randall_pukalo

Note 100f is the temp for kodak, fuji, and tetenal e6. Aristarchus uses 105, as the Che's are different. I recommend

tetenal, it is muchbetterthan the aritsta. I have used both, and stick with tetenal now that kodak kits are discontinued.

Tetenal is just as good as the kodak results, but much easier to measure, mix, and fewer dev steps.

Freestyle photo sells the tetenal now here in the states.

Greg, no need for a gas stove, that sounds a bit dangerous. Same for electrical appliances, heaters, etc. all you need is a styrofoam

cooler, fill with tap water at 110f, with the dev bottles in the also. Wait twenty fifteen minutes, and water bath and chem bottles wil be at

100f, then start processing. Oh yes, doing a quick pre wash with water at 104 is important also, it brings the film up to temp, preventing a

big temp drop when the 100f chems are poured in.

Works perfectly, and very easy. I have done over a hundred rolls this way, and never once less tan perfect results. In fact, I just finished a

development run, and 5 rolls are hanging to dry in my kitchen now!

And yes, you will save money, the mixed chems last 2 weeks min, the concentrate more than a month once opened. I am being very

conservative with times here, they should actually last longer.

Welcome to home processing, you made the right choice for many reasons-cost, instant results, and quality.

<p>Thanks for all the feedback. Keith, no I have not used the RAW mode yet, as I am waiting for the RAW developing software to arrive. But will defintely try it out once I can read and develop the files. But the jpegs are beautiful, and I dont have to spend time tuning them, so that is a plus.</p>

<p>JDM, you appear to be the one trying to turn this into a film vs digital post, which it most certainly was not intented to be. It was simply meant to share my suprise and delight that some pros, not many at all I am sure, still use film for professional paid projects. And I will give you a little more insight. The photog was not old, I'd say in his mid-late 30's. This was a paid shoot by one of the big auto manufacturers for a very expensive luxury brand vehicle that costs more than my house to buy. I believe funding for the shoot was ample, as it was an outside photographer and his crew, including models, make up artist, assistants, and even a catered lunch buffet. His choice to use film had nothing to do with not being able to afford a digital back or being an old timer stuck on film. He did it for results it can give.</p>

<p>Got a Contax N Digital SLR recently to go with my film bodies and lenses (uses the same mounts), and love it. It produces wonderful images at iso 160 and less, but at 400 the noise in dark areas can be quite bad when zoomed in to 100% (a compulsion with digital). Any suggestions for good noise reduction software that can restore black to jet balck, and eliminate the "dandruff" (iso 400 dark areas with the 2002 era Contax N digital remind me of results one gets from using expired fast negative film).</p>

<p>At a recent photo shoot for a luxury vehicle, I was very suprised to see that Film, Kodak Porta in particular, was being used side by side with digital by the photographer! I had assumed film was long gone from professional scenes. Anyways, it was cool to see a Hasselbald, Contax 645, and 2 big bags of film (Portra 400 and 800) in use. (as well as a Canon 1DMk5 or something similar - not up on the latest digital bodies).</p>

<p>Return the unit and get an Epson 3200, 4870, or V700 flatbed. I have has all 3. The 4870 is what the V700 replaced, but it has the same resolution and quality, but can only scan 8 slides at a time, vs 12 with the V700. I think it sells used for very low cost.<br>

The hassles with your HP simply are not worth it.<br>

Get an Epson, and you can still order a few extra slide holders, and for reasonable price. Preload 5 slide holders (an entire box of slides), press scan, and walk away. Makes slide scanning easy. Plus, they have digital ICE infrared dust removal, an ESSENTIAL for slide scanning.</p>

<p>Last night, after I pulled my slides from the developing tube (its easy to DIY!) and let them hang to dry in my kitchen, my photographic world was rocked! As I peered thru my loupe, the astounding sharpness of the Contax 45mm lens was incredible. I was testing my new G2, and did a bunch of f2 snap portrait shots of my kids, and some focus testing at f2 of a Minnesaota state map on the wall. Perfect focus on the eyes in every shot (dont know how the camera does this so well), and razor sharp detail in the maps shots. The map shots in particular blew me away. I can see micro detail, and its all super sharp!<br>

I will try to scan and post a sample.<br>

But for those wondering as I was, a good used G2 has super accurate focus, and the lens is sharper than a razor blade!</p>

<p>Ok, Ill be the outlier and recommend Kodak E100G slide film. There is a good book out featuring Steve McCurry's famous portraits of Afghan people. His earlier work was on Kodachrome, later work was on E100G. It is a spectacular film for people (as are most Kodak films). You will have no worries about grain either with E100G (nor any slide film for that matter - slide scans into clean files that can easily be sharpenend like digital).<br>

