chi_confucious

Your noise is expected at that far a distance and with so little light. You shouldn't expect much detail no matter how much work you put on removing the noise. I use <a href="http://denoiser.shorturl.com/">Picture Cooler</a> which is a free download. It seems to give pretty good results. Also see Michael Almond's article <a href="http://www.michaelalmond.com/Articles/noise.htm">Noise Reduction Tool Comparison</a> comparing various products.

If you scan negatives, then 400UC is the way to go. There is less struggle than with other negative film and it's a sharp film. I use a Nikon IV scanner at 2800 dpi using Vuescan software. If you just process from negative to print, then NPH is the way to go. Seems like the fuji frontier works better and colors tend to be more neutral. I use both, mainly 400 UC for my main stuff and NPH for my snapshots. I get NPH shipped from BH Photo in NY buying the "imported" brand which ends up costing about $4 per roll. When I'm low on NPH, I use Superia 400 and that stuff is terrible.

I regularly shoot 400 speed film at 200 when using bounce lighting (flash off ceiling). I'm sure you'll be fine. Please give us an update. You can also tell a pro lab to "pull" process 1 stop if you have concerns about highlights.

A 5400HS will work with the KM 7D however you will not get ADI. You will get only basic TTL with the 5400HS. To get ADI, you must use the 5600 HS and a D lense to get the most out of the 7D. By the way, I have a Maxxum 9, HTSi Plus, and Maxxum 5 which work fine with my 5400HS. The Maxxum 5 does not give me any ADI but just basic TTL.

We have several Walmarts in San Diego but I picked up the last several packages they had left yesterday at my local Walmart. Costs $11.95 for 3 rolls but I'll take advantage of the $5 coupon rebate. Even at $4 a roll, sure beats buying it at 4.95 each then having it shipped all the way from BH Photo in New York.

I like Kodak 400UC and Fuji NPH for general use.

For snapshots, I have to admit I buy the 5 pack for $6.50 Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 and when I scan, it barely works for me at 4x6. If you want the best amateur 400, use High Definition. For my pro stuff I intend to sell, Kodak 400 Ultra Color and Fuji NPH a good for 8x10's. I scan at 2900 dpi. I also have a digital Canon 10D and still find myself shooting lots of film. It's just too expensive to take with me and use daily like my $80 Maxxum 5 I bought off eBay.

I feel no need for 200. If I don't need the speed, than I go for the fine grain that can be found at 100. If I do need the speed, I find I can get an extra stop with 400 and the same grain (Kodak 400UC). 200 film is just a void that I have no need for (for me that is).

I believe <a href="http://www.chromacolor.com/">Chromocolor</a> in downtown San Diego (Little Italy) would fit your needs for development and scanning. I use them all the time. Just a couple stores down is Nelson Photography which sells all the film supplies you need. North County camera and George's Camera is good for camera equipment.

"It's Royal Gold 100 that was killed. I got a whole bunch of it at closeout for 50 cents a roll sitting in my freezer"

 

So what's the consensus. Is RG200 really RG100 repackaged? I guess this is possible if the film stays in the development chamber longer to adjust for the under exposure. I was looking at old data and it shows RG100 as pgi 28 and RG200 at 41.

I've gone from Digital to Film. This was back in 2000 when 3 megapixel cameras were the rage. At that time I bought my first digital camera and started selling prints online. I noticed that 35mm film capture was much better in quality so I went back to film. Anyhow, I currently have a 35mm, 6x4, and a 6 MP Canon 10D. I shoot more film for stuff I intend to sell.

I had the opportunity to shoot some Royal Gold 100 stores in my fridge expired 6/2002. I shot it against Reala 100. High resolution scans seem to give the edge to Reala in terms of sharpness and grain but RG 100 scans beautifully and I love the colors. Reminds me of a slower 400UC.

Kodak 400UC is sharper than NPH 400. Recently I noticed I ran out of Porta but still had some NPH 400 left. I do 2900 dpi Nikon scans. On close inspection, the NPH didn't look quite as tact sharp as Portra. I've been sold on UC since I tried it for the first time early last year. I used to be a die hard NPH fan but have switched nearly 100%.

I usually shoot Astia 100F rate it at 80. As for the blue cast, I concur. I tested this against E100GX and noticed Kodak had warmer skin tones.

I don't know what would motivate Canon to update

this camera if it's not selling very well.

 

> She said the Elan 7 hasn't been selling well lately.

i can most definitely tell you that's the result of

low resolution digital scan of your negative. i estimate

in the 2 megapixel range and if you paid $23 per roll

i think you got ripped. this is the reason why i avoid

any digital output centers using fuji frontier or noritsu

if i have rolls to be developed. by the way, i have a

nikon scanner that produces 12 megapixel images which i

get printed on frontiers and they look super sharp.

i think it also means that what you see today on the shelves

at Walmart is the best you're ever going to get out of Kodak.

the image quality will never improve.

Minolta for film and Canon 10D for digital. I got the digital

Canon after no offering from Minolta at the big camera expos

earlier this year. I'm still hoping that Minolta comes out with

an offering since I haven't sold my Minolta equipment yet but

if they don't come out with anything soon, all my Minolta gear will

be sold for more Canon accessories.

the nation's premiere photo

developer <a href="http://www.aandi.com/locations.html">A&I</a> has shops in

los angeles...

So what's the difference between the new version and the old verison

of Canon's Compact Battery Pack? The new one being cp-e2 and the

old one just being plain 'ol cp-e. I have a 550EX and found a used

cp-e available.

i've attached a scan as an example. this is a full frame scan of a 35mm negative. i usually scan the outer edges of the negative and crop later to make sure i have all the info available. the red box shows the 4x6 area.<div></div>

it's not the lab, its the negative. david m is correct. the print does not fit all the info on the negative. i have a full frame viewfinder on my maxxm 9 and tend to composition perfectly using the entire frame. it disappoints me that when i scan the full frame of the negative, i have more info on the negative lengthwise than what i can fit on a 4x6 crop. there's a little bit more info lengthwise therefore you end up cropping the top or bottom of the image in order to fit it on to a 4x6 print.

examples for use for portraits, outside on a sunny day with no clouds use a low contrast film. if you have lots of clouds in the sky and you're working in overcast conditions, then you want to use a high contrast film.

i use to bulk film load in high school. few tips in addition to any instructions you may find. make sure the tape on the end of the role is very secure. also that the caps on the canister is secured tightly or else light may leak into it. also load in total darkness. in addition to goining into the dark room (red lights also bad), i also went into the closet for additional protection from light. preferably roll film at night.

this is a problem with the DPI of the NPH scans. different labs scan at different resolutions. i gave up on my Ritz lab for frontier prints directly from negative. i just scan with my high resoultion 2900 dpi scanner and get very sharp results. the frontier scans directly from negative come out mushy looking. my nikon iv renders a 12 megapixel image. my local ritz scans at around 2 megapixels. it's no wonder why everyone's rushing to get a digital camera and declaring anything over 2Megapixel better than film.