bernhard

As said above, a Frontier should do relatively well with films it has proper channels set up for, but this can vary from lab to lab. But naturally a Fuji machine running Fuji papers will be a good match for Fuji films and usually Reala and NPH look gorgeous printed on a Frontier. You can however have varying results if the lab has never seen a particular film before, like I once had with NPZ from a 1-hour Frontier lab in a strip mall, but Reala and NPH a definitely worth a try.

"but you have to expose it spot on as there is no room for stupidity."

 

Exactly.

 

And in my hands there was no advantage in grain compared to TMX processed normally or Provia/Velvia.

 

Unless you want to run a B&W slideshow, I would go another route.

What Scott is referring to is a 320 ISO film called 320TXP. Before the recent change by Kodak it was called Tri-X Pro (TXP), while the old 400 ISO Tri-X (TX) didn´t have professional in it´s name, but does now and the Kodak code is now 400TX. 320TXP is not available in 35mm.

You know why I love Macs?

 

Because I got an $200+ adaptec ultra-SCSI card for free, because it would not work in a Mac after the upgrade to OSX. It works now flawlessly in my PC, Win2k didn't even ask for a driver after the reboot. it just works.

I use an Yashica FX-3 with the Zeiss 45/2.8 for this. Top notch lens, all the control you want, but only manual. It's small and light and in fact easier to carry in the pocket than a Leica style rangefinder, because the lens doesn't stick out that much.

There is plenty to download at http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/tech/color/ColorTest.mspx.

Try WinColorPrinters.exe and RGBramps.exe first.

Option 1: (Spot) meter for the highlights AND expose 0.5 to 1.5 stops MORE depending on how you want to render the highlights. The shadows fall where they maybe, and if they a re too dark while the highlights a re fine, you would have needed a lower contrast film. see this pic (http://www.photo.net/photo/432686) for an example and discussion.

 

Option 2: Take an incident reading or use the sunny-16 rule.

 

Option 3: Just let your camera decide and hope for the best :o)

I have the 50/1.4 and the 28/2.8 but don't have any personal experience with the 28/2.0. I considered buying it, especially after I saw people say that the 28/2.0 would be 'better' (for whatever that means). However the MTFs from Zeiss do NOT support this, in fact the 2.8 looks 'better' stopped down anf I'm quite happy with that lens.

As the MTFs for the 2.0 are no longer available directly from Zeiss I email them to you.

 

So for me the only benefit would be that it is one stop brighter and I decided that that's not worth it for me. I think it is no coincidence that the 2.0s show up quite often on ebay.

Sorry, but this last post is so full of incorrect information, just couldn't

let this stand:<br>

<br>

<i>Hi John, I think maybe you are using consumer film. </i><br>

That's probably true<br>

<br>

<i>Different films do different things and you really need to find what you

like best, but heres a breakdown; Fuji does green better, Kodak does Blues

& Reds better. Other brands usually just try and enhance all colors.

</i><br>

The first statement is true, the second one (colors & companies) is not.<br>

<br>

<br>

<i>� slide films have the best color and finest images(film grain size) around.

<br>

</i>True but almost irrelevant if you want prints. It's important to look

at the whole imaging chain. No matter how saturated your slides are, you

a re limited by the paper and the machine/guys that print. That's the reason

why Reala on a Frontier is such a good mainstream combo: Reala is good, Crystal

archive paper is good and Frontiers, being from the same company know how

to print this film on this paper. Kodak Porta on Porta paper from a Pro shop

will also be very good, but it's most likely harder to find a lab around

the corner that does that GOOD than to find a Frontier minilab.<br>

<br>

<br>

<i>Slides are made so you can capture the image exactly as you see it(simplicity

& true colors), hence is why they are difficult to shoot.. <br>

</i>Incredibly wrong. There a mountains of differences between EPN and Velvia

(just to name some extremes) just as there are huge differences between print

films. If you think that Velvia captures the image as you see it, you should

see an ophthalmologist. The reason slides a re trickier to shoot is that

they have higher contrast = less forgiving exposurewise. That's why a standard

beginners recommendation for slide film is Sensia/Astia 100: middle of the

road saturation and rather low contrast for a slide film, but still more

than most print films.<br>

<br>

<br>

<i>Whatever you choose, make sure it says "professional" on it. You will

be very satisfied with fuji reala for landscapes with mostly green(fuji does

greens better). Or Kodak Portra 160NC, which is a subtle palate that closely

mimics reality. Or ANY other KODAK or FUJI negative Professional film. </i><br>

Reala and Portra 100NC are both good films, but ANY Kodak Pro film? Kodak

Supra is a different animal than Portra. But again, it is important to match

the film to the paper and capabilities of the lab you bring it to. An amateur

lab that sees a high-end pro print film for the first time will not have

optimized print settings for that film, the amateur crap they see a hundred

times a day may actually look better in their hands.<br>

<br>

<br>

<i>But, simply to get a whole perspective on things and make your own decision,

I urge you to try Fuji velvia, or Provia 100f slide film if you like to look

at just how beautiful images can truly be. </i><br>

I would never try to persuade someone not to try Provia 100F or Velvia, but

don't be disappointed when the slides look to dark or to light and the prints

from the lab around the corner are not publication quality. Try Reala first,

then some more forgiving slide film and if Sensia 100 looks good in your

hands, then for all means go for Provia or Velvia. <br>

Get a roll of Reala and bring it to a Fuji Frontier shop. Odds are that you will be happy. If your goal is to make prints, well then print film is what you use.

 

But is nevertheless true that a lot of nature photographer use(d) slide film (too many reasons to list them here and digital has eliminated a lot of these reasons) and when you look at the slides themselves "you feel like a hero" (Phil Greenspun). BUT what you see in the slide is not easy to translate into a print. As Scott points out, the best economical route to prints from slides is the Frontier.

 

So if you want to try slide film, go ahead, but don't expect too much. A good starter for slide film would be Sensia/Astia 100.

1. As others said, close-up pics with a TLR: bad choice.

 

2. Luxury catalog quality can mean a lot of different things. We really need to know what your final output (size, media, quality, look) should be. Should these pics be printed in a regular product catalog or are they for online use? Depending on this (and probably other things), the 5MP Digicam might be all you need (although with SEVERE limitations in DOF and plane of focus finetuning) or you might need view camera. Maybe you can post an example of what kind of pics you want to take and tell us what the final output of the pics should be.

Just set your meter to 320 and expose as you would do otherwise. Don't tell the lab a word about it, just let them develop and print normally.

There is more than one way to skin a rabbit:

 

I can second Steve metering for the shadows approach (let's celebrate, I agree with Steve for the first time :o), but I prefer to use a spot mete for that. ANd I don't just take the shadow reading, but judge the scene and decide how dark I want the shadows to look. If for example I meter a scene where the darkest part is dirty pitch black dog, I would meter the dog aand then expose 1 or two stops LESS than this value, so that what is dark will be rendered dark.

 

If you want a simpler approach or use integral or matrix metering I'd go with Scott: Set your meter to 320 and be done with it.

It really paid off bookmarking this thread, this is real fun :o)

 

Hans thanks for this "coming out".

 

Nicholas, you seem to be located in the UK, I'm in Germany and I have a filmscanner (Canon FS4000). Might be cheaper to send it within Europe than over the big pond. Although I cant promise to scan 4 rolls of film I can certainly scan a couple of frames and send them to you or post them here.

 

And if it turns out that my advice to push Reala ruined the film, I will be perfectly happy to replace the rolls.

".Now days with fast films like NPZ,Im not sure why anyone would need to push a film anyway?"

 

I cetainly agree on that!

 

And of course Reala won't push as well as NPZ, I don't argue that either.

 

Maybe we should all throw in a dollar or two and send it to Nicholas to pay for a snip test, scanning the negs and posting them here, then we can see for ourselves.

<i>Hans Beckert wrote:<br>

"The film is essentially a loss. There is nothing you can do to the film in processing that will improve the situation over basically just processing it normally. "<br><br>

"Color negative films CANNOT, bold, underline, italic, be pushed. Not ever, not no way, not no how." </i><br><br>

Would anyone be so kind and show this gentleman the way to a pro lab, the staff in there will tell him that push processing is something they do everyday. <br><br>

Or will someone point him to this page on the Kodak website: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f2350/f2350.jhtml#007 where one can read: <br><i> T400 CN Film can be rated at higher than normal exposure indexes for photography in dim light or where fast shutter speeds must be maintained. Push processing in Process C-41 results in acceptable negatives from exposure indexes as high as 3200.</I><br><br>

Or what about this: <br><i>KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 400UC and PORTRA 800 Films are designed so that you can push process them to higher exposure indexes. You can push process PORTRA 400UC Film to an exposure index of 800, and PORTRA 800 film to exposure indexes of 1600 and 3200, and produce negatives that yield good-quality prints.</I><br>from http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/service/Zmanuals/z131_03.pdf

<br><br>

If you guys don't believe it now, maybe you should just try it?

"Is there a specific issue concerning fungus in this lens?"

 

No, just older lens have higher chance/longer time to get infested with that stuff. It's more an issue of care than age.

