ulisse

I've recently switched from Kodak T-max to Fuji Neopan

for all my b/w photography. I did that after test sessions

where I shot both with Kodak and Fuji. I'm much more

satisfied with Fuji, and I find it odd that nobody else

on this Forum has ever mentioned anything similar.

<p>

I guess it's due to the fact that photographers are creatures

of habit: they stick to certain products and labels.

<p>

Anyway, you didn't say in your message if you have tried Neopan yourself,

or hust wanted to hear an opinion from someone who has, but I

can warmly recommend Fuji's b/w films to anyone (and I'm probably gonna

get flamed beyond recognition for saying this, by other memebrs of this

forum). The grains are finer and the contrasts less "edgy". Very good, indeed.

<p>

Hmm... you asked about the possibility to push it to 400? Well, I haven't tried

that, cause I mostly use the Neopan 400 directly, but I've pushed the 400 to 800 and 1600,

without any problems, so I don't see why the SS wouldn't work.

<p>

Go for it!

<p>

uliX

Hello, everyone.

<p>

Question: which other toners work on plastic papers,

besides Kodak Sepia? I have tried Agfa Viradon Brown,

with no results, and I don't think that Kodak Rapid Selium

is a hit either. Any suggestions? I know that some toners

are just for preserving the prints better, but I'm particularly

interested in changing the tone of the pics (possibly to

something else than just brown).

<p>

PS: I know that most (or even all) toners work on fiber, but I

just prefer working on plastic.

<p>

Thanks a lot,

<p>

ulix

A photographer friend of mine told me that measuring incident

light with a light meter is much better than measuring reflected light.

<p>

Could anyone tell me why?

<p>

I have been doing my measurements with reflected light for

quite a while now, mostly with positive results, but also some

problems when photographing in difficult light conditions.

<p>

Is measuring incident light really that better? And how's the best way to procede?

<p>

Thanks.

I have to agree with what has been said so far:

shoot as much as you can, getting your own "style",

before you start worrying about the technical side of

this art.

<p>

But if you really want to try filters, then

I think a good way to find out what they could give you

is the following: start with one filter, say green,

and then shoot a couple of films (or more) where you

take every picture twice, with and without filter [make sure

you have the right exposure with the filter, as it lets

less light in], covering as many subjects as you can. This

way you'll find out what the filter does to certain colours,

skin, backgrounds, walls, woods and whatever else

you might be interested in photographing.

<p>

This is what I did when I bought my first filters, and

I think it's a fairly systematic and straightfoward

way to discover their benefits.

<p>

Have fun. ///ulisse///

Ehm... maybe I haven't understood the whole ISO metric

system (100, 200, 1600, 6400, and so on...) very well,

but... what's the deal with 125 films?!

<p>

I mean, there's an obvious difference between, say,

100 and 400 (grains, speed, and more), but what big a

difference could there be between 100 and 125? It's not

so much faster that you can clearly see a difference

in the grains or so. So... what's the point? Am I missing something?

I've tried using Kodak's 125 film, with not so positive

results compared to Tmax 100 or Fuji's Neopan SS, so...

does anyone know the "secret" behind 125 films?

<p>

Thanks.