randrew1

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>There were labs for many years that sold and processed motion picture negative film for still camera use. I'm not sure if any of these labs are still offering this service. In general, motion picture negative film has finder grain, lower color saturation, and shorter latitude than still films. The ECN-2 process is designed for high volume use. It uses developing agents that are cheaper and more to cause skin irritation than those in processes C-41 and E-6. <br> There may come a day where dedicated film users will have to use motion picture film, but for now, Kodak is selling enough motion picture film to keep the plant open. As long as it is running, they can continue to make some sill film as well. </p>

<div></div>

<h1><a href="https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/kodak-backtracks-says-difficult-revive-kodachrome/">Kodak Backtracks, Says it Would Be ‘Very Difficult’ to Revive Kodachrome</a></h1>

<h1 ><a href="http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/2017/01/26/kodak-ektachrome-super-8-kodachrome-film-possible-return/96532280/">A comeback for Kodachrome? Maybe, Kodak says</a></h1> <p>I see this as a trial balloon at best. T. J. Mooney (quoted in a prior post) knows the additional complexity of re-introducing Kodachrome and the limited benefits. Kodachrome ceased to be the most colorful film in 1975 when Ektachrome 64 was introduced. It fell to 4th place with Fuji introduced RT 50 and RT 100. It dropped another healthy notch when Velvia was introduced and dropped way back in the pack with subsequent E-6 offerings by Kodak and Fuji. <br> But what do I know about hipsters? I could never understand those instagram filters that made perfectly good photos look old and faded or (shudder) look like Polaroid or Kodak Instant film. </p>

<h1 ><a href="http://www.popphoto.com/someone-figured-out-process-for-developing-kodachrome-film-in-color">Someone Figured Out a Process For Developing Kodachrome Film In Color</a></h1> <p>I'm not ready to shoot the surviving rolls of Kodachrome in my archive, but I have to salute the work of this person. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I haven't shot gymnastics, but I shoot a lot of basketball and occasionally some volleyball in poorly lit gyms. As others have said, shutter speed is paramount. 1/500th stops most basketball action, but gymnasts doing flips could be moving faster.<br> Once I determine the necessary exposure at a site, I always set the exposure manually (expect for that time there were lots of windows and the clouds were covering the sun about 30 out of every 60 seconds). This way I get more consistent exposures on the players and my shots aren't influenced by the sunlight coming through a window that may or may not be in the scene.<br> <img src="https://photos.smugmug.com/Sports/MCC-Basketball/20160228-MCC-Men/i-RFGHpL9/0/L/20160228_MCC%20Men_4692a-L.jpg" alt="" /><br> I would suggest shooting as close as they will let you. When I have access to the baseline, I can use a 50 mm lens. If you have to shoot from a distance, you will need the telephoto zoom. A 70-200 f/2.8 lens is expensive, but it may be the only way to get the shot if you need a telephoto in a poorly lit gym. Start by renting one to see how it works for you. <br> I always shoot wide open so I can use the lowest possible ISO. Focus can be a problem with basketball. With gymnastics, you know where gymnasts will be so you can pre-focus. <br> The most important thing to learn for good sports photos is to anticipate the action. When you know where a gymnast will be, hold steady on that point and start shooting a burst shortly before they get there. </p>

<p>Bob raises a good point about monopods. I have a pair of hiking poles with a tiny compass on the top knob. If I remove the compass, there is a 1/4 - 20 screw that will fit a tripod socket. I have rubber feet for the poles for indoor use. I'm more likely to use them when hiking in the woods over variable terrain, but they can be useful in cities.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>With the lenses you mention, I would take the 20, 50, and 70-200. With the lenses I own (35, 50, 28-300, 35-80,70-200, 70-300) I would take the 28-300 and leave all of the others at home. I might consider adding the 50mm f/1.8 for interior shots. I'd add a tripod and a water bottle before I would add another lens. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>My option was to purchase a Kodak RFS3570 scanner. It handles up to 2.25x3.25 inch film image. These scanners are about 20 years old. I keep a similar vintage Mac working to use this and another film scanner. If you find one of these scanners, there is one major caution. Make sure you get the negative holders you need in the deal. These are very difficult to purchase separately. </p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>