120 film, opinions, recommendations

photomem · Jan 3, 2010

I have to agree with what Sirius and 2F have to say. I metered Ektar 100 at ISO 100 and shot a stained glass window backlit by diffused sunlight coming off of a courtyard. The result?

naugastyle · Jan 4, 2010

Pupfish said:
Bulletproof in bright conditions? Fuji Pro 160S.

Interesting. I have the opposite experience, and find that Reala performs significantly better in bright conditions. But I love the color rendition I get with 160S in low-ish light (low-ish for that speed), shade, etc.

BetterSense said:
Where do you buy that 800z stuff? Freestyle doesn't seem to have it.

Of course it does. It's available at any of the big stores--B&H, Adorama, Calumet, and yes, Freestyle. And you can get expired NPZ off Ultrafine.

http://store.ultrafineonline.com/fupronpz800p.html

Oops, just realized that's 220. Well then...eBay for NPZ.

endneu913 · Jan 6, 2010

All great information.... NOW, im taking everyone's advice and buying at least 2 to 5 rolls of suggested films and i will see what i come up with!

Now for some more suggestions... This topic has brought exploring filters into my life ( which ive not really used in the past! ) Since i started reading, ive ordered some Tiffen UV filters for both my 180 and 65mm lenses for the RZ, and now i want to get a few more starting with polarizer filters. Im stuck firstly on:

-Do i NEED a circular, or can i get away with a linear ( being as the RZ in still manual focus)
-And second, should I avoid a non-coated filter such as the 40 dollar Hoya "green series" Circular filter? Or should i go coated ( i am obviously an amateur with big dreams I'll spend the cash, but want to know the details...
- When shooting B+W film, do i have any use for any other filter that a UV?
Then, whats next in filters after im covered on UV and Polarizing? ND filters? Blue and Yellows? What am i wasting my time with and or, what do i need to spend my time learning with? Ive got some time before i go to Mexico, and id like to be as prepared as possible, but not weighted down with stuff/ concepts i don't YET understand how to use, feeling like a tool with expensive filters/ lenses ect and no internet to guide my sword. LOL.

johnnywalker · Jan 6, 2010

Check out Tiffen's site to show you what colour filters do with black and white. Generally, a light yellow filter will make film behave more like what your eye sees. Colour filters pass the colour of the filter and tend to block the rest, how much depending on how "deep" they are. For instance a green filter will lighten green trees and darken red flowers and a blue sky. Yellow, orange, green and red are commonly used with black and white. And a polarizer is often handy of course.

Mark Fisher · Jan 6, 2010

BW in 120 --- Acros when I am on a tripod, Tri-X on old cameras, and Delta 3200 when going handheld......I have tried everything (it seems) and I like the look of these films best for the type of photography I do

naugastyle · Jan 13, 2010

Has anyone bought Reala lately? Normally I'm not overly suspicious when both B&H and Adorama are out of stock, but then I checked the data sheet from the Fuji site and it only lists 35mm.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/Sup_Reala.pdf

Mike1234 · Jan 13, 2010

DanielStone said:
specular highlights are like the sun shining off of chrome. if you see that in pictures, its usually like "blinding white, nothing there". that's a specular highlight IMO. there are more technical explanations, but this one is mine.

NPH= the earlier version of Fuji's Pro400H, which is pretty much the same thing IMO. just a name change.

Overexposure: most people overexpose anywhere from 1/3-1 full stop. some more for their needs/certain look. I've decided that rating the film as the speed on the box states gives me the best results for MY uses, so, rating a 400 speed film AT 400 gives ME the best results that I like. If I'm in doubt, however, I'll overexpose a 1/2 stop or so(open up the lens, or slow down the shutter).

Overexposing helps to keep shadow detail from disappearing. most modern color negative materials will handle from -2 stops to +2/+3, so, underexposing 2 stops, or overexposing up to 3 stops(say, rating a 400 speed film at 64). This overexposure generally LOWERS CONTRAST overall, but opens up shadow detail, but super bright highlight detail is generally "lost in translation" .

Even modern E-6 emulsions can't generally handle more than a 3-4 stop latitude range, where as color neg emulsions, some claim, can handle as much as 14, generally on the highlight end.

ASTIA: warmer toned film, not as saturated as velvia, but warmer overall.