If you want to save money then have one roll developed normaly at any lab and no prints made and visually check neg density. If they are fine then you are too. If they are too thin, then you might develop a second roll with a one or 2 stop push.

 

If you want to save as much of the exposures as possible (and pay more money), go to a pro lab and ask for a snip test.

Portra B&W has an orange mask that is exactly the same as the other Porta films, so it is easy (easier) to get neutral prints when a lab has setup a channel for Porta films. TCN has a slightly different mask and is slightly less expensive.

 

This only matters with optical labs as digital ones (should) desaturate anyway. The cheapest KODAK C-41 B&W way to go is B&W 400+ (= amateur TCN) *IF* you print on a digital machine.

I own both lenses, although the 200/3.5 is in less than mint condition. Judging from the MTFs the 200/3.5 looks slightly 'better' stopped down (email me for the PDFs if you want). Testing them myself with a rather makeshift setup (small tripod, FX-3 body for MLU) I got 65-70 lpm on TechPan with both lenses wide open (the best was D21/2.8 w/ 110 lpm) so resolution-wise it's a wash.

 

However the slightly harsh and cool look of the 200/3.5 prompted me to get the 180/2.8 and if your field is fashion/portait I would take the 180, no doubt, especially if it is the newer version. The older 180 looks like the 200/3.5 the newer looks different. I'd also look at the diaphragm. The older ones have a jagged outline stopped down to 4 or 5.6, while newer models always have a round aperture, which should give better bokeh.

 

My 200/3.5 doesn't get much use and I will soon put it up on ebay for a rather low price, email me if you want a bargain :o)

I think we can agree that push development degrades quality, to what degree in which film is a matter of debate.

 

But the guy who asked the question exposed 100 ISO film @ 400 ISO.

 

So should he develop normally and deal with thin negs or push develop 2 stops and and have some density in the negs to work with even though grain, contrast and color will take a hit?

 

In my book this is quite clear: I´d rather have these rolls pushed 2 stops than trying to print a very thin neg with no information in it to work with and that will look more grainy than a pushed neg with better density.

 

And next time have some 400 speed film in your bag.

Well the author of that site credited you as the photographer and judging from the babelfish translation (see below) he/she is quite fond of the the photograph and maybe you as well. I would write her a love-letter/email and see what happens ...

 

 

*** babelfish translation ***

 

West of Po'ipu, photo of Walter Tatulinski I love you because you were in my soul as a dawn... Because you were (and it it is) what it had of being I love you for being who is, and as she is, and for having appeared in my life to make to be born the Sun in me, this Sun that we call LOVE. Kiss you with immense affection, d. E I repeat: I love you. Its Lila

 

*** end of babelfish translation ***

<I>Steve Levine said:<br> Next isssue is that C41 materials should always be processed at the manufacture's suggested time/temp.Pushing color neg film is asking for trouble,you will get color shifting that often results in unprintable negs.</I><br><br>

Sorry, but I can't let this stand as a general statement. Steve is certainly right that push processing increases grain and contrast and that you should not do this as a routine procedure and that not all films tolerate this as well as others. But there are films that have been designed with push processing in mind and the manufacturers state this themselves for certain films and these films handle a 1 or 2 stop push quite well. These films are professional color negative films in the 400+ ISO range. Another word of caution: push processing is a non-standardized procedure, the outcome may vary from lab to lab and film to film.

YuckyMax

Pushing certainly increases contrast and this may look like more saturation, but it it isn't actually more saturated and you will get areas (shadows) that are rather thin at all (= not saturated) and those will be pretty grainy as well. If I would want higher saturation from print film I'd do the opposite and overexpose print film which will give you higher neg density.

 

If your goal is increased saturation in prints, you have to look at the printing step, because no matter how saturated/dense your negs are, the final saturation of the print is limited by the paper/machine/operator factor. One mainstream solution is Fuji Reala or NPH printed on Fuji Crystal Archive by a Frontier PRO lab. Expose NPH @320. If you want higher saturation you need a different paper (Scott E would suggest Fujiflex Supergloss I guess) which means a pro lab. If you want more control, edit and print yourself or edit yourself and work closely with a lab that prints your digital files and can advise you on the appropriate output media to reach your. goal.

 

If you like Superia 400 (Extra blablabla ?) then stick to it, I tried one roll and I hated the oversaturated radioactive plastic colors. You can certainly push NPH one stop (in which case I would expose the film @640ISO), this will give you more contrast and should be pretty saturated from a Frontier and still yield more or less 'natural/normal' color rendition FAR, FAR more 'normal' from what Sup400Xtra would give you.