Fuji Reala has high saturation and vivid colours Harry, and IMO is unique because it also produces pleasing natural skin tones , it's my favourite general purpose colour neg film.
Recommended film for MF people photography?
-
A
- Thread starter haring
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Mamiya 7 - 210mm lens + finder
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-SW 75mm 1:4.5 Lens in Copal 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
For Sale Schneider Kreuznach Makro Symmar HM 5.6/120 in Copal No. 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
Want to Buy Graflex RB 4x5 (Auto or Tele) with longer bellows extension
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
Interesting, there were rumours it was discontinued in 120 though I can still find some for purchase.
In Britain 135 Reala is officially discontinued but there is still a reasonable amount about Fuji UK are clearing their existing stock, I bought a large quantity and froze it, the 120 stuff is still current here, if you have problems getting it in The New World Fuji Lab will ship world wide http://www.fujilab.co.uk/catalog/film-colour-c-30_31.html
Just ordered 10 rolls and 4L of Tetenal C-41 from B&H so no shortage yet. Good price too, $3.58/roll IIRC.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1
- Format
- Med. Format RF
After trying a roll of everything (or so my wallet claimed), I've settled on Portra 160 or Ektar 100 for color print film. I prefer the Portra subtlety, but maybe I'm just over-exposing the Ektar. I like the Rollei B&W.
My favorite though, is the Kodak e100g slide film. I LOVE THAT FILM. The color to my eye seems every bit as subtle as the Portra, and is dense and rich. The grain is fine enough I have trouble getting a Nikon 9000 scanner to auto-focus on it. I even like B&W conversions in the scanner software.
Good luck with your search.
My favorite though, is the Kodak e100g slide film. I LOVE THAT FILM. The color to my eye seems every bit as subtle as the Portra, and is dense and rich. The grain is fine enough I have trouble getting a Nikon 9000 scanner to auto-focus on it. I even like B&W conversions in the scanner software.
Good luck with your search.
The cash cost isn't that big to set up a darkroom.
At a personal level, having a darkroom is fun, so whenever.
On a business level having a darkroom only makes sense when it makes a profit, that means being able to pay yourself properly for ALL the time you spend on any job you print.
That can make for some very expensive prints.
You don't need a darkroom to process film at home, you just need a film changing bag and processing tanks that use light traps so you can open the lid to pour chemicals in/out without letting light in.
Processing at home is much cheaper, in fact WAY cheaper! B&W is pennies per roll and even color is under a dollar a roll. Compare this to the usual $6-8/roll charge and you are saving money after just a few rolls compared to buying your first developing chemicals. $20 worth of chemicals can be enough to get you started and you'll break even after about 3 rolls. The real bonus is that you have full control over the process so you can get much better results. In my experience the last few years the labs get so little business that they do a poor job in processing and don't really care as most are doing more business in digital prints these days.
For making prints you do need a darkroom but even that doesn't really take a lot of doing. These days you can get enlargers, in fact whole printing setups for super cheap. In fact the main thing you'll need to pay for is shipping so a local craigslist/kijiji deal is usually better so you can do local pickup instead of shipping a heavy, bulky enlarger around.
Processing at home is much cheaper, in fact WAY cheaper! B&W is pennies per roll and even color is under a dollar a roll. Compare this to the usual $6-8/roll charge and you are saving money after just a few rolls compared to buying your first developing chemicals. $20 worth of chemicals can be enough to get you started and you'll break even after about 3 rolls. The real bonus is that you have full control over the process so you can get much better results. In my experience the last few years the labs get so little business that they do a poor job in processing and don't really care as most are doing more business in digital prints these days.
For making prints you do need a darkroom but even that doesn't really take a lot of doing. These days you can get enlargers, in fact whole printing setups for super cheap. In fact the main thing you'll need to pay for is shipping so a local craigslist/kijiji deal is usually better so you can do local pickup instead of shipping a heavy, bulky enlarger around.
This is only true when the cost of the labor involved is next to free. I.e. When it's a hobby. When it's for fun, the time it takes doesn't really matter.
If you are shooting a paying portrait sitting or wedding, then processing the film, printing the proofs, doing the books, selling more jobs, showing the prints, printing the final prints, and, and, and... Time becomes expensive and labs become cheap.
Or your local camera store!?
Sure but a portrait studio just passes those costs along. As long as they make enough profit they're fine. How many are running film portrait studios these days? Most probably run digital with no processing costs now.
Well, this is the OP's website. http://www.haringphotography.com/mobi Seems that they have a studio.
As to digital not having processing costs, that's pure hogwash. Digital's costs are just as real, they are just in different places. Been there, lived that.
Regardless of the medium, processing for yourself is really only "cheap", when it's done for fun, or you have the "free" time to devote to it.
I think CGW is probably right but the issue is really that the term 'hobby', like 'amateur', has unfortunately gained negative connotations and is often held in contrast to 'professional'. I think it's often the case that the amateur hobbyist can take their craft and art to the highest levels, perhaps surpassing the professional who also has an eye on costs including time. I don't think there's any reason to imagine that art is somehow sullied because it's not for sale. And the amateur artist, the hobbyist, freed from the art market discipline, can thrive.
Kodak Portra is really beautiful for portraits. I ususally get mine from Adorama.
I shoot for fun but still send the film to be processed out and will much rather pay £4/roll for development instead of 50p, simply because I do not have the time to do it myself. Actually I do have the time to do it but I'd much rather spend that time with the family and friends than in the bathroom.
Goes without saying that if you are a business, doing your own film for cost saving is very cost ineffective.
I would use Portra for color and Acros for B&W and my favorite suppliers are Freestyle, Adorama and B&H.
Where are you located? Bahamas, like it says in your link?
I think Kodak Portra NC 160 handles skin tones better than any film that I've used.
I've been REALLY pleased w/ Kodak Portra 400 for color. Good saturations but still yields very natural skin tones. It works in several different lighting situations and can be underexposed 2 stops easily. I've shot some indoor stuff under fluorescent lighting and the result was very pleasing.
Kodak is releasing the new Portra 160 soon which is sure to be a FAVORITE for everyone. If it's anything like the 400, every film wedding photographer will be shooting it.
For b/w, I've really liked HP5. The choices are seriously limitless. Experiment and find the look you love.
Kodak is releasing the new Portra 160 soon which is sure to be a FAVORITE for everyone. If it's anything like the 400, every film wedding photographer will be shooting it.
For b/w, I've really liked HP5. The choices are seriously limitless. Experiment and find the look you love.
Any film made except for the slow ones would work quite well. And even they would be fine for certain wedding pix (on tripod, in good light, people holding still, etc.). The only film I might avoid for your run-of-the-mill wedding pix would be Delta 3200. It can be quite useful, but it can also be quite grainy, even if you are shooting medium format.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |