it's even less of a big

deal if the film has been stored in a cool, dark place.

 

I've used film that was a few *years* past the expiration date and there was no

noticable color shift. And of course, black and white film doesn't color shift so you

can worry even less about it.

They'll be fine. Use them without worry.

Jason wrote:

 

"A couple of you mentioned the Fuji Frontier. I have talked a couple of local shops

about this machine, which they have said produces fairly good prints from slides. Do

these prints loose much from the original shot? At about 11 dollars per print, it

would be a somewhat pricey but possible compromise for me."

 

$11 per print? What size? Wal-Mart can do Frontier prints-from-slides for around 50

cents for a 4x6.

 

The results are very good. Definitely better than Type R or interneg.

Yes, any run-of-the-mill drugstore minilab can process it. Some of them might do a

better or worse job of printing it than others, but that applies to any film.

 

If the drugstore has a Fuji Frontier machine, you should get pretty good looking

prints even if the employees aren't familiar with Press 1600.

It looks "ok" on Fuji paper. Not great, but not terrible. Kodak Royal paper is a better bet if you can find a lab that uses it.

Oops, I just noticed that you said Ektachrome 64, not K64. Actually, the two are fairly similar in terms of grain. E64 is RMS 12 I think.

Ektachrome 400X is VERY grainy (RMS 17 or 19 I think). K64 is rather grainy for its speed (RMS 10-13 depending on which data sheet Kodak is publishing these days).

 

Try Provia 400F when you need speed. Otherwise, films like Velvia 100F or E100G are great general purpose slide films with super fine grain.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the old Elite II 200 was based on the original Ektachrome 200, rather than the newer E200. When Kodak revised the Elite line and removed the "II" designation, I really firmly believe that this was the point when Elite 200 became equivalent to E200. And that's what was told to me by Kodak tech support... but I guess it's not so unusual to get varying responses from different tech support reps (this apparently happens with Fuji too).

Well, it's been a few years since Kodak has made "Elite II" so your argument may not be valid...