richard f harris

<p>Just an extra thing. As Gareth says above Consumer print films will often exhibit more contrast and saturation. Pro films are often designed for portraiture and saturatioin does not give equal great portraits.<br>

In England with our grey overcast days I often find wedding couples prefer the prints from fuji superia 400 than those from the pro 400 film.<br>

You must experiment and find what you like.</p>

<p>The method would be different for transparency film and print film.<br>

If you underexpose transparency film and extend the development (Push) you will generally get a richer more saturated result. <br>

With print film you would reverse this. Your aim with print film should be to slightly overexpose maybe 1/3 of a stop and use regular development. You can slightly extend C41 print film development but it may become difficult to print and will have more visible grain. Whatever underexposing C41 is never a very satisfactory thing except where the film is designed for this and it will not improve saturation.<br>

Only testing will confirm that what you wish to achieve is possible. All films will react slightly differently.</p>

 

<p>I used to use the Jobo for prints and I found it a bit of a bind. Drying drums etc but the results were good.<br>

I still use it for developing films though. You could try a cheap ebay sourced CPE machine. Not very good for E6 but fine for RA4. You can then upgrade if the system works.<br>

Richard Harris.</p>

<p>I use mailshots.com in the U.K. I think that is the address but if you google mailshots film it should come up. I have used ebay as well and I haven't had a problem yet with film. I wouldn't buy paper though, lots of old stuff about and paper does not keep very well.<br>

Richard.</p>

 

Dominic,

We need to see the results you have obtained. Can you scan a negative including the sprocket holes along the edge of the film. This is where the information is held. The edge markings of film are exposed in the factory and are your best guide to correct processing. If the edge markings are good, clear and the colour they should be then it indicates that your in camera work is at fault. If the edge marking are fogged or incorrect in density and or colour then it will be either the film outdated or incorrect processing. You may also get some useful advice from any minilab operator. Good luck.

Richard.

Lots of people agree that fuji chromes are slower than the box speed, Jobo recommend more development for fuji films which tends to imply that the box speed is pushing it slightly; however, I use box speed and appreciate the rich colours that this (underexposed or not) gives.

Kristian,

 

You will need to charge a lot more than the 4 pounds your pro lab is charging if you do not wish to make your life a misery. I develop in a Durst roller transport machine, that's a lot easier than the nova and yet I still find an album a real task. You have complete control but the colour balance and filtration changes with each print in my experience and if you have to print, develop, wash and dry etc, just to get a print that still needs a filtration tweak you may just go mad after 10 prints. Have you got a colour analyser to give you a starting point? I wouldn't even consider printing without one, not on this scale any way.

 

The only upside is, you are still using film and if you go to a wedding exhibition and look at some of the other Photags digital printing you will smile and say to yourself. I couldn't produce a print that bad if I tried and you would be right. Photography may just be the only medium where output quality has plummeted. Just think of those beautiful old hassleblad taken shots of yesteryear; compared to a digital, printed in the photographers bedroom on a crappy epson

Good luck!

Nick,

I never got on with the 1500 reels, sticking and jamming etc. The 2500 reels are well worth the cost if you have the drums already.

Sorry doesn't answer your question but just try loading those little 1500 reels, you may think some 2500 reels are cheap compared to buying parts for the 1500 system. Ebay has them often at little cost.

Richard

I think you are going to struggle to get an answer here and you may be better off trying to contact Kodak technical support. I don't know the answer as I use LORR only. You may have a better chance of finding Ron on APUG, I don't know if Dan uses that forum. Good luck and I shall read coninue to this thread as I don't doubt I will have to change to regular flexicolor when my current LORR runs out.

You do not mention if you mean slide or print film. I have found slide film great at night and often easier to expose than during the daytime. Light levels can often be far more even at night across a scene and so I find print films can look dull. Of course if you are shooting hand held or scenes with movement then you only have fuji 800z print in my experience. with a tripod if you want to use a print film I would go for a consumer emulsion with higher contrast. Gold 100, fuji superia 400 et al

In my trials with cross processing I can only say that box speed is the one for exposure, do not overexpose. And C41 processing gives films a very wide latitude including E6 films cross processed. Other may disagree but I talk from my experience. I am led to believe that there is no fundamental difference between an E6 and a C41 film other than the application of the orange mask which allows easier printing.

Russ, Google APUG, it's another photography forum but no digital so tends to answer processing questions IMHO.

