jason_fitzmaurice

<div></div>

You Might also Try RSXII 200 pulled a stop. I foud this gives a nice pastel, ultra low contrast image. Unfortunately I found this when I accidently loaded it instead of 100, and pastel wasn't what I needed.

I don't know if it is still true but the Linux version of Vuescan is the only full version available for free. My advice if you wanrt it for Windows is to just buy it. You won't be sorry, and it's a good buy. I use the Scan Dual III and using Vuescan cut my photoshop time in half.

Looking back at my own notes. I did have one roll run at Wal Mart that was put through the E-6 line. Since then I write Process k-14 and all has been well.

Actually I would take it to Wal-Mart. I have sent over 25 rolls that way in the last 18 months. No problems at all.

I haven't had an underexposure problem; however, I wouldn't use kodachrome for the situation you describe. I love Kodachrome, but it ha sno latitude and EXTREMELY High contrast.

Unless youhave control ofthe lighting inside, I would not attempt to use Kodachrome. Now having said that I ave used it once or twice. When there are a few shots left ona roll, or when it is something where being sure I will have the image in 40 years matters more than it looking perfect (my son's frist Christmas is a mix of K200 and Efke 50). But otherwise go with a different film

Yes. I use it frequently. It is a beautiful film for the right purpose. It is VERY low sturation, and VERy low contrast. It can produce beautiful portraits, and is sometimes useful for night photography where it can hold some colour in the sky quite well. Certainly not a general purpose film, and when using it for portraits you want slightly higher contrast lighting than you would with PortraNc for example,but alovely film for some uses.

<div></div>

I've found most of my friends who use diafine primarily scan their negatives. They are used to doing lots of photoshop work to get the contrast they like so the very low contrast of diafine is okay. I have a friend who used to use xtol and acutol who now swears by diafine. She says it scans well, and since you don't increase grain by increasing contrast in digital (unlike printing on a harder grede if paper) why not use it.

My local Wolf had a little the other day. I got the few rolls they had, the sad thing is that it was in date. They told me they were clering it out and owuldn't stock it any more. :(

<div></div>

<div></div>

"I took the mirror out of a Kodak Duaflex and put it into the ciro-flex. The Duraflex mirror was a front surface mirror, but thicker. The focus was WAY off"

 

 

 

Yeah that is what I'm afraid of. I tried replacing it with a mirror form another camera, but same problem. Guess I"ll keep up the hunt for a beat up broke old Ciro.

Seeing the word Ciroflex in the post from CE Nelson reminded m e I

need to fix mine.

 

I've been hoping to stumble across an old non working one that I can

scrounge the Mirror from. My old Ciroflex is in beautiful shape, excet

the mirro came loose,and then shattered. I'd like to repair rather

than replace the camera since it was my Grandfather's. And for the

same reason would like to use a real Ciroflex part, just so it's all

from that era. Does anyone have, or knwo of anyone who has, an old non

working ciro with good mirror to get rid of?

AGFA RSXII 100 (Saturation increased)

GRR Trying agin<div></div>

AGFA RSXII 100 (Saturation increased)

Agfa RSXII 100 Cropped<div></div>

Scott,

First of all I never said Agfa 160 is better. It's different. I happen to like it. Since it is different I recomend people take a look at it. It certainly doesn't work for everything, but for some things I like the look. I still maintain there is no better or worse film. Oh you an objectively measure grain, color saturation, and contrast; however, that's not the whole story. As I said earlier we are blessed with many good choices, it is just a matter of picking the look you like.

Well I'd get a roll of any you are interested in and shoot beforhand. FWIW I prefer Agfa 160 and don't liek the Fuji portraitofferins at all. By not likeing I mean to work with I don't seem to visualize the way the fuji Films do, that said one of my favorite photographers uses them exclusively, and I have some of her prints. It's just what works for you so grab a few and test. Have fun

Well it mostly depends on the look you want, also what paper will you be printing on? You won't want to print Agfa Portrait 160 or Kodak Portra on Fuji Crystal Archive.

Frankly any of the 160 speed portrait fils by Kodak, Fuji, or Agfa will give you good results, it's just a matter of how much saturation youwant, and how much contrast.

IF you aren't confidenr doing i manually, try using AE. I recently took some shots of a band in a bar and since it was just for fun, decided to try auto focus, and auto exposyre just to see how it worked. Surprisingly I got a fair number of usable images. Having said that I do get more usuable frames when I meter and set exposure manually.

p1600 is the way to go. here are some (not great) examples The colour shots in this <a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=386049>folder</a> are p1600. Then filtered to use under tungstun. Scanned with a flatbed, and not very good, but they wil let you see the grain.

First of all I'd ask if I could attend the tech rehersal. This is usually what is called a "Cue to Cue". This means they wil not preform the whole show, but only go from just before a lighting and sound cue to just after. This will let you meter darn near every light situation there will be so You can decide. Depending on the look of the show I've been able to shoot everything from 100 iso to needing to push to 6400. I would bring HP5 and Neopan 1600 (or Ilford 3200 or TMZ you get the idea). If possible I'd load two bodies one with each. Then if you have enough light shoot HP5 at either 400 or 800, then shoot some with more depth of field with your 1600. I've done a lot of this, as well as done light and sound for area productions. So this isthe POV of someone who has both set the lights, and taken the production stills.

If you have only one body and can't attend a rehersal, goi for the 1600.

Almost ten years ago they refused to work on my Minolta XD-11. Dismisse dit as a piece of junk, and told me to "buy a real camera". Conversely a couple of years ago I took an ancient TLR to Garland Camera repair because the ficus gear was stuck They said since it wa sold they would try, but no promises. Fixed it within 24 hours!

Glad to see someone else who loves their Moskva. Mine is with me in the car at all times.