randall_pukalo

Alex, use the times and agitation shown in the (well written) manual. That is, 6min15secs First developer time for your

first batch of film, spinning the Paterson twirling stick 2 full revolutions every 15 seconds. Don't bother with

inversion it is a messy hassle, spinning works fine. Then increase times as shown for your second and third film runs.

I have done more than a hundred rolls using the excellent Tetenal E6 kit with great results. Don't worry as long as you

get the temperature correct, it is very easy . warm the developers in a Styrofoam cooler filled with water at 110-115

degrees and let it slowly drift down in temp. When FD gets to 101 to 100.5, "prewet" the film by filling the Paterson

tank with water from your tap at 103F (this warms the film to compensate for the temperature drop and evens out the

development) and pour out once it fills to the top. Then pour in the FD and start developing. Very easy and ensu es

great results.

<p>The two films have noticeably different looks, and 120 provia 100f is still reasonable at $7 a roll from BH.</p>

<p>Several years ago, this topic came up. The white spots are often caused by bad or underutilized chemicals sitting in processing machines designed for mass usage (large throughput of film), now a thing of the past. Fuji Europe even had some special chemistry to try to tackle this. So if you cant see the duest with a loupe, and your film was processed at a lab or your chemicals were not freshly mixed up, this could be the issue.</p>

I see a HUGE difference in quality between the two images in terms of sharpness, don't you? Try posting same shot images, as your 35mm sample is poorly

focused and has very little depth of field. If you try the same shot with each while using a tripod you will see a massive difference in sharpness and resolution

for landscape or other high detail scenes.

Also, for both shots posted you should be using slide film. Not a portrait negative film. This change alone will greatly improve both your 35mm and 645

landscape images. And when you get back your 645 slides you will most certainly be impressed they will be works of art unto themselves and you will

appreciate medium format. And shooting slide film creates a tangible, real, beautiful object that digital does not. Not saying better than digital, it is not, just

unique, different, and beautiful.

<p>The Tetenal kit is maent to be used in ANY type of processor. I use it in paterson hand tanks, just follow the times/instructions exactly and you will get perfect results. I have done ober 200 E-6 rolls this way, with great results. Would not go back to the Kodak kit, even if it were still made. Check You tube as suggested for video tutorials.</p>

I believe Kodak even advertised this fact, mentioning the far better shadow detail than Velvia. Check out the old Kodak links for vs, I am certain I read this,

probably there.

get a Tetenal c41 kit from Freestyle photo and do it yourself for far less cost, and far better results. Never again

scratched or fingerprinted nets, and its EASY. YouTube it, many how to videos out there. I do slide film E6 and the

misleading old article here at Pnet kept me from trying color for years. When I did, I saw how easy it is. Try it, you

will never look back!

<p>A sad loss of a little discussed on the net, but excellent, film. BW400CN was originally part of the Portra family of Kodak films, and as such, provides wonderful smooth skin tones, yet excellent contrast. It is one of my favorites, soon to join the ranks of 400UC, another classic that died a few years back.</p>

<p>Yes, the Kodak disposables have the excellent Kodak Gold 800 film in them. It is a close relative of Porta 800, and a shame it is no longer available except in the OTC cameras.<br>

Both Gold 800 and 400 (aka Ultra Max 800 and Max 400) are incredibly good films, that unfortunately have a bad rep from the early days of the Net of being grainly low quality stuff. Maybe once true, or more likely related to use of old expired film, but not now. Fantastic saturated colors with great skin tones (unlike the Fujicolor 400 which can bring out the red in Caucasian faces as you noticed) and very little grain when fresh.<br>

If you want a very similar look, try Porta 800, at approx. $10 for a 36 exposure roll. Fantastic stuff.<br>

Or, try Fuji 800. It is a completely different film from the 400. It handles mixed ligting well, and has great skin tones without the red face issue of the 400. In fact, last year I shot an indoor event, mixing the 2 films - all the 800 came out great with perfect skin tones and even good results without flash inder fluorescent lights, but the 400 shots suffered from the red face issue. It was an eye opener to me, how different the 2 films are. Maybe the 800's better handling of people and indoor lighting is due to the fact that it is a close relative of Fuji's now cancelled 800 NPZ/ 800Z Potrtait Film. (edge marking of Fujicolor 800 = CZ= Consumer Z, while NPZ = New(?) Professional Z.)</p>

 

<p>Yes, in the end, you may make a living (or at least, some $) from photography. I wish you the best. My point was that it is very difficult to do so in the digital age, as skill sets that were once rare are now much more common. So you should expect what you have encountered to date, it will be difficult to get established, and you may need to do many freebies, and perhaps weddings to make a local name for yourself, where people will be willing to pay more than just your basic expenses and a few extra bucks gratuity. Until you have developed a great reputation, you are just one of many people nowadays with a fancy camera and lens (many of whom will do the shoots for free).</p>

A side effect of the rise of digital is that great photography is so much easier. Cameras are cheap, everywhere, and

capable of fantastic results. Good photographers are now a dime a dozen, so to speak. Everyone has a friend or family

member who takes great shots. Digital has made photography so easy, that sadly it has also killed the market for selling

photos. That is part of what you are encountering.

