jason_fitzmaurice

As Craig suggested, I'd try it first. Any time I've used EPR more thana coupl months past expiration, I've found a STRONG Blue cast.

Short answer: you can't. if shooting conventional Black and White film, ICE will not work. this is not an issue with your scanner, it is true of all scanners with ICE. If your neg is in good shape it won't be much of an issue. Using clone and healing brush i can usually get a neg cleaned up in 2-5 minutes. Now color... that's another story, but it's not tough with black and white.

Vikas,

 

There are many films that are excellent for portraits; however, it might help to know a little about what you are going for. Do you want high saturation colours, or natural, or low? Do you want low contrast, or medium, or high? How important is keping the grain low?

For example... Kodak Portra NC will give you low grain, low contrast, but also low saturation. UC400 will give you very high saturation (while still giving natural fleshtones), but also medium to high contrast. Agfa Optima II 400 will give you beautiful bright colours, and medium to low saturation, but signifigantly more grain. Of course, these are by no means the only films you could choose. It all depends on what you are looking for.

The good news is that we have an emberassment of riches. Rasther than picking "the best" film, we have many wonderful films and can pick the one that gives us exactly what we want.

Because unless you want to spend a LOT of time in Photoshop, each digital camera can produce 1 Contrast range, and one colour palette. I prefer to be able to make that decision when I select which film to use. Even though I now scan most of my film, I still find I have less to do in photoshop to get what I want. I also worry about ongevity. Can nayone even read 5.25 floppies anymore?

 

I am not one of those who thinks digital is a dead end though. Someday it will replace film, but that day isn't here yet, not for me at least. For others who prefer working in digital good for them. I've seen beautiful work, it just doesn't work for me.

BWC seems to have better prices, also I find them always prompt. Plus they have never lost four rolls of very important production stills (unlike Master Photo) still anyone cna loose your film once, and I've not been otherwise dissatisfied with Master Photo, but I LOVE BWC. The service and the people there(at the north location where I go) are great.

Agfa 160 is a great film; however, it is EXTREMELY low contrast. It is also very low colour saturation. It is a great film for high contrast lighting, but can be tough to use in flat conditions. When using strobes I use MUCH less fill with this film than others. It is great for outdoor portraits during high contrast times of day, but is a little flat in low contrast lighting.

Scott.

I fully accept that you don't care. But why ask "who cares?" Obviously some of us do. Better film is subjective. Technically superior is not, but better is.

Sigh.

For my snapshot photos I used a lot of Vista (100 and 400). I guess go to Walgreens and stock up on their "Studio 35 100" which is Vista. A lot of places seem ot be out in 36 exposure, but have plenty of 24. Maybe it is just the 36 which has been discontinued.

First off Agfa Vista is a consumer printi film. Ct. Precisa is the consumer slide film. If I were you I'd start with something pretty forgiving. Maybe Astia or Ct Precisa(rsx II is the pro version). Then once you have experience exposing for slide film, start testing others to find what you like. I'm a big fan of Kodachrome, but DO NOT start there whatever you do. It has zero latitude.

You might try it. I'd start with Some Astia. Not my favourite slide film, but one of the easiest to use, as it has more latitude than most.

Then once you are used to less latitude I'd try a more conventional slide film, Velvia, Provia, E100g, RSX II 100, whatever floats your boat.

I know this is a little late, but I recently had to drop off a lot of film to be done by a lab. (lack of time). BWC in Dallas processed my Efke 25 and 50 and did a fantastic job. You might tru them.

Paul,

Risking incuring the strange wrath of Scott here. I like RSX II 200. I can't say if you would. It is a low contrast film( though not as low as Astia) and pushes well. It certainly does not resemble Velvia at all. It is a lower saturation film. For all Agfa slide films think close to the Kodacrhome palette, but MUCH lower contrast, and without the scanning printing problems of Kodachrome (alas also without the longevity). The best I could suggest is pick up two rolls and try one at 200, one at 400 witha one stop push. Either the look will appeal or not, but you will know instantly if you like it or not.

 

Myself I don't like the look of Provia 400 at all. I will acknowledge it appears finer grained, but there is just something about it that doesn't appeal to me. If you like it's look, its a very good emulsion as far as Grain/Scannability/Printabilty goes.

Are they really discontinuing the 50? I love that film. IS this hard evidence or just rumor?

Use Walmart; however, in the place for instructions I always write "Process K-14) after one roll was ruined after it was processed as e-6. Since writing that I've had no problems in over 20 rolls.

Yeah, as stated above. "Ultra" is more a marketing gimic. It's got strong saturation, but not unatural (velvia, Agfa Ultra, 100VS) settings. I sometimes find skin a little to colorful, but a slight desaturation after scanning will fix that. And by sometimes i mean maybe one frame in a roll of 36. It'sa great film!

