plasma181

<p>I have found that taking my own picture is the hardest kind of shot to take. </p>

<p>Portra 400 should work very nicely. There used to be NC and VC; now they just call it 400. </p>

<p>I use a Nikon Coolscan LS-2000. Though I shoot and scan C-41, I have seen that effect before. It was the result of improper development. </p>

<p>My wedding experience is limited, but I have used Portra 400 and 160, in both NC and VC ( 4 different types ). You can't go wrong with any of them. </p>

<p>Paul:</p>

<p>A few years ago, I wanted to check the accuracy of the Walgreens printer, so I employed a little trickery that may help you here. </p>

<p>Take a photograph of anything, but put a grey card in it. Make the card prominent, over half the image. In your editing software, pull up the image and use the grey card to color balance it. Then print it up. Tape the picture to a piece of cardboard or something to make it stiff. </p>

<p>Now lay the picture of the grey card up against something to hold it up, and set the actual grey card next to it. Then take a picture of both of them together. Pull up this second image in your editing software. Use the portion of the image representing the actual card to color balance the image, then check the color balance of the portion of image representing the photograph. ( sound confusing? ) So if the photograph part contains too little red, you must add red. If the photograph part contains too much blue, you must remove some blue. </p>

<p>Then make adjustments to your printer and repeat the exercise. When both parts of your second photograph have the same color balance, your printer is printing correctly. </p>

<p>Bob </p>

<p>I shot a wedding in the Valley of Fire 5 years ago. I used one lens and 4 rolls of Portra, which I had never shot with before. There are several shots in my portfolio. </p>

<p>Of course, for those of you who procrastinate until tomorrow, there is still one more way to get the film to Kansas in a hurry. :-) </p>

<p><a href="

<p>This film, "real" or not, scans very well. There are some flower shots with it in my portfolio. </p>

<p>A few years ago, I saw this program that takes a digital file and converts the colors so it looks like it was shot with various films; including Kodachrome. </p>

<p>And don't forget to put a little more muscle in the bicep. </p>

<p>But seriously, I try not to mess too much with eyes. Generally, I will take out red-eye, but I don't change eye color. <br>

In difficult lighting situations, you can actually use the white of the eye as a grey card. </p>

<p>There are 2 pro labs in Worcester, MA. </p>

<p>It is also possible there was a development error. I had that happen to me with slide film. Portra is a very good film that rarely fails. <br>

There is a trick that usually works when shooting in unusual light. Snap a pic of a grey card using a flash or mid-day sun. Then use the software ( I use VueScan ) to correct the color using that shot. The other shots in orange sunlight should look nice and warm, even if the development or film is off color. </p>

<p>I take my film to a lab in Worcester, MA. They have a full Portra line, but as of last week, they haven't ordered any of the new 400. It should be interesting. I scan my film, and I have actually had good luck with the High Def 400 as well as NC and VC. </p>

<p>I have done a cheated HDR with 35mm film. I take an exposure, which will have a range greater than a digital image, scan it, and make 2 images of different brightnesses. Then I make one a layer over the other and use the eraser tool to make certain areas lighter or darker. I guess we can call it HAHDR, ( half - a** high dynamic range ). </p>

<p>That some impressive sharpening. What software did you use? </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see if the magazines run tests on this film. In fact, it will be interesting to see if they remember how. </p>

<p>I received some Portra for my birthday. I still haven't seen the new Portra 400.</p>

<p>Nowadays, they pronounce it "Made in China." </p>

<p>There was an old joke ........<br>

What is the difference between an amateur photographer and a professional?</p>

<p>............ About 20 rolls of film. :-) </p>

<p>I am not a crop artist. To me, there is nothing wrong with environmental portraiture. Showing a subject in his environment can be very powerful. </p>

<p>Though I have never seen one, I have heard of this lens with a mirror in the side that focuses sideways. You point your camera in one direction, you are actually focusing off the the side. This would be perfect if you want candid shots. :-) </p>

<p>I use a Nikon FM3a film SLR as my main body, then a D-70 as a backup. I start with film, then if I still have a few shots to take, I use the digital rather then breaking open a new roll of film for just a few frames. This works nicely. </p>

<p>These century old shots look like they were taken with an early digital. </p>

<p>I've been looking for the new Toyota that only drives at one speed. </p>

<p>But seriously, the only constant aperture lenses I have ever heard of at the mirror lenses. Their advantage is that you get high magnification in a small package. </p>

<p>I have had good luck with HD 400 on my Coolscan LS-2000 scanner. I have noticed that the place you get it developed is important. The lab not only effects the colors, but the sharpness as well.</p>

<p>Probably 1/3 to 1/2 of my portfolio is HD 400. </p>

<p>I never use WalMart. I still do most of my shooting with film. I make every shot count and pay to have a real lab develop them. </p>