sue_deva

Just in case someone looks up this archived thread. I went the digital route, and it was MUCH easier (and a little cheaper) than using slide film. I could fiddle with every possible thing in Photoshop, send the files to the printer via FTP, and have the slides back in 2-5 days depending on the urgency. This would be especially useful for student artists applying to programs that require slides of their photography.

"NC" actually stands for "Natural Color," not "Neutral Color." The Portra films that I have used (160NC, 160VC, 400UC) all perform quite well in outdoor environments. I think that NC might do particularly well in daylight ski-resort conditions. Concerning the other half of your question, well, I suppose you could save the stuff, but what would you replace it with? You can purchase a Pro-Pack of five additional rolls of 160NC from B&H for $20 ('USAW'). Why don't you try out the film and see how it performs. Then, if you like it, you can always order more. On the other hand, if you end up saving those rolls for a more important or special occasion/subject, you're going to end up photographing that occasion/subject with unfamiliar film. 160NC and VC aren't out of production or particularly expensive, so go for it. (If you end up being happy with the results of 160NC/VC, I second J-B's suggestion that you check out 400UC. It's a versatile film that produces very saturated color--witout lacking an excellent color balance. It's suitable for a wide range of environments, has excellent exposure latitude, and manifests the same grain as 160VC. [160NC has superior grain, though this shouldn't matter unless you're making big enlargements.])

I shot some 35mm portraits using Efke 25 and the results were excellent. I used an indoor setup with two 500-watt spots and one 500-watt fill. Deep, rich blacks and good shadow detail without anything getting blown out in the light neutrals. I'm usually a diehard Delta 100 fan, but Efke worked pretty well on that occasion and provided super-fine-grained enlargements.

Tor,

 

I have also noticed this problem specifically with the Epson 2450 and never with any other scanner(s). It is inexcusably stupid that there is no manual override that can force the scanner to scan the negative frames according to their placement in the holder and not according to what the scanner thinks it sees. You may also find that negatives whose sides have very little exposed will 'fuse' with one-another. I once tried to batch-scan proofs of a huge number of night shots. The screw-up rate was similar to yours. My solution was to use a thin plate of clear lexan to cover 2-3 strips of 35mm negatives at a time. (This is about all the transparency area will allow.) Scan these at 1200 dpi and you will have some decent proofs and the convenience of a one-off scan. You can use Photoshop to adjust the levels of the invididual frames pretty easily (a drag-select and Auto Levels will work for 75% of the frames). To do all this, make sure that you are using the Epson TWAIN (with full professional mode, including preview) and not just the scanner's driver utility.

 

Cheers,

R

If you use LF or 120, try Fuji NPL. It's a tungsten film, but as long as you can clean up in Photoshop it is unbeatable for long exposures. I have a friend who did a series of (4x5) night exposures with NPL and they were absolutely remarkable. Most of the exposures were 2-8 minutes. Plus, the reciprocity sheet that comes with the film is pretty accurate.

Bill has brought to my attention the fact that I failed to post the link properly. I'll also try to post a link to a corrected version of one of these images soon.

 

Here are the ones from that DV project:

http://www.princeton.edu/~rkroll/nudes_VIS_311.html

Just to put in my two cents... I have shot, scanned, and printed in conditions similar to those you describe.

1. Removing that yellow cast completely (or leaving a little bit for 'warmth') takes about a minute in Photoshop, longer depending on how exacting you want to be.

2. You should be able to print straight from PS. But with injket printing, watch for weird neutral shifts to slight green or slight magenta. In my experience, this has to do more with the ink level in the printer at any given time than with the profile. Try, try again.

4. If you're working with fairly pale caucasian subjects, you might notice a weird red flush in the cheeks. I've noticed this much more with UC than with NC or VC. In my experience, it's about the only drawback of UC. It too can corrected in Photoshop, but is a little more complicated than de-yellowing.

5. Here's a link to some portraits I shot with 400UC for a video project. Some were scanned with a Nikon CoolScan 8000, and others with an Epson Perfection. I left the yellow tint in because these stills required that sort of look. But when I made inkjet prints it was very easy to re-balance. Didn't use a filter...