If you have no edge markings then you screwed up I'm afraid; or Tetenal? Unlikely! I would wager that you got the bleach in there somehow, your comments about the colours of the processing solutions sounds OK although I am not familiar with tetenal. I too use Kodak and would recommend you to move in this direction long term. Short term, fire off a roll of cheap film and try again. Better look this time. We all make mistakes, some we know why and others leave us baffled; the Gods have a hand in this somewhere!

Might be better asking this over at APUG but it seems to me that you have bleached it before the developer. Are the film edge markings present?

I can't believe you are asking this question on this forum. Of course you should have bought a Nikon or Canon but you didn't. To change if you have a good lens line up would be silly. All cameras take the same picture. Sony have loads of credibility and should do great things for the dynax/maxum mount. If you want the best glass; CANON, it's simple. Zeiss may offer great standard lenses and zooms for the Sony mount but 400mm stabalized ultrasonic ....... etc etc, forget it. The worlds sports press and action photags use Canon and are commited. Only Canon can develop more and more high tech glass because they are the only ones with customers to buy it. But then to shoot weddings, a 28-70 f2.8 or APS size equal is all you need so why worry?

What are you on about? 6 bottle holder for what?

Fuji Reala for outdoor natural colours and very fine grain protraits. I use mailshots; hate 7day shop. Just google mailshots.

I have to disagree with the last poster. I have found negative film holds well after expiry even if abused. If the film has been frozen then it should be just fine. All that grain in the shadows is consistent with underexposure; new or old film. Just try and increase the exposure even if the negs get a bit dense. Try not to overdevlop the negatives also. Ultra is known for being a bit grainy but with good vibrant colours. A little overexposure and underdevelopment should help you a lot. If you are using minilab processing than you nay be stuck with what you've got though.

I often get a tar build up in my smaller printo processor. It always seems to happen very abruptly, with little forewarning from process parameters. The kodak solutions seem more prone than others. If you try fuji hunt or better still Agfa (if you can find a distributor) you may ease the problem. If you have seen a change from normal are you using the same chemicals? you need the RT version of Kodak's Ektacolor, this has higher proportions of anti oxidants which reduces the tar build up. I would be interested in hearing from somebody who knows what is happening chemically here. And, can a small volume user such as me and may-be Sue use further anti oxidants.

Don't worry. The solutions will last a long time if decanted in to small stoppered bottles and kept cool. I have found the ammonium thiosulfite in the clear part of blix mixes is the most unstable of all photographic chemical solutions; keep this cool otherwise it will seperate. If you can cover the half empty bottles with a gas blanket that should improve stability. I use argon from a diy welding store.

Roger,

yes I did mean auto but if a shot needed more than 4 secs at f4 ish using a prime lens then I would use B and calculate from the displayed metering ie 1 second at f2 by the meter so I would use 8secs at f5.6 This would be for night time townscapes, so light levels are quite high. I would not be using a tripod, just jamming the camera tight on a brick wall or similar. If I had a tripod with me I would have had a spot and ambient incident lightmeter as well.

Richard.

I think C41 can look a little flat at night. I am not a night photographer but have used my minolta x700 on auto and have had great results with velvia50 projected. The tungsten and sodium lighting give a beautiful warmth to night shots and I have never worried about street lights being blown out. If i spot metered I would probably try to shift the exposure a little to keep the highlights but that would be a mistake, centre weighted has been just fine.

 

Richard Harris.

Russ,

 

I would love to use Kodak. My normal supplier does a much keener price on fuji though and I use their Paper (RA4) I do prefer to have medium format and 35mm gear with me and I just can't understand what 400Uc is in the UK in 35mm; in fact I haven't got a clue what any Kodak film is. I did try 160NC and 400 vC some time ago and thought the grain structure was appalling. I believe that Kodak has vastly improved this now and I think that Kodak films need less developing than fuji so I may be need to change my timing if I switched. The local Kodak minilab tells me that he thinks superia on kodak paper is the best thing he is printing at the moment. He is not a prolab but he does print for a couple of local wedding snappers.

Richard.

I think you're getting the advice you need here but best film varies according to weather and lighting conditions. I use fuji 400H and superia 400. The consumer superia is often preferred by clients, it has more punch and they dont mind the less than perfect skin tones. If the weather is dull and overcast, ie half the time here in the UK, then pro fuji film is just too dull. Sunny day though and it come in to it's own, holding detail in white dresses and black morning coats etc, plus better skin tones.

Richard Harris.

Is there any new box markings or batch numbers to identify this new stock?

Tis me of course. The other is he imposter.