However, it is only available in 120 format now, so hope you are shooting medoim Format.</p>

<p>If you are lucky enough to have a Contax N1, G2, or Minolta 7, this info is imprinted on the film itself. The Contax imprints on either the first frame (all exposure / EXIF data for up to 40 images on the roll), or between the frames, depending upon custom function option set. The Minaolta Maxxum / Dynax 7 imprints the camera ID and data packet ID on the 0 frame, and stores all this data to a memory card !<br />Both allow you to set a Camera ID number too, in case you are lucky enough to own more than one Contax or Dynax 7.<br />Beyond the scope of this post, but thes 2 cameras are among the best 35mm film SLR's ever made, but of which little is written on the web.</p>

<p>VPS is a very old filmstock, most likely the scan was showing the true state of the faded/color shifted film. Why the small perview images looked good, who knows. But I would bet if you shoot then scan some modern negative film, both will look good/correct.</p>

<p>crazy thought, but how about a Pentax 67 with a fast lens? The original 67's (not the 67 II) are dirt cheap, and so are the lenses. You will get even better bokeh/smooth creamy portrait backgrounds than with a full fram 35 dslr. High iso, use Portra 400 or 800 - and they are optimized for skintones/portraits which is what you want to shoot. As you say you dont shoot hundreds of shots in an outing, so processing should not be a major cost issue, and you can have the lab scan them for you so you get digital.<br>

Or, check out the latest high end digital compacts. Leica/panasonic have a fast lens variant, and I bet so do the others. Probably better performance at high iso than an old camera like you are considering also.<br>

I dont know, buying an old 5D just sounds unwise.</p>

 

<p>This guy did a good video on home C41 and E6, shows how easy it is, and the very basic and inexpensive equipment needed. He shows the Unicolor, but Tetanal is the same (excpet temp with Tetenal is the same as Kodak, 100f precisely, not 102).<br>

<a href="http://youtu.be/1718csN3I0U">http://youtu.be/1718csN3I0U</a></p>

 

<p>Home processing using the Tetenal liquid kits is the way to go. Not only is it very inexpensive ($1.25-$1.50/roll with the 5L kits), but super easy, enjoyable, and the best quality you can get - never again scratched or fingerprinted rolls.<br>

Freestyle Photo carries the Tetanal Kits .Tetenal is the best quailty you can get now in reasonable home use quantities, German made chemistry that equals the Kodak chems which can only be bought in bulk lab quantities now. I know, as I used to use the Kodak kits, then when discontinued tried the Arista kits, but quality was not the same, and they dont include the vital stabilizer for long term permanence. Tetenal does, and results are as good as I got with the Kodak chemistry, only much easier to measure,mix, and develop.<br>

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

<p> </p>

A year and a half later, and sadly now silently discontinued. I called Fuji to check on a rumor provia 100 f was

discontinued, and found out this was. Unfortunately, far too expensive to stockpile...

this is the end of the film era.

<p>For a vacation trip, you dont want to lug around a Contax 645. I have one, its a great camera, but also serious equipmement both size and weight wise. What you want for a vacation is the Fuji GA645Zi with a 55-90mm zoom lens, small size, light weight, with a built in flash, and super sharp lens. Medium format quality, of course.<br>

I have both cameras, and would always take the Fuji over the Contax on any sort of vacation.</p>

Costco, by far. Good quality and resolution. If you want even better, go with west coast imaging, referred above. Also see

ken rockwells site, where he posts full res scan samples from them. More expensive than Costco though.

Don't waste your time with anything else if you are shooting 35mm film. The cheap and flatbed scanners do not give good

sharp results with such small film. If you get into medium format film, sure, an Epsom is good. But a 200 dollar consumer

scanner will never match the 10000 plus dollar scanners labs have, at least in 35mm.

Later, if you really get into it, you can buy a dedicated film scanner.

Unless you like heavily magenta casted images, you wasted your money. Ec200 has a strong, much stronger than others,

shift to magenta.

You would be much better off, any have much better results using fresh rolls of provia. Won't break the bank, either.

Not much sense in spending money on defective stuff, only to have to fix it in photoshop, IMO. Better off just pulling out

the digicam in that case....

It is actually a fantastic film, particularly for people, but also, as you can see here, not bad for flowers either. Actually, it is pretty good at

everything. It will never match a slide film sunset, but neither will any other print film, except maybe Ektar 100 (about the only thing Ektar

can do as we'll as slide film)

 

All Tetenal E6 home developed in my kitchen sink with no more than a simple styrofoam cooler, a digital thermometer,

and a little patience waiting for the film to get to the right temp before starting the development. Do that, and it is EASY)

 

All scanned on my Kodak pakon f235 scanner.