<p>Use the LIQUID C-41 TetenaL kit, not the powdered kit for best results. Freestyle Photographic sells the liquid Tetenal kits in the usa. The Tetenal liquid kits are fantastic.</p>

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/102034-Tetenal-Colortec-E-6-Kit-5-Liter

The last 4 shots in this set were all home developed with a Tetenal E6 kit.

 

Learn to home process using the excellent, made in Germany, Tetenal chemistry.

Freestyle photo has the kits in small and large size, depending on how many rolls you need to develop.

Quality as good or better than the labs, and you save a boatload too.

No negative implications are meant with the suggestion to use a camera with a permanently attached lens. The

Leica/Lumix/canon g series cameras are sophisticated cameras, capable of great results. Nothing negative meant about

the suggestion to consider using them if you are not getting good results with a dslr.

The reason to use a dslr has become far less compelling than it once was, with the rapid progress in integrated lens and

mirrorless cameras. However, one area where they still reign supreme, where perhaps you are not fully utililizing your

camera, it to shoot wide open at very large apertures to make your subject stand out and blur the background to a

Creamy smooth bokeh. So get that 50 f1.8 or f1.4 lens, and practice using that wide open. And add a dedicated flash of

the same brand as your camera, for bounce and wireless when you do need to stop down the aperture.

No, I was not being sarcastic. If you are having problems getting good results, something is really wrong. If you are

having a tough time with a dslr and get frustrated, maybe that means you should be using something simpler. But really,

it's not that hard. If you don't want to consider a Lumix with Leica f2.8 lens, then get a 50mm f1.8 lens, put it on your dslr,

set iso to 800, shoot wide open at f1.8, focus on the eyes, and make sure you have evaluative metering set. And use a

reflector, or make one as you noted. It's not that hard, you should be getting great results with available light.

Even using film, it is easy to get great results this way. With the benefits of easy high iso digital, it makes things even

easier.

<p>Maybe you should consider a good high end point and shoot (like the Lumix series or Canon G series) that has good high ISO and Face Detection Autofocus. Just compose the scene as you like (and there are BIG advantages to using the LCD screen indoors to get the composition you like - much better than the "shooting thru a peep hole" - then later seeing it on a computer screen only to realize it wasnt composed they way you really wanted - approach with an optical finder) and shoot. In Full Auto mode. There is nothing heroic or superior about using Manual Mode. You should have no problems getting good results with a $400 camera on Program/Auto mode.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/13-Chemicals/Color-Chemicals">http://www.freestylephoto.biz/category/13-Chemicals/Color-Chemicals</a></p>

<p>for those in the US who want to try the Tetenal Kits. (they also have C41 neg film dev kits)</p>

<p>Buy the Tetenal E-6 kit kit and develop your film at home. It si super easy, and far less expensive than sending to a lab.<br>

I avoided home development for the firts 10 years of my photography hobby, being scared by the online comments about how difficult it was. Nonsense, it is easy !<br>

And fun and relaxing too. I develop my rolls in my kitchen sink at night, listening to the radio. All you need is a Paterson hand developing tank ($20-$45 depending upon the number of rolls it will process at one time), a digital cooking thermometer, a styrofoam container for holding a hot water bath, some empty water bottles for the chemicals, a watch or timer, and the Tetenal kit.<br>

Ive done over a hundred rolls, never a problem.<br>

see this video which shows how easy it is.<br>

<a href="http://youtu.be/ZeNIwJGHjSA">http://youtu.be/ZeNIwJGHjSA</a></p>

Contax Tvs - Leica quality at a fraction of the price. This is a compact rangefinder with built in 28-56mm zoom lens that

gives amazing resolution and color. You won't be taking your Hasselblad on trips once you try one. Canon rangefinder,

not even in the same league. These were $1300 cameras 10 years ago, that sell for a fraction of that now that digital has

taken over.

Tom, if it only occurs on the sleeved slides, it is fungus. Not enough airflow and the mold grows. Glad you mentioned that,

as I should check my sleeved slides, supposedly the latest sleeves have fixed this issue, but who knows.

Sell scanner and get one with ICE. You will encounter this issue many times,

usually with far fewer and smaller dust specks, especially on negative film, but

slides too. You can never blow 100% of the dust off - the film is charges awilili

and will suck the dust from the air. It is futile, and you will spend LOTS of time

removing spots in Photoshop if you don't have an ICE equipped scanner.

The Epson 4870 is a forerunner of the V700sellsfsarouro and is relatively

inexpensiwero newwere 50

forget it, this crazy phone keeps chI type. nging what i

CI typeanging what i

Could be fungus, or dirt, at dust. Whatever it is, it blocks the light from passing

thru the slide to the scanner sensor, hence the black spots. If they were true

holes, the spots would be white.

This is why you NEED a more modern scanner that has Kodaks infrared dust

removal called ICE. It is found in the generation of scanners after tthe4000 such

as the 5000 or Epson V700.

You don't need the caps, use the stirring rod to rotate agitate the film, it works far better and no messy spills or tank

burping required. Such rotary agitation is all I use for e6, which is the most demanding of the film processes, and results

are always excellent.