|
|
| Author |
Message |
eprom
|
|
35mm film
| 
May 26 05:20 UTC 2004 |
There is already two film items (#8 and #24) here, but they seem
very specific, so I figured i'd enter a new item.
It's kind of a general survey too.
1) Print or Slide film or both? If you use both, under what
circumstances do you prefer slide film and when do you
prefer print film?
2) When you buy film how many exposures do you prefer?
(12, 24, 36, 100 ft rolls, etc..)
3) Do you have a brand preference for certain projects?
(i.e. Portra UC for portraits, Velvia for nature slides,
Reala for general prints, T-max for B&W, etc)
4) How long does it take you to use up a roll?
5) Do you buy film in bulk (4 & 5 roll pkgs) and refrigerate it?
6) do you bracket or just take you chance at what the meter reads?
|
| 21 responses total. |
eprom
|
|
response 1 of 21:
|
May 26 05:38 UTC 2004 |
I guess i'll go first. :)
1) umm....I've only bought one roll of slide film and its still
in my camera currently so I guess I can't really anwser this
question yet.
2) I always buy 24 exp. 36 is too many and would takes forever to
finish up. 12exp is too costly to develope.
3) I can really anwser this either since I haven't had enough
experience shooting.
4) at least a week for a 24exp roll, when i'm active and at times,
i've had the same roll in my camera for over 6 months. But on
average 3-4 weeks a roll.
5) I haven't in the past, but once I figure out what films I like
I will start doing this. I did buy a 3-pack of Kodak HD 400,
but that was only because I had a $2 off coupon.
6) I never do typical 3 exposure bracketing for daylight shooting,
But for long exposures I will sometimes take 2 exposures (I'll
guestimate ~20secs & ~40 secs), so far one of the prints always
manages to come out decent.
|
eprom
|
|
response 2 of 21:
|
May 26 05:56 UTC 2004 |
I want to sample all kinds of film.
My last roll of B&W was Ilford HP5+ 400. A few of the B&W prints
from the HP5+ were gorgeous, it'll be very interesting to see how
this roll of Kodak T-max 400 I just bought compares. Next will be
Fuji Neopan 400. :)
|
gull
|
|
response 3 of 21:
|
May 26 13:31 UTC 2004 |
I tried Neopan 400, and in my non-expert opinion it compares favorably
to the old Kodak Tri-X 400 (which isn't the same as the Tri-X they sell
now.) It has a nice grain structure.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 21:
|
May 26 17:49 UTC 2004 |
1. Almost only slide film - prints easily made from slides by scanning.
2. 24
3. Kodak - I like the saturation.
4. Varies greatly.
5. No and no.
6. Generally take my chances.
Obviously these answers depend very much on the types of photography one
does, and how the results will be used. I do mostly project photography
and expect to use them in slide shows.
|
eprom
|
|
response 5 of 21:
|
Jun 3 00:11 UTC 2004 |
I just picked up a roll of 400TX today. I'll be doing a direct comparison with
the T-Max 400 when I go to Chicago tommorow.
|
eprom
|
|
response 6 of 21:
|
Jun 6 17:19 UTC 2004 |
bleh...I never got to do the comparison....I loaded one of the camera with
the 400TX, but the other camera still has about 8 more exposures left of slide
film because i didn't want to lug my big tripod around downtown Chicago.
|
eprom
|
|
response 7 of 21:
|
Jun 11 07:20 UTC 2004 |
I wouldn't have normally bought Kodak HD 400 film, but I had a $2 off
coupon for a 3 roll pkg, and I figured I could use them as test rolls.
I'm not an expert but it's a suprisingly good print film, IMHO. Here are
two pictures I took at the zoo:
http://members.triton.net/eprom/LJ/hideandseek.jpg
http://members.triton.net/eprom/LJ/pinky.jpg
On print they are much much sharper than in the jpgs, but I tried to make
sure the colors were reproduced faithfully.
|
eprom
|
|
response 8 of 21:
|
Jun 23 20:40 UTC 2004 |
I just got my slides back. I have 6 good pictures (mostly long exposure
photos) the other 18 frames were underexposed. I took it to a professional
camera lab, so I doubt they screwed up.
This leaves me with:
A) my camera's meter is wonky. I also have an ancient Minolta flash/light
meter and it usually suggests 1-stop brighter than what my camera says.
But from the prints I've gotten back, it looks as if the metering is
dead-on.
B) I was using Kodak Elite chrome ISO 100. I've heard the Fuji Velvia is
actually closer to ISO 40 that 50. Do you think the same is true for the
Kodak?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 9 of 21:
|
Jun 23 23:41 UTC 2004 |
I'll find out shortly - I have my first roll of Elite Chrome in my
auto-exposure camera.
|
eprom
|
|
response 10 of 21:
|
Aug 27 22:22 UTC 2004 |
I got my second roll of Kodak Elite back, and it came back exposed fine.
I think I forgot to reset the camera to the correct speed, after I was
using it as as a spot meter.
I also got the roll of Kodak Tri-X back awhile ago. I really like the
contrast and grainy look.
And lastly, I picked up some out-dated 120 Astia (04/2002) from Adrays,
for half price. The film came out perfectly exposed; no wierd colors
or fogging. I ended up going back and buying a few more rolls. What a
bargain!
|
eprom
|
|
response 11 of 21:
|
Apr 6 20:35 UTC 2005 |
I don't know if this is a Meijer wide thing, but I figure i'd give ya'll
a heads up.
I was just at one of the Kalamazoo Meijer stores. They had Kodak HD 400
(high definition) on clearence for $2.50 / 24exp roll. Normally they go
for ~$4.80/roll. Even regular priced 3 packs average out to be more than
$2.50.
Kodak HD 400 is comparable to Kodak Royal Gold. I picked up 4 rolls.
|
denise
|
|
response 12 of 21:
|
Dec 1 19:27 UTC 2006 |
Back to this discussion... I usually use regular print film and rarely do
slides [I think I've only done 1- rolls of slides, ever]. For awhile, I
preferred Kodak film but then switched to Fuji. And I ususually use the 24
exposure rolls unless I know for sure that I'll be taking LOTS of pictures
in one day. For special occasions/situations, I've been known for taking yp
to 4-6 rolls of 24 exposure in one day or a short period of time [like on a
vacation]. So I usually get the packages of 6 rolls at a time, its much
cheaper that way. :-)
|
ball
|
|
response 13 of 21:
|
Dec 30 06:28 UTC 2006 |
I'm about to send off some Kodak Tri-X 400 that I used as a
test roll in a Pentax MV. I'll use colour print film in my
new camera, just because I can get the prints back a lot
sooner.
|
denise
|
|
response 14 of 21:
|
Jan 8 03:56 UTC 2007 |
Have any of you tried using that black and white film that can be processed
as if it was color film? If so, how'd you like it? The tones are definitely
different.
|
ball
|
|
response 15 of 21:
|
Jan 8 07:12 UTC 2007 |
I'm told it's a poor substitute for proper b&w film, but
it's nice in that you can have it developed at "one hour
photo" places.
|
denise
|
|
response 16 of 21:
|
Jan 8 11:00 UTC 2007 |
Regular b&w film definitely do have better contrasts and truer [?] in the
actual black and white.
|
saeger
|
|
response 17 of 21:
|
May 16 04:25 UTC 2007 |
I perfer to use Kodak C41 B&W 400 unless the predicted subject only strong
point is its color then I'll use color 200. The only thing about C41 B&W is
you have to send it to Kodak for develuping, One-hour photo shops turn it
purple or green, with Kodak you get a nice sipeia tone witch replicates the
old silver-oxide films. Other places may also do a good job, but I've been
hapay with the prints I get from Stop and Shop and they send their film
directly to Kodak.
|
eprom
|
|
response 18 of 21:
|
Mar 8 00:10 UTC 2015 |
I'm all digital now. The only reason for me to ever to go back to film, would
be to use B&W film and the ability to develope it myself (if I ever had the
time).
|
denise
|
|
response 19 of 21:
|
Mar 17 18:25 UTC 2015 |
Do you have a darkroom? I used to love developing my film and making
prints but I never had the equipment to do so at home.
|
eprom
|
|
response 20 of 21:
|
Mar 19 12:54 UTC 2015 |
not currently. Its on my someday-list.
|
denise
|
|
response 21 of 21:
|
Mar 31 11:12 UTC 2015 |
I have a looong someday list.
|