Kodak wins hands down if people are in your pics. Fantastic skin tones. The Fuji 400 has a problem with Caucasian faces going too red.

Perhaps optimized for Asian skin tones? but at any rate, it exaggerates the red in faces. The Kodak has portra like effects rendering

fantastic skin tones. Note that the Fuji 800 and 200 emulsions though do not share this problem and also give great Caucasian skin

tones.

In fact, Kodal Ultramax 400 is now my standard inexpensive film for everyday snap shots. I save the Portra and slide film for special

occasions due to cost.

You have done the Ektar thing already, you know it's issues.FWIW, the same issues I have encountered. It does great sunsets and has

decent skin tones, but easy to pick up color casts, especially in shade, evening, or overcast conditions. Forget using it indoors with your

7 and no flash.

Also, if scenics are your main focus, Ektar will never latch slide film in this arena. Nor spring flowers. I tried two years in a row to get the

same level of beauty and results, and basically wasted my time and shots on this. The few rolls of slide I shot alongside it, blew Ektar

away. Not to knock Ektar, it does have its strengths, namely c41 processing, good skin tones (decent anyways), and fantastic,as good as

slide film sunsets.

Velvia, issues as previously noted.

Why not shot Provia 400X. A fantastic film that is great at everything, and 120 sized not crazy priced like 35mm. Great at sunsets,

landscapes, flowers, details, sunsets, sunrises, and fast 400 speed means you can use it handheld without flash indoors and late in the

day or lowlight. Pushes to 800 with great results, and ven 1600 if needed.

Hello, maybe I am the guy you were talking about, but at any rate, I suggest

trying both if you are in doubt. I have, after the Kodak full 7 bath kits ran out. All

Ican say is that after Kodak excellent reults, the Arista was such a letdown that I

resorted to ordering the Tetenal from Germany, even with the great shipping

expense. The results were that much better. I was thrilled when Freestyle began

importing it.

You are only talking a 20 dollar difference max between kits, if your shots are

worith it, get the good stuffIMO . Also, the Tetenal instruction book that comes

with the kit -don't think it is online is very well written in English, and more

explanatort than the Arista kit, including key pitfalls to avoid.t

,

<p>Developing slide film at home is super easy. You dont need fancy or expensive equipment for temperature control. A $2 styrofoam cooler with overflow holes punched near the top and a digital cooking thermometer are all you need. You set the chemicals (in $1 water bottles) in the cooler, fill with water at 115F, and wait 15-30 mins for the bottles to come up to temp and the bath to cool to 101F, then start processing. It cools slowly, so you dont have to worry. Top up with hot wayetr from the tap once ot twice throughout the process, and your slides come outr sparkling and beautiful - as good or better results than even the best and most expensive pro lab. Only the firts step is critical to stay in the 100F range (start at 101 and you will be down to 99 at end of process, dont worry, it works). Color dev is also sensitive, but you have a bit more leeway there. The blix step has a very large bandwidth, like 95f to 102f.<br>

Tetenal E6 kit is the best, as good as the Kodak kits (which are no longer made), and much easier to mix up and use.<br>

I spend a decade avoiding home dev, because I had always read how difficult it supposedly was...could not be farther from the truth. I have done over 100 rolls with not a single failure or bad result yet (except using the Arista kit, which specs 105F and over develops the film, plus it gives wanky overly bright saturated colors and bad skin tones - again, Tetenal avoids these problems).<br>

So for any in doubt, pick up a Tetenal 1L kit from Freestyle (E6 or C41), and give it a try. Equiment oulay is approximately:<br>

-Paterson developing Tank with reels $20-$50 depending upon roll capacity (I use the 5 x 35mm / 3 x 120 tanks).<br>

-digital cooking thermometer $10<br>

-styrodfoam cooler $2<br>

-4 1L water bottles $4 (First Dev, color dev, blix, stabilizer)<br>

-$5 measuring cups for mixng up the chemicals<br>

-Tetenal kits - check Freestyle for price</p>

<p>Anyways, hope this helps any on the fence. Try it, it is easy (and fun, and Much cheaper than lab rates)</p>

 

You could try a roll of slide film, or even fuji or kodak 400 print film. These will all

give you outstanding results, colors that pop, and natural looking results. Top

end film cameras are almost free nowadays. Of course you will need to find a

place that still does film, that is the tough part, but the great results are easy.