Rahim,

 

I'm currently doing a postgraduate fellowship in Bombay. I also live in Delhi some of the time and get stuff processed there. Like you, I am used to taking pictures in the US, buying film there, etc. Call up that place that someone else left a post about and be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that you can get the types film you are planning to use in India before you come. I know several professional photographers here who gripe endlessly about the limited film stocks, especially for things like 120 transparency. I brought all my film from America in lead-lined bags (carry-on) and it wasn't a problem. My C-41 film of choice is Kodak Portra 400 UC, which is not available here. (Nor are VC or NC, as far as I know). You might also try Mazda in Bombay. They can usually order stuff even if they don't keep it in stock (91-22-2300-4001). I really wouldn't worry about the X-ray thing. They also refuse to hand-inspect in the domestic airports in India because those residue-detecting machines are only used for international flights. Not a problem there, either. The hand-luggage machines really are safe for films below 800 ASA. Get some lead-lined bags just to be sure. I have been here for several months and will be here until next August, so let me know if there are any questions that I can help you with locally. The prices for things like Kodak Gold 100 are always lower here. Exotic/fancy/new emulsions are usually the same as or more expensive than the US (B&H) prices, as many of them have to be specially imported.

You can also use a traditional screw-in "bulb" remote release. This is easier on the batteries (if you're star-streaking, for example).

I haven't used the bellows, but the 120/4 is an amazing lens. The color, sharpness, etc. so on blah blah you can also use it as a portrait lens. So basically I agree with what's already been said.

Re: my own question. Manual labs here can process almost anything in any format, but the risks are greater than with machine-processing.

You can get a decent all-purpose scanner like an Epson Perfection 2450 for under $250 and produce excellent, 2400dpi transparency scans at pretty good speed. In my experience, the quality of a chain lab can change from location to location, and that seems to be borne out by user comments. Even the excellent (and now defunct) Kodak Photo CD program produced scans that were inferior to what you can now do with your own $200 scanner. It's more fun and the quality will ALWAYS be better than a chain lab's photo CD.

This hasn't happened to me... Are you using 220 film with the 220 MFB-1B (vacuum) back, or are you using either 120 or 220 with the MFB-1A (standard) back?

Adam,

 

For candids and safari photos, I am convinced that this is the best lens in the series. If you can afford it, go for it. (Poon at hksupplies-dot-com, and also on #Bay, has a good record with Photo.net users and offers the 350 for a little over $4000 US, including insured shipping. I got mine used for about $2850.) I believe that this lens and the 120/4 Makro are the very best in the Contax line-up, in terms of both sharpness and color reproduction. I used the 210 once and I was somewhat disappointed (though only in comparing it to the 350). The 1.4x Mutar is about $850 if you order it from Hong Kong or get it used from B&H, KEH, or other reuputable sellers of used equipment. (I don't own it, though.) I am currently shooting a project which requires me to be on commercial film sets, meaning that I take lots of candids during rehearsals. This lens is the only one I have that can do the job, all the time. Nothing else would get close enough to the action.

Hand-holding is an option, but I'll ditto the suggestion that you take a decent monopod along. If you're standing around for five minutes waiting for a monkey to scowl at you (as I recently did with the 120/4), your arm is going to get very tired, as you basically end up holding 12lbs with your left hand. (If you're left-handed or if you happen to be sitting down, this should be less of a problem.) The flip-side of the candid issue is that people, unlike wildlife, will immediately notice the lens, even from 50 feet away, especially if you have the hood on. It is, as many have said, whackingly big--and it attracts a lot of unwanted attention. People have actually asked to have pictures of them (standing next to the camera+lens) taken by their friends. Anyway, if you can be reasonablty discreet and deal with your relative conspicuousness, go for it. It really seems to be the best choice for you, despite the unavoidable (moot, even?) size/weight drawbacks.

There are a few things to consider. January and February are usually pretty snowy around the areas you are planning to visit and visibility is poor. Additionally, the phenomenon of temperature inversion traps a layer of air at almost the exact height of the mountains around there, so all the cow-dung smoke gets trapped and creates pretty terrible haze. Simla is quite beautiful (once you get away from all the new building and concrete clutter) but 'landscape' photography as such can be difficult. I would recommend taking a car to major sightseeing destinations each day in order to scout. This will cost anywhere between $15 and $40 US, but you'll have a driver who knows his way around. If you want really grand landscapes, you might have to search around considerably, or even go to Ladakh. Best of luck, and let me know if there's anything else I can tell you about that area. (I am working on a photo fellowship in Bombay right now and my mother is living in Simla/Shimla at the moment, so I know a decent amount about the place.) Also, as long as you're not shooting 220, I recommend getting everything that you're not planning to develop yourself developed in Delhi or some other big city. It's much, much cheaper here.

I am looking for ANY place in India that develops 220-format C-41

film. Several places (Mahatta in Delhi and Mazda in Mumbai) have said

they can run 220 as 120, but they would have to cut the roll in the

middle to do it (and so I would lose one frame). As these are two of

the more famous pro labs in the country, I am not particularly

optimistic. But if some other lab has recently acquired new color

negative processing equipment...

Otherwise, is there some way to send it out of India for processing

without the package being X-rayed?

Hi. I am looking for a Gitzo or Bogen tripod for several pieces of equipment. I

have used Bogen before and like the leg-clamps, but they seem to offer far

fewer attractive products that will support more than 20 lbs and that have a

good weight:weight supported ratio. The largest camera I will be using is a

Calumet 4x5 steel monorail. The heaviest and most awkward set-up I will

have is a Contax 645 + 350/4 lens (about 13-14 lbs total). I was considering

the Gitzo G1500 Studex for a while, as I can get a used one for about $330;

despite the lack of a center column, which I like to have in a pinch (though not

for most shooting situations), it seems like a good, sturdy choice. I was also

considering the G1340, but I have seen at least one post claiming that it

would not sufficiently support a large MF camera + 300-350mm lens. I WAS

considering the G1341 (comes with rapid column AND flat plate), which is

$374 new at B&H, as well as a used 341 (the precursor to the 1341) which

comes with leg protectors and two columns for about the same price as the

used G1500. From experience, would the 1341 or the 341 be enough to

support the arrangements I have described? (I will be using an Arca-Swiss B1

QS head). Or should I go for the extra load capacity of the G1500 and forget

about the added versatility of the center column, which would further diminish

the already lesser stability of the 1341/341? More or less, all three options are

the same price, as far as I am concerned (as the used ones are in excellent

condition).

 

Thanks!

Thanks for all the responses. I won't exactly be there as a tourist, but staying

with a relative while completing a 10-month project (so once the stuff is there I

won't have all that much to worry about in terms of constantly keeping it with

me). But I certainly understand the caveat about overburdening myself. I think

I will try to get away with a Pro Trekker (should be small enough for the

airlines with the side bags taken off) + a roller, as I believe that international

flights on European carriers usually still allow two real carry-ons; if they give

me a hard time, I will just take the miniDV hard case out of the roller and say

that it's my 'personal item.' Once I am there, I can use a Mini Trekker to take

one or two lenses on a particular day.

Elliot--

I'm using a hodgepodge of things. I am using the original Contax

case for the 350/4 to hold the body+back+prism finder and the

80/2 lens. I use a Lowepro telephoto soft case for the 350 and

put all the other items in their respective protective cases and

throw them all in a backpack. I like idea of the Lowepro

backpacks because they are pretty inconspicuous and probably

easier to carry for long stretches of time. Thanks for the

suggestion! Do you have any experience with Trekker AW bags

other than the 'Photo'? Might one of these bigger ones be able to

handle a Canon EOS body and a 50 mm lens in addition to all

the MF equipment I mentioned?

I recently purchased a used 350/4. The lens is in fine shape, but

the metal ring to which the lens hood, lens cap, and filters mount

seems to be loose. Because I didn't want to force anything, I

didn't try to screw it back in one way or another. It there some

way to re-tighten it, or is it just been loose like that because of

deterioration of the adhesive? It doesn't turn from side to side, so

there doesn't seem to be any way to screw it on or off. It wiggles

and jiggles in and out by 3-4mm all around its circumference,

though. And it sounds like metal bumping against metal when I

do that. Any ideas?

I need a good travel case for my Contax 645 system. This

includes the body (+back, prism finder, MP-1 battery holder), as

well as an extra film insert, a TLA-360 flash, and several lenses.

(I also need to put 10 rolls of 220 and two lens hoods in there,

but those should fit in with Tetris-like ease.) The lenses are what

will really make or break the deal, as they are the heaviest and

bulkiest part of the system (imagine that...): 120/4, 80/2, 45/2.8,

and 350/4. The 350/4 weighs about 3.7kg (8 lbs), is about 10

inches long and 4 inches in diameter. This makes it difficult to

imagine a suitable case that does not look like a giant diaper

bag. I have two separate cases for the 350/4, so should I just

forget about finding a bag to fit everything and look for one for

everything except the 350 lens? (In that case, any suggestions?)

I am going to be traveling around a lot with a full set of 645

equipment + a 35mm back-up and a tripod, so I am trying to

figure out the most efficient way to transport these things, on the

plane (in which case I can mix and match bags within

international carry-on limits because I will also have to carry two

laptops and a miniDV camera to deal with, but not the tripod),

and on foot (in which case I will only have the photo equipment). I

have a difficult time imagining how, especially with the 350 lens

taking up even more room in its own padded case, I will be able

to pack all this stuff for carry-on purposes (although I think that I

will be able to take two 'real' carry-ons). I am going to India, so I

would rather shoot myself than check any of this. I also wonder if

this might be breaking down into two entirely separate

problems--to wit, how to pack the items for plane travel and how

to find an appropriate bag for transport once I am on the ground.

I have looked at some of the larger Lowepro and Tamrac mods

online, but have been unable to find any of them at local stores to

try out in person.

My girlfriend is going to India and then to Morocco for a two-year

stint in the Peace Corps. As a going-away present, I want to get

her a nice, sturdy 35mm SLR that will serve as a much-needed

alternative to her cute little Canon digital Elph (which, I imagine,

will be much more prone to battery failure in the absence of

reliable electricity, theft, and which won't take as pictures that are

all that great in any environment [esp. bright sun]). My only

experience with cheap SLR's was a Pentax P3 or P5 that I

inherited for use in high school photo class. I have had good

experience with Canon SLR equipment, so I am thinking of an

AE-1 Program, but I really don't know beans about older

equipment. I need something that has a minimal number of

electronic doohickeys to screw up, costs around or less than

$100 with a 50mm lens (should be possible on certain online

auction sites), stands up well to dust, can be repaired by any

chop-shop in Fez, and doesn't pack a premium (like some older

Nikon bodies). Any suggestions wuld be appreciated. She has

never used a manual SLR before, but I will have ample time to

explain things.

Perhaps I should also mention that I have not considered the possibility of the

120 makro. If any of you have experiences that suggest this lens would be

preferable to the other combinations I have outlined, your opinion would be

welcome. I need the longer focal length not only for portraiture, but because I

will be working in documentary circumstances that require I keep my distance

from the subject(s). Specifically, I will be 20-30 feet away on a studio film set. If

you tell me to get the 350/4, I will cry, but might consider it. I have no

experience with such a long focal length for MF. What kind of distance would

such a lens require for portraiture?

I recently purchased a Contax 645 and an 80/2 lens. I need another lens with

a greater focal length and, torn between the 210/4 and the 140/2.8, I've come

to the conclusion that the 1.4x teleconverter combined with the 140/2.8 would

effectively give me both of the focal lengths I'm looking at without the cost of

actually buying both lenses. Other posts attest that the 1.4 doesn't affect

sharpness if used at or above F 4. If I'm about to do something really stupid,

then please tell me so. However, my question is more about this: I'm a little

confused about the manner in which the Mutar results in a one-stop

reduction. Does this mean simply that the Mutar+140 combination will result

in a lens that, when set to 2.8, provides an effective aperture of 4? This would,

in turn, mean that in order to get a nice sharp print, I would have to set the

lens to F4, which would result in an actual aperture of 5.6 when combined

with the Mutar? I think this must be the case (or else there is something very

fishy going on...) So, in the end, would it be fair to say that I would end up with

both a 140/2.8 and a 200/4.0 whose only disadvantage is that its minimum

sharp aperture is 5.6? I also assume that the metering system on the camera

has a good way of taking into account the changes induced by the Mutar, but I

would also appreciate some clarification on that point. Thanks!

I have to ditto everything positive that's been said about Portra 400UC. It's

virtually grain-free and produces amazing saturation for its speed. Also,

because you have so much color saturation to begin with, you can produce

some really stylish prints and have a little more latitude to play with color in

Photoshop. (Becuase there is 'so much to begin with' it still looks natural when

you take away a little color, whereas if you're trying to *add* saturation to, say,

NC in order to get to the level of saturation that UC gives you in the first place,

it's usually a little harder.) I shoot in a lot of low-light situations and I wouldn't

be able to survive without this stuff these days. A while ago I shot one subject

with a roll of 160 NC and a roll of 400 UC and the UC images had a lot more

punch and required much less manipulation to get to the final stage (i.e. not

make them look washed-out because they were shot at night with indirect

light.) The only problem I have noticed is that there is sometimes a little too

much red in the skin tones. Uh... yeah. Go for it.