jason_fitzmaurice

Efke 25 will probably be fine at 25 with r09. Which seems to rob a little speed. With id11, or Xtol, or DDx etc yo would want to rate it closer to 50. As others say you won't need filters. They require massive compensation and more contrast is probably not something you want with this film anyway.

With the shorter ranefinder base, how is the kiev 5 with the jupiter 11. Can acurate focus be maintained with the lens open?

So had you shot the Agfa 160 before? and if no what did you think? It seems to have those who love it and those that hate it with little in between.

My guess would be your printer is familiar with the fuji films, and not so much with Agfa. That's why here in Dallas our wndefull Competitive Camera stopped stocking Agfa films. The ower, Ramsey, told me he loves them but no one in Dallas knows how to print them well. I mean I was at a pro lab the other day dropped of some Agfa 160 for process only, and one of the emplyees told me she'd never seen a role before.

I've alse been unimpressed with Sensia 200. I like the 100, but in 200 I like RSXII200 or for snapshots the consumer version CTPrecisa 200 works well. I would really recomend trying a roll if you are concerned about fleshones. All our opinions though are not worth much. The film that gives you the look you like is the right one for you. No matter if everyone else loves it or hates it.

How strange. (the Wal Mart experience) I know the people at one Wal mart in the area (it is the ONLY Wal Mart I would veer take film to) When In a hurry I have taken them 400UC, 400VC, 160NC ,Agfa portrait 160, Optima II 400, Reala, and xp2 with no problems.

 

As for your Wal Mart, examine the negs they have processed VERY closely, and if they haen't been damaging them yet, it might be worth taking them a roll.

My main advice would be to steer away from Velvia or E100VS. I recently saw some photos of DC monuments taken with 100vs. The stone monumnets looked beautiful, any surrouning greenary loked great, but there are , of course, always lots of tourists in those tourist attractions, and they looked terrible.

Just chiming in here t agree with Scott. If money is tight pick up a used Minolta Scan Dual III. They are available at a price that can pay for itself VERY quickly. You will neeed to spend a few minutes cleaning up the scan in photohop to remove dust spots etc; however, the scans produced by een this inexpensive scanner will blow frontier scans away! Also it will give you control through the scanning stage. A used Scan Dual III will pay for itself in no time. If you have the budget there are better scanners available, but this would get you started cheaply.

 

Now for the bad news. A scan will never look quite as brilliant asa slide, but that's okay because neither will a print from it. The image will still be beautiful.

I have also found most variations seemed to vanish once I switched to Dwaynes. Just drop the film off at Wal-Mart they will send it off to Dwaynes.

Okay,

I have to ask, what was the experience? Any experience that can cause a 20 year boycott must be a pretty good story.

Portra Nc prints well on Kodak Royal. I'd prefer Endura for final prints, but royal will do fine for proofs. As far as avoiding 1 hour minilab type places.... First make sure they use Kodak papers. NC looks okay on crystal Archive, but it doesn't look great. More important is the risk they will scratch your negs. Now I often use a local one hour lab, because I know the people and they NEVER scratch my negs, but I wouldn't just walk into one off the street.

Scott.

First of all of you look at my posts you will find I have never defended max 400, so lt us at least strive for acuracy. My main point was that you present your opinions as fact. You don't say "I don't find the colours of film type X to be pleasing" or even "it's not a film I like" You say it is a bad film. Youimply anyone who chooses films you don't like is wrong. Not that they have different tastes, but that they are wrong. Also I notice you had to add a point rather than actually respond to any of the points I made. And believe me Scot you don't have to try to be condescending you seem to do it by nature.

You wil even note I specified that Ultra was VERY high contrast.

You seem to have much of the approach of the late unlamented Mike/Hans. "The films I like are the right films, all other films are wrong, and if you prefer a different look than I do you are an idiot."

 

And I havent taken a lot of pictures of wildflowers with Ultra. I have seen many excellent ones taken by friends, I do have a few I've taken, but you will forgive me if my highest priority isn't going through files scanning negatives, and posting examples of wildflower pictures so that Scott won't be upset I recomended a film he doesn't like.

 

Not that I think it would make the slightest difference.

 

Again The prolem isn't your views, it is the condeescending manner of your statements as in "you people just think" as if you are somhow above the rest of us. Well this person will admit that Agfa Ultra is high contrast. I also find the saturation quite high. I think it as interesting looking film worth trying for certain situations. It was one of several films I suggested he MIGHT want to try. I suggested it as part of a list of possible films. Just because you don't like a film doesn't mean anyone who does is an idiot.

" You people just think it is because the contrast is so high."

Scott if you worked at it could you be slightly more condescending?

First of all I mentioned the high contrast. Second of all you are in a minority in thinking it isn't a high saturation film. third of all who cares why it looks more saturated since the final look is all that matters?

