I miss color photography

[Wayne]

I didn't catch that just like Roger, I read "Portra400" hah! Anyway I think ektar100 would be a better bet for non-portraits and closer to slide, but feel free to experiment. Why don't you shoot 35mm and test it before jumping up.


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Since I picked up a 4x5 25-27 years ago I've never been able to get excited about 35mm, and don't have good 35 equipment anyway. I'll go with a mix of 4x5 and 120 while I learn the process. Its hard enough to see those with middle aged eyes!

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is a thread somewhere on that Arista question. It appears to be Fuji paper made in their US plant, but not quite the same thing as the
official Fui label CAII. It might resemble the previous Super C product, which is only a stone's throw away from the latest thing anyway. All the CAII I'm using was made in Holland and packaged in the UK, and has a somewhat whiter base. The Fujiflex Supergloss is made in Japan.

 

[StoneNYC]

Since I picked up a 4x5 25-27 years ago I've never been able to get excited about 35mm, and don't have good 35 equipment anyway. I'll go with a mix of 4x5 and 120 while I learn the process. Its hard enough to see those with middle aged eyes!

There's certain looks that get me excited about 35mm, often rare films that contain much grain but are pleasing, or just aren't available in other formats, for example this...



Fuji Neopan400 EI 800 in pushed to 800 in Rodinal.

Or this...



Kodak Double-X EI 200 but pushed to 400 in Rodinal

Anyway the point was simply that it could be a cheaper start. 120 will still be cheaper and easier to see so good idea

Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Black Dog]

I'm a committed b+w addictbut still enjoy shooting the odd bit of colour every now and then. The results from Portra 400 in my pinhole camera were amazing-the guy at the lab was asking me how I did them! 35mm and MF are great but contacts from LF are definitely top of the pile IME [not to mention the trannies].

 

[DREW WILEY]

The cat's meow for wonderful grain and lovely color was Agfachrome 1000, which was available in both 35mm and 120. Prior to that there was
a remarkable grainy pre-E6 Agfachrome available in sheets which had an adjacent grain structure kinda like Autochrome. But it would pick up
certain warm earthtones and true fluorescent algae and lichen colors in nature like no other color film since. The greens were muted. Another
interesting but less color-accurate film was high speed Scotchchrome. Pixelization/Fauxtowhatever just doesn't have the same feel.

 

[Wayne]

I look forward to getting good enough at it that I can shoot some 8x10 Portra and contact print it. But at 17 smackers per sheet, that's going to be a while. Probably not until they are 25 per sheet, lol

I'm a committed b+w addictbut still enjoy shooting the odd bit of colour every now and then. The results from Portra 400 in my pinhole camera were amazing-the guy at the lab was asking me how I did them! 35mm and MF are great but contacts from LF are definitely top of the pile IME [not to mention the trannies].

 

[jerrybro]

I gave up color when e6 started to disappear, I had shot slide for years because I could not find reliable color print processing after Kodak got out of the processing business years ago. I went into BW hardcore, built a BW darkroom (I'm on my 3rd), calibrated my process and learned how to get what I wanted on the print from the time I exposed the negative. But color, like an old girlfriend, kept tempting me. I have just been trying out Ektar, Portra160 and Portra400. Ektar and the 160 are too much for the color paper generally available. The dynamic range of the paper is too shallow compared to the film so the prints do not look natural. 400 though shows promise. Prints on CA from the lab look more natural, especially people indoors using flash. Unfortunately, the only way I will know for sure is to print them myself.

I think that, for color, I may have to go over to the dark side. For some stuff I was recently selling I put a micro Nikkor on my daughters d3200 and was surprised at the quality of the output. Damn, that may mean a stupid expensive digi back for the Blad or an expensive D Nikon body for the lenses I already have. Damn. I think I hate color.

 

[StoneNYC]

I gave up color when e6 started to disappear, I had shot slide for years because I could not find reliable color print processing after Kodak got out of the processing business years ago. I went into BW hardcore, built a BW darkroom (I'm on my 3rd), calibrated my process and learned how to get what I wanted on the print from the time I exposed the negative. But color, like an old girlfriend, kept tempting me. I have just been trying out Ektar, Portra160 and Portra400. Ektar and the 160 are too much for the color paper generally available. The dynamic range of the paper is too shallow compared to the film so the prints do not look natural. 400 though shows promise. Prints on CA from the lab look more natural, especially people indoors using flash. Unfortunately, the only way I will know for sure is to print them myself.

I think that, for color, I may have to go over to the dark side. For some stuff I was recently selling I put a micro Nikkor on my daughters d3200 and was surprised at the quality of the output. Damn, that may mean a stupid expensive digi back for the Blad or an expensive D Nikon body for the lenses I already have. Damn. I think I hate color.

Why not get her into film?


Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Black Dog]

No grain no gain

The cat's meow for wonderful grain and lovely color was Agfachrome 1000, which was available in both 35mm and 120. Prior to that there was
a remarkable grainy pre-E6 Agfachrome available in sheets which had an adjacent grain structure kinda like Autochrome. But it would pick up
certain warm earthtones and true fluorescent algae and lichen colors in nature like no other color film since. The greens were muted. Another
interesting but less color-accurate film was high speed Scotchchrome. Pixelization/Fauxtowhatever just doesn't have the same feel.

Aaaahhh....Bisto;oops I mean Agfachrome 1000-lovely stuff [Scotchchrome had a nice look too]. Remember Konica 3200 colour neg film too?

 

[Wayne]

although not ideal because it will only do 4 at a time, maybe I will start out using this for developing the negatives. Digging through the old boxes I found a Unicolor print drum:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/

 

[StoneNYC]

although not ideal because it will only do 4 at a time, maybe I will start out using this for developing the negatives. Digging through the old boxes I found a Unicolor print drum:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/

Where do you get those large lid dev chemistry bottles?

All of mine are small and black, those are nice white, perfect for writing, let me know this is great

 

[Wayne]

I dunno. I use 1 liter widemouth plastic Diet Pepsi bottles for most working solutions myself. Some have gray caps and some have white. I also have white-capped Aquafina spring water bottles that are the same size and shape. You can squeeze the air out of them and I've had solutions last for years, though if you do a lot of squeezing its good to replace them now and then because they eventually develop leaks along the crinkle lines. But they'll still last years.

 

[StoneNYC]

I dunno. I use 1 liter widemouth plastic Diet Pepsi bottles for most working solutions myself. Some have gray caps and some have white. I also have white-capped Aquafina spring water bottles that are the same size and shape. You can squeeze the air out of them and I've had solutions last for years, though if you do a lot of squeezing its good to replace them now and then because they eventually develop leaks along the crinkle lines. But they'll still last years.

That makes no sense, those bottles are very porous and oxygen easily travels in and out oxidizing the chemistry.... or so I'm told by many educated photographer/chemists.

 

[Wayne]

Don't believe them. PET is #1 is soda pop type and bottled water bottles and it works great for many people.

 

[StoneNYC]

Don't believe them. PET is #1 is soda pop type and bottled water bottles and it works great for many people.

one of those guys was Ron Mowrey....

 

[Wayne]

I'm not inclined to argue with Ron who has forgotten more chemistry in the last week than I'll ever know. But I have never seen him say that in many threads on this. Here's a recent one
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I have squeezed PETE bottles right now with Ilfochrome chemicals in them that have completely almost remained airless 3 years. (I don't plan to use the chemicals, btw, and I have them stored in a bucket in case of a leak). I have also stored phenidone working solutions in them for over a year years and they worked fine. I used them for 15 years for Ilfochrome and never had anything go bad (I disposed of chems when they reach their stated lifespan)

 

[StoneNYC]

I'm not inclined to argue with Ron who has forgotten more chemistry in the last week than I'll ever know. But I have never seen him say that in many threads on this. Here's a recent one
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I have squeezed PETE bottles right now with Ilfochrome chemicals in them that have completely almost remained airless 3 years. (I don't plan to use the chemicals, btw, and I have them stored in a bucket in case of a leak). I have also stored phenidone working solutions in them for over a year years and they worked fine. I used them for 15 years for Ilfochrome and never had anything go bad (I disposed of chems when they reach their stated lifespan)

Hmm too much work to find it. But I'm sure you did. Ah well perhaps "going bad" is relative, and I mean that, Ron perhaps is more persnickety on a chemical/technical quality level than just producing an image? Not sure, and I've re-used one shot chemistry up to 6 times that isn't supposed to be able to be done, so...

 

[Wayne]

Have on hand an 81A filter for overcast skies, and maybe an 81C for deep blue shade.

99% of my photography is under overcast skies or indirect blue sky. Do you think I'll want the 81A on all the time? Do you find these necessary for Portra too?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Portra is a little more forgiving in terms of color temp than Ektar, but has less contrast and saturation also. Portra is a little more in the direction of a classic color neg portrait film (esp in the slower speed version vs. 400 speed), so keeps warm neutrals looking warm, even when
they really are not, i.e., it's engineered in favor of "pleasing" skintones at the expense of the accuracy of related hues in nature. I find the
differentiation of yellow-oranges and rusty earthtones to be conspicuously more accurate in Ektar, for example. But it needs to be handled
more carefully with respect to exposure. I really like Ektar for landscape work, but it's definitely not a film for portraits of acne-ridden teenageers! Think of it more of a substitute for chrome films, whenever you want a clean rendition of hues rather than a muted version.
For my expensive sheet film work (esp 8x10) I always carry several corrective filter. For casual snapshooting like Ektar in my Nikon, I'll just
leave an 81A on the lens on a rainy day, but remove it when the fog or mist has an essentially white "softbox" effect.