Scot,

Calm down.

I know KOdak papers are more populat, but it is still true that most European labs have enough experience with Agfa to print it well, unlike American labs where, as you say,they just don't see it much. As for "a better film in every way" that's subjective. I will grant you that it is easier to get UC printed well, and it is a much less grainy film. I just happen to like the look of Agfa's product. And giving Kodak "the middle finger" is really bizarre. In fact I mentioned that Uc is a great product. I"m sorry if my preferences don't fit the company you like better (although I got the impression you didn't like Kodak). I use lots of Kodak pruducts, including UC of whjich I have ten rolls in the fridge. And as for Agfa dumping their film. It's dumped < There is a new company handling it and that gives me some hope. And I will always buy the film I like. Saying I should support Kodak because they spend more on film. Is like telling someone not to vote for a third party candidate. I pick the film I like. No matter who makes it. If Gfa films are someday no more then I'll stop, but whys top before then if I like it? There is no better or worse film. There is the film that gives you the look you want.

Well I love Agfa's 400 speed; however, I think Scott has a good point that unless you know your lab will treat it properly, you might be better off with UC 400, which is also a great film.

 

The exception to this is if you are going to have your film processed and printed in Europe. iF you are than Agfa is a perfectly safe choice, it is a much better known, and widely used film there.

 

With either film you will probably be happy. I like UC but prefer Agfa. It's largely a matter of taste.

When my son was born, I was expressly forbidden from using a flash. We ended up having an emergency C-section, and flashes were not allowed during surgery of any kind. Since that might happen to you I second or third (or whatever) the recomendation to go without a flash. Other than that onc eyou know about what films peed you need, I'd just pick whatever you are most familiar with. Good luck and Congrats.

I'd agree with Scott to try 100G. If you like a little less saturation you might also try RSXII. The 100 is okay, but the 50 is magic.

Scot:

Endura, or ocassionally Royal Gold when I'm in a hurry. I would definately agree to NEVER print it on Fuji papers. Unlike yourself I do like the look of Some Kodak products on CA, but have never seen any Agfa film that prints well on it.

Didn't mean to imply it was a high contrast film (although I do find it a little more contrasty than 400NC) I just meant that in my ewxperience it isn't ideal for say picking uo the difference between the black of the tuxedo, and the black of the lapels, and the blakc of the sil stripe. It's a great film though, one I like a lot.

Optimae II is a great film. I don't know if I'd use it for weddings though. IF you normally shoot weddings with a low contrast, low colour film like Portra NC then I wouldn't recomend it. If you prefer the look of a slightly higher (though not high like UC) colour or contrast film ie Portra Vc. Then I would say give it a shot.

 

Like all films this is a matter of taste. Many people don't like it.

It's not dead yet. For example, my day job is as a pre-school photographer. We use enormous cameras running portra 400nc in 70mm 100 foot lengths. I must go through 300 feet a week on average, so there is some market still there, but I doubt it will be for long.

I'm a big fan of most Agfa films; however I'd eliminate Agfa's 160 Portrait from this. It is an EXTREMELY low colour saturation film. Nice for some things, but not for capturing Autumn colors. You might consider Optima II 100 if you like Agfa films. As far as Kodak or Fuji it's largely a matter of personal preference. Both have passionate defenders. I happen to like the Kodak Portra line, but just because it happens to work well for me. I just do better with it. Others do better with Fuji. I don't think one is really superior, just a matter of taste.

Ron,

I must not have made myself clear. I was in no way saying that unions can't work, or that non unionized companies expolit workers. My point was only that a management unfeeling to it's workers cannot survive, nor can a company survive witha union who takes no notice of the companies business intrests. There are obviously unionized and non-unionied companies who strike the necessary balance, and unionized and non-unionized companies that don't. I might choose as an example my fiance's father who works at Miller brewing, both the union and the management seem to be adapt at striking a balance between corporate needs, and protecting employees, conversely as a theatre guy I loathe the American Actors Equity union. This is a union that seems not to care if theatre companies can survive, and requires things that make it impossible to not perform at a loss. As a result when I lived in Oklahoma no one I knew could make a theatre company succeed, so there was little work for actors. Here in Dallas there are lots of small companies (as Texas does not require union membership) and there are lots of theatre companies and lots of work for actors. Sorry for the wordiness, I just wanted you to understand I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing. Unions as a concept are neutral. In practice they can be good, or they can be bad. Requring a company to keep employees they no longer need, and forcing the comapny to operate at aloss is bad. It's killing the goos that laid the golden eggs.