chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq) (08/14/84)
Having just purchased an AE1P (highly recommended) and getting back into
the hobby after a number of years, I'm interested in knowing what films
people out there prefer and why. When I last visited photography Tri-X was
considered to be ultrafast (so was Kodacolor 100...).
My preferences are to natural light photography, a lot of it is done in
somewhat dim surroundings. I also do nature work. I'm currently using
Kodacolor 400/1000 print films. My questions, basically, are: is there a
decent equivalent slide film? Is there going to be a noticeable grain
difference between 400 or 1000 and a 100 speed film? As I'm also interested
in doing some astral work (I have a friend with a good telescope) what
kinds of films should I consider for that?
chuq
--
From the depths of the Crystal Cavern: Chuq Von Rospach
{amd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA
Dreams, dreams, enchanter! Gone with the harp's echo when the strings fall
mute; with the flame's shadow when the fire dies. Be still, and listen.citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) (08/15/84)
I prefer B&W to color photography and my favorite film is Agfapan 400. I'm told that Tri-X, HP5, and Agfapan 400 are pretty much identical, but I always seem to get much better results with the Agfapan, with all developers. The grain seems to be better and the intermediate tones are better than in the other two films. I have no preference when it comes to color films. Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin)
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (08/16/84)
I strongly recommend that any 35mm photographer, whose real love is black and white, give Ilford XP1 film a try. It is rated ASA 400 and has the fine grain and resolution of the Real Slow films. In a comparison I made recently, it appeared to do better with respect to the above than Ilford's Pan F (ASA 50). It is a so-called chromogenic film; applies color film technology to black and white. The final image on the negative is a brownish-black dye. It can be processed as if it were Kodakcolor, i.e in C41 process, but the grain is finer if you process it yourself in Ilford's kit. The film has an amazing dynamic range. The first roll I tried, I deliberately shot the same scene three times, rating the film respectively at ASA 400, 200, and 100. By playing a bit with the paper contrast, I was able to get identical prints from all three frames. Finally--Where grain does show first is in the thin places on the negative. What you are seeing is the statistical distribution of the dye particles. But those thin places on the negative will be the dark places on the print-- just where grain is the least noticeable. The one limitation is that it can't be pushed and remember: thin is grainy. If you want to push to ASA 800 or 1600, you are better off with TriX. I have used no other B&W film for the past three years, except this past month in order to make some comparisons. Herb Kanner ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
glenn@ncoast.UUCP (Glen Norris h2280589) (08/19/84)
Who can tell me anything about this new "slides AND prints from the same roll" stuff? Which do you actually get? Slides, then they make you prints with them just as could be done all along? gn ...decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!gle[n,nn]
marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (08/19/84)
I, admittedly, don't use a huge amount of B&W stock, but I ocasionally use it when I want to take fast action shots (soccer, hockey etc). I now ALWAYS use Ilford XP1, and wouldn't now be without a roll in my gadget bag. It is a chromogenic B&W film, which basically means that it uses colour technology to get a B&W image - i.e. the image is formed from black dye, not from silver oxide (or so I understand). Ilford have their own special chemistry, but you can save a little by processing it in a normal C41 process (ie as colour print film) with very little loss of quality. It is very tollerant to exposure at other than its nominal rating of 400 ASA, and it also doesn't seem to be worthwhile to push process (shoot it at 1000 and develop it as if it were 400 - you just get thinnish negs - no other problems as far as I can see). I have always found the image quality to be superb (better than Tri-X in my book, certainly the grain is all but invisible, and the contrast is excellant). My local photographic shop man once told me that the results at 200 ASA are breathtaking. So, what are the dissadvantages? Price is a little higher, processing in special chemistry is more expensive (but can still be done in a home dev tank), and developing is more temperature critical. They sell a starter kit that consistes of a roll of film plus enough chemicals to process half a dozen or so rolls - its a good way to find out whether you like it wihout spending a fortune on new chemicals (or shoot a roll and tell your local lab to process it as if it were colour neg stock.) Marcus Hand (pyuxt!marcus)
keesan@bbncca.ARPA (Morris Keesan) (08/22/84)
--------------------------------------------- >Who can tell me anything about this new "slides AND prints from the same >roll" stuff? Which do you actually get? Slides, then they make you >prints with them just as could be done all along? This stuff is not new. It's motion picture film. What you get is the opposite of your suggestion. You get color negatives, which the processing lab then makes both slides and prints from. The conventional intended usage of the film is to make motion picture color negatives, from which the color positive transparency "prints" are made. -- Morris M. Keesan {decvax,linus,ihnp4,wivax,wjh12,ima}!bbncca!keesan keesan @ BBN-UNIX.ARPA
cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm) (08/22/84)
>Who can tell me anything about this new "slides AND prints from the same >roll" stuff? Which do you actually get? Slides, then they make you >prints with them just as could be done all along? The only organization I've dealt with that processes and sells the file is the Seatle Film Works. They advertize in a suprisingly wide variety of publications. I have shot two rolls of their 200 ASA file, 5247, and had them process it into slides and negatives (no prints). The quality seems to be quite reasonable, but I've not put a magnifier on the negs and slides to look for grain structure et. al. I shot one roll at 200 and the other at 400. The 200 appeared to have better color hue and saturation. I shot some very green scenes (algae scum on a swamp setting), and the colors came back very true at 200 ASA. The idea of getting slides from negatives could offer great flexibility, since each slide could have exposure compensation individually controlled. I don't think their default processing provides this compensation. I have been told (although I've not tried them myself) that SFW is very helpful with over-the-phone questions about film properties. My first impression of the 5247 film with SFW processing was that it amounted to a lower cost way to get slides, since the processing cost was comparable to Ektachrome processing while the film cost was lower. After having the film processed, and paying the postage and handling charges, I no longer feel it is a cost-effective deal, just cost comparable. People's taste vary greatly though, and if you normally want prints, but also require slides some of the time, their processing could offer significant advantages. Some people like the quality so much that they shoot only the 5247 film. I would like to know how the film is processed, since I'm now processing my own films. If anyone knows the emulsion type and processing characteristics, I would be interested. -- ____________________________________________________________________________ cmm (carl m mikkelsen) | (617)657-8720x2310 Pixel Computer Incorporated | 260 Fordham Road | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\ Wilmington, Ma. 01887 | !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm
karn@mouton.UUCP (08/25/84)
As somebody mentioned the 5247/5293 films are surplus motion picture stocks which the labs buy up, sell and process. Kodak has put out a notice saying that you're essentially on your own; these films are specifically designed for motion picture use with 1/50 sec exposures, and while they may work as general purpose still films, they won't guarantee it. You also cannot get Kodak to process the film for you; only the specialty lab which sold/gave you the film can do that. There was a review of these films in one of the photography rags earlier this year. Processing quality varied considerably from one lab to another, and the best of them just approached the "standard" films (Kodachrome). The only win seems to be when you want to get both prints and slides from a single roll of film; then the cost is much less. Phil
marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (08/27/84)
Hmmm, now that the quality of slide films is so high these days, how about Agfachrome slide film and the new Cibachrome chemistry?