Shooting Kodak ColorPlus 200 @ iso 160

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Kodak 200 and bracket up to 2 stops, I do not see any noticeable issues with grain, my film is developed by a local photo shop that still runs a Agfa mini lab, scanned, then printed on R4 paper, might make a difference if I were to process my self and print from the negative. If grain or enlargement size is an issue then shoot Porta or Ektar.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Mick:
A few questions about the C41 parts:
1) When was this?
2) What films were involved, and did they include contrasty films like the Kodacolour emulsions?
3) Did you observe the same benefits when you were dealing with films where the highlight to shadow range varied more widely?
4) Did the end output (magazine reproduction) affect the approach, or would you have approached the issue the same if the goal was display prints?
5) Was there consistency with respect to the type of lighting (e.g. studio flash vs. outdoor ambient)?
TIA

Matt, I'll be a bit brief as I'm writing this in real time in Iceland, whereas at home I almost always pre-write then submit.

(1) the time period was from 1986 through to 1992.

(2) Generally we used professional films; all Kodak. However whenever we had to photograph something or someone outside, then we used whatever film would be the most suitable. Rather surprisingly, Kodak 200 ASA amateur negative film was what everyone liked using.

(3) More or less. To put it into perspective, we once had a huge amount of colour negative film from a photographer working in remote outback Australia. He/she was doing helicoptor photography for the Northern Territory government of various locations. We clip tested about 10-12 rolls from a 200 + batch of 120 film sent to us, pretty dismal and obviously the photographer was going to be in trouble if this continued. Somehow we relayed to the photographer to expose the 200 ASA (or maybe 400 ASA) film with either half a stop or maybe even a full stop of over exposure. We managed to then get prints of very high quality. It was this happening on my watch in the lab, that really alerted me to slight to not so slight over exposure film grain differences. The helicoptor photographer would probably have been contending with a 10 to 12 stop range of light at a minimum.

(4) Essentially, the end result; magazine production, certainly altered the way we exposed our films. That said, we also did huge prints of normal scenes. We had an in-house facility whereby we manufactured billboard sized material. Basically we often started with a transparency from a photographer or stock agency. This would then be duplicated onto Kodak print film (google it) from there we would then make a series of prints mostly 1.8m high by 6m long in size. These prints were then overlapped as best as possible, then cut up, then sewn onto light canvas, then they would be sent to a billboard company where they would be stretched over the billboard and obviously displayed. Their life was generally four weeks. We would sometimes get a colour negative that came off of a roll of standard film that was shot especially for a billboard subject. The negative chosen, was almost always a slightly more dense negative, or slightly overexposed.

One project that was interesting, was the release of Kodak Ektar 25