Polarizer: think polarized sunglasses, and being able to look through the 'haze' that seems to muddy a landscape when you're looking at it. a polarizer cuts through most REFLECTED LIGHT, lessening the effect of lower contrast, generally increasing apparent contrast in your subject matter.

p.s. here's a shot(not mine, grabbed off of flickr) comparing what a polarizer does with most situations where water is in your shot.

^^^ I strongly prefer the non-polarized version. Even though it has more saturation and contrast, the polarized version has less depth.

2F/2F · Jan 13, 2010

naugastyle said:
Has anyone bought Reala lately? Normally I'm not overly suspicious when both B&H and Adorama are out of stock, but then I checked the data sheet from the Fuji site and it only lists 35mm.

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/Sup_Reala.pdf

I've bought it fairly recently, at Woodward Camera in the Detroit metro area. I was so happy they carried it that I bought their entire stock. I am down to four rolls left.

Freestyle is where I usually get it. I hope Fuji have not stopped importing it in 120 YET AGAIN.

naugastyle · Jan 13, 2010

Oh, did they stop before, then bring it back? It's not on Freestyle. Not just out of stock, like on B&H and Adorama--it's not listed at all.

endneu913 · Jan 22, 2010

Ok, some basic filter questions.... I now have a few UV filters

- hoya super HMC Pro1 uv(0)
- 2 tiffen Uv filters )
- Tiffen Circular Polaroizer
- Tiffen Clear/ND 0.6 "grad filter"

1) Should i ALWAYS leave the UV filter, and stack the grad or polarizer on TOP of the UV? or do the polarizer and grad over the same UV filter PLUS their own effects?

2) On each mentioned filter... should i add 2 stops for each?

3) should i add any time/ stops for the the plain UV filters?

4) when adding time/ stops to compensate for using filters, wouldn't it be better to add time, so as not to change my desired depth of field?

THANKS!

- oh also, some of the tiffen filter printed lagels on the outer ring are crisp clear printing, and some are blurry and weird looking, should i suspect a replica or phoney?

2F/2F · Jan 22, 2010

naugastyle said:
Oh, did they stop before, then bring it back? It's not on Freestyle. Not just out of stock, like on B&H and Adorama--it's not listed at all.

Yes, they stopped before, and brought it back, perhaps not even two years ago.

twinsfan · Jan 26, 2010

throw the UV filter in the trash. It won't change your EI enough to make a difference, and will likely gather fingerprints and dust.

polyglot · Jan 27, 2010

OTOH, cleaning a UV filter is a lot less risky than cleaning expensive old lenses that you may leave marks on if rubbing vigorously. Think of your UV filters as sacrificial if nothing else. Cheap ones can reduce your contrast or introduce flare and ghosting though, so throw out the Tiffen ones.

Stacking filters (unless you NEED the effect of both, e.g. CPL + ND) is usually a bad idea because both filters are flat, which means they work really effectively to produce a lot of ghosting due to repeated inter-reflection. It's less bad with multicoated filters but multicoated CPL filters are not cheap at all. Take your UV off when using the CPL unless it's a situation (high altitude, lots of haze and/or subject at very great distances where scattering of UV light into the image is an issue) where you know you need the actual UV-filtering effects.

You don't add any exposure for a UV filter. 1.5 stops would be more typical for a CPL, though a particularly cheap/nasty one might need 2 stops. Whether you add time or aperture depends on the effect you want. Don't think of it as adding one or the other but rather there being a different meter reading, which requires you to come up with a new aperture/time combination.

BetterSense · Jan 27, 2010

Twice now I have dropped cameras on the lens so that the filter was ruined, but the lens was saved. You could always not drop your cameras, but I use a clear filter on all my lenses just for protection. They increase flare, so beware.

pentaxuser · Jan 27, 2010

Mike1234 said:
^^^ I strongly prefer the non-polarized version. Even though it has more saturation and contrast, the polarized version has less depth.

Yes it will be several months before we get back to the green fern season in the U.K. and I can check things out but this is my sentiments as well. At first the polarized pic looks better but then your brain says: Hang on this isn't how ferns actually are.

A shot full of bright primary colours looks fine at first but then you realise that it isn't a good reflection of reality. A bit like colour comics of the late 40s and early 50s.

pentaxuser

Mike1234 · Jan 29, 2010

^^^ Yes, exactly. I didn't know how to express what I see when I look at overly polarized photos but this is a perfect explanation... the missing specular highlights really mess things up in many photos.

120 film, opinions, recommendations

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency