roman_kuznetsov

Portra series is actually good for landscapes, but it is just a different style. It won't get you eye-etching supersaturated colors, like Velvia, but instead subtle tonalities. Especially good for high-contrast scenics in winter. Try in, may be you will like it...

Re: Fuji 67 RF - Together with GW690 series (6x9) there is 6x7 series of their cameras. Last one was GW670III. They are almost the same as their bigger brothers, except frame size and frame spacing, getting 10 frames on 120 roll instead of 8. For picture, look at KEH.com web.

 

Why I like TRI-X? I have to admit that I shoot mostly color negative film with my GW690, but sometimes opt for color slide or B&W. I tried TMX, which is too contrasty for my taste (people, landscape, etc.) TRI-X has better tonality and because of ISO 400 and softer toe it is much more forgiving, allowing spontaneous handhold shooting. With 6x9 frime size, grain and resolution is no-issue... Just simple basic combination, TX400 + D76 stock yields pleasant results.

Hi, Ernst!

 

If you need some kind of smooth bokeh, go for larger Fuji 690 or 670 RF cameras. Ones with 90/3.5 lens are very good, and because this 5-element Fujinon has planar-like construction, it has nice bokeh. Really nice. Combined with TRI-X they do wonders :-) Great for landscapes, too.

 

Fuji's mechanical RF's can be used with almost any decent flash with Auto-thyrstor mode (from old good Vivitar 283 to some recent Canon and Nikons), though this setup tends to get bulky....

 

Roman

Used lots of Optima 100 and 200 on my last vacation, in both format, 135 and 120. Mostly nature and landscapes. Lovely results, even though 200 speed film was slightly outdated. Colors were true and contrast was spot on, better than Kodak 400UC, which was 2'nd great for faster film. Printed very well on Noritsu/Kodak paper combination. Even got some nice pictures from that tricky Ultra 100!

 

Will miss this film very much if it will be really discontinued by Agfa ;-(

Hi!

 

It actually depends on which machine/technology the lab uses. Today, the most likely they have some kind of digital minilab, like Fuji Frontier, Noritsu QSS, or Agfa D-Lab. If so, image is still printed on color silver-based RA paper, but by first scanning (if film used) the original with CCD chip, then processing image by powerful digital DSP board, which quickly suppress dust, reduces grain etc, and next exposing and developing real photo paper with some kind of digital printer (color laser in most minilabs, or other weird elecro-optical things as digital micromirror devices, CRT tubes+fiber optics, LCD, etc). Other printing technologies may be used in low-volume machines, dye-syblimation, or just ink-jet printing. In that case, more or less plain paper is used.

 

Today, direct optical printing is still a possible option to order in some pro labs, by using older optical minilab machines for small prints, or hand printing with enlarger for bigger. In my opinion, optical printnig as pure analogue technology still gives the best tonality in color prints, but of course all powerful correction options of digital labs (dust/grain removal, contrast change) are not available here.

No slide fillm with such low contrast, but you may try...

 

Fuji Astia/Sensia

 

Kodak EPN - low saturation, though old tech and may be grainy for 35mm

 

Kodak E100GX - may be?

 

Agfa RSXII-100 - natural colors and moderate contrast, slightly grainy

NPH has really smaller grain. Optima has its own strength, though, with more appealing color palette and tonality. At least for nature/flowers/landscape etc.

For GW series, Fuji officialy says 5000 shutter activations before a CLA, 10000 shutter life. Most of the people believe this is quite conservative, and actual life is many times more.

 

Mechanically, GW cameras are very simple, and tough, with few fine parts except shutter. I think they are using more or less standard Seiko #0 shutter, which can also be replaced by disassembling the lens part.

 

Mine is still working great after a couple of years of quite rough use (travel, hiking). Only little problem is that a very small amount of tiny dust is accumulating on the inside surfaces of the lens, probably from the shutter mechanism.

Mediocre lens as a general telephoto. Not sharp at long range (200-300), acceptable at shorter.

Not sure about its macro.

Avoid Sigma 70-300 lenses. They are (both versions, APO and non APO) just plain crap at anything longer than 200mm. Tons of aberrations, purple and green fringing all over the frame. My collegue once had such lens for his Canon - 8x10' prints were soft and unpleasant, bokeh was ugly. I rarely comment a lens in such bold terms, but this one well deserves. Even plain cheap Minolta 70-210/4.5-5.6 is much sharper and better corrected. As others said, great Minolta 100-300 APO in good used condition is about $300, and is much, much better!

I used RS200/400 and UC400 extensively. From the experience - UC has *slightly* different color palette ang generally requires a bit less tweaking to get color balance right on my scanner (Minolta DS Multi). Grain and its structure is mostly the same. Both printed absolutely great and vivid on Kodak papers. No direct experience with UC200, though.

There are many pro labs in Moscow. Personally, I had positive experience with following -

 

Photopro www.photopro.ru (actually, they seem to outsource E6, results were ok)

 

Prolab/Fotolab www.prolab.ru, www.fotolab.ru - the same holding, slightly expensive E6, quite reliable.

Hi All!

 

I am looking for good quality bright zoom with smooth bokeh. It seems

that new D version fit my reqirements well, but now I have an

oppotunity to get older non-D lens cheap.