 

Oh and fourth I agree completely about Astia which is one of the only Color Fuji Producs (along wih Reala) that I like

 

David: The bottom line is it is personal taste. What do you want from your pictures? Super intense colour, Acurate colour fidelity, low contrast high contrast, etc..? Thankfully we live in a time where there is an option ofr every taste.

Well as far as print films goyou might try Ultra 100 by Agfa if you are after hyper saturated colors, just be careful as it is VERY High contrast. In Slide films I have taken some wildflower pictures I like very much on RSXII50. If you are looking for photos of people in Wildflowers I'd try Optima II 100 (you may have noticed I liek the look of Agfa films). Frankly though if you ar used to Reala I'd use it. Sounds like you have a film with a pallette you like already.

Well I bought ten rolls yesterday from a local supplier. He seems to have no problem getting itm just a problem keeping it on the shelf.

I would take CT precisa 100, but I really like the RSXII and CT films. That will give you a good general purpose slide film, sutible for everything from portraits to landscapes etc. Velvia while an interesting film, is goign to be pretty limiting.

As for Print Film, much as I like Ultra 100, the same problems apply here as with velvia. Ultra High Contrast Ultra High saturation, isn't what you wil want loaded most of the time. I'd look at a 400 speed print film, so you have 100 in one body 400 in the other, and are ready to go in high or low light conditions. As for the 400 I'd look at somehing like Kodak 400UC, or if looking for a consumer grade film maybe Vista 400.

I don't find any slide film to be good in mixed light. As for films there are really not many. I'd try a roll of each of the following. Kodak E200, Agfa RSXII 200, and Provia 400. If you like the look of either the kodak or agfa then try a roll pushed to 400. Personally I like RSXII, but I like the Colour pallette it has. Any of the three can produce excellent images, it's mostly a matter of taste.

100!

200 will underexpose the film.

Juergen,

There are oodles of print films that willproduce natural looking Caucasian skin tones. Picking between them is a matter of what palette you like, and what else you want. Portra NC will be low saturation and low contrast, with good skin tones), Portra VC will be medium saturation and high contrast, with good skin tones, Optima II will be medium contrast, medium saturation, with good skin tones, Agfa portrait 160 wil be Ultra low contrast, and ultra low saturation, with good skin tones, etc, etc. thankfully there are a huge number of choices that will give excellent skin tones, it's worth testing a few to se what look you like.

I second Steven's suggestions. I found the greatest difference in sharpness was caused simply by using vuescan to tell the scanner where to focus. Otherwse it might try and focus on he blue sky, or a solid colour shirt, or something else that makes it almost impossible to focus well.

Second Example<div></div>

Buy the Scan Dual, and Vuescan . Then Follow the advice <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/scan110.htm" >here</a>. I ignore step six and would advies you to do likewise on 35mm Kodachrome, but using Vuescan and the settings specified will make scanning Kodachrome a snap.

Here are a couple of examples. They are both K200, Both Scanned using the workflow I refeenced. The ifrst has had less than five minutes of spotting to remove dust. The second is as it was scanned. the first was taken with my Minolta x700 and a careful incidence reading. The second using a yashica point and shoot.<div></div>

I imagine you will be happy with your Moskva. I use mine constantly. as for kassiapeya, I'm buying a camera now. Problem is it's not till after the sale you find out that they only acept instant transfer paypal, not credit card transactions. Since I just changed banks that is proving to be a pain.

But enjoy your MOSKVA. Maybe I just got a really great one but I find I do most of my 120 work with it now. More often than my Bronica, or Ciroflex.

Another voice recomending Kodachrome 200. Give it a shot it might work for you

It is tempting to blame Walmart (it is always tempting ot blae walmart), but what we have hee is the company obeyying the law. It is a stupid law mind you, but I can understand why Walmart is afraid. I'm one of those people who believes copywrite:

1. Should ONLY be held by an individual not a company

2. Not be assignable to third parties

3. Expire with the originators death, not years afterword.

I passionatley believe these things shoul be, but I also acknowledge that is not what the law says.

Should one disobey an unjust law? The case can be made at an individual level that ye sone should; however does one have a right to risk someone else(in the case Walmart) by breaking the law(as the assoicite would have done if you had tried to sell them? Much greyer area.

Bottom line. Not giving moral advice, but practical, if you hunt you can find someone who will do it, probably a smal lab, who knows full well that the photographer is dead, the nge proabbly long gone, and the heirs(if they could be found) probably wouldn't care. Most imporantly this small business owner will be willing to take this risk, because they ar absorbing the risk, not endangering someone else.

 

I remember a P.J. O'Rourke line about small vs big business.

 

Employee: Oh my God Paul fell into the vat of chicken soup and was killed.

Large business boss: recall all can's of chicken soup, alert the press, and issue an apology

Small business boss: relabel it new chunky style and double the price.