 

From photodo curves I can tall both are near identical, but old lens

is more contrasty wide-open, while new is better when stopped to about F/8

 

Does anyone have practical experience with both lenses and can comment

what will I get/lose with older design? I especially want that nice

creamy out-of-focus rendition, not typical for most modern midrange

nikkors.

 

Roman

Until you are not in a real hurry, the following helps:

 

First, scan film with maximum resolution your scanner supports. Next, in the photoshop, downsize the image to the reqired resolution with bicubic mode. You will get much cleaner result because of smooothig film grain and avoiding scanner aliasing.

 

Most modern print films scan well. Portra UC is known to be scanner friendly, for example.

Great film! But I have experience only with ther latest version, marked with 'Eye Vision' logo. Not sure for weddings, but it is good for nature, flowers, landscapes, escpecially nature in winter. Good skin tones, too.

Paul:

 

May be Mamiya 7 is a bit sharper (at roughly 2X price).

But Fujis are not bad, either. After my last trip to Norway, where my 690 got beaten a lot, I did a quick test to be sure that camera survived :)

 

Simple shot, test target on 400UC film, scanned on my Minolta Scan Multi II showed system resoultion of more than 40lppm. Not bad for wide open lens, old scanner and ISO400 film?

Black backing tape on 120 film adds great degree of protection just in the case something goes wrong. I once opened my GW's back, but forgot to wind film to the end. Only couple of frames got fogged, one of them still printed great! With 220 film I would ruin at least half of the roll.

 

Roman

Quality from 6X7 film will beat anything you are getting from consumer cameras hands downs. Also the same for 35mm DSLR, still. But there is a "convenience factor". For example, if all that you need is, say, good quality 8x10 prints with very fast turnaround, nothing will beat Canon 10D + Kodak 8500 printer combo. You will get technically perfect prints 5 minutes after the shot. If you need larger prints, DSLR images will quickly run out of steam, while 6x7 original can be easily enlarged to 20 inch and more with significant margin. But the workflow is much more slow and often more painful.

Dante, are you *sure* that RF alignment for III series is really that complex?

 

From reading my service manual I can remember that it was still very straightforward procedure - like "adjust at infinity, adjust at 1m, repeat until you get satisfactory results" which can be done at home with cost of $0.00

 

And the whole lens/RF calibration process required no special tools except small screwdriver, test target, measuring tape and a good infinity :-)

 

Roman

I have shot a lot of Royal Supra, and some 400UC recently. From the results, I won't say the emulsions are the same. They just have something common in their character. The difference is most evident when scanning - while RS reqiures some curve tweaking to get neutral colors, UC scans are often dead-on on the first try. Both prints very well on Kodak paper, though. IMO, UC also has more saturated greens (or possibly less saturated other colors) than Royal Supra.

100-300, APO version is a great lens. It is very lightweight and compact, lots of polycarbonate, but surprisingly survived rough handling on my last trip. Also sharp, and has generally pleasing bokeh (except some slight tendency to produse 'COMA-tose' out-of focus image when wide open on the short end). Focusing is slow, though.

 

Even cheap 70-210 4.5/5.6 is not bad either. Some aberrations are evident, but they do not look nearly as distracting as those on low-end Sigmas. And 70-210 3.5/4.5 seems to be just a version of this lens with larger and better corrected front element.

Any decent pro or semi-pro ISO 100 negative film will do. 35mm Reala is a good bet. When shot with good prime lens stopped to its optimum (Minolta 50/1.7 at about f/4.5 for example) it can be enlarged to remarkable clean and sharp 8x10' prints, even they can be easily mistaked as medium format.

 

Modern 400 speed films like Royal Supra or Portra UC will give you very acceptable 8x10s too.

Portra NC - real, nice color, medium contrast. Not only for weddings :-)

 

 

Portra UC - vivid color, sharp. Reliable! A godsend in MF!!

 

AGFA Optima - nice color, esp. nature in winter or overcast days.

 

Royal Supra - very cheap and reliable.

 

Reala (especially 120 version) - nice sharp film. Mixed bag of results with it - sometimes very nice, sometimes unpleasant.

 

NPH - nice, but sometimes. Like Portra NC better.

 

 

E100GX - warm and wide latitude. No grain at all, but slightly unsharp.

 

Agfa RSXII - like the natural colors.

 

Astia 100F. Fantastic latitude. A bit cool/purple palette to my taste.

Also consider older model of Minolta Dimage Scan Multi(non-pro). Very cheap today, it is slow, but really decent scanner for prints up to 8x10". More than enough for "Lo-Fi" Holga shots.

I believe that it will still blow any modern Epson flatbed out of water, especially with 35mm film.

Hi, Matt!

Just some thoughts -

 

- NPH has less contrast than usual consumer films, but you still should not get "milky" pictures

 

- poor contrast milky (and also grainy) pictures may come out because of severe (say two stops or more) underexposure. Look to your film - such frames will look noticeable less dense on it.

 

- fully automated high-volume machines just can not set correction when printing as good as a skilled human operator in a good lab.

 

 

So, find a new lab (even expensive one) and have troubled frames reprinted. Ask operator later if they requred extra correction in a case of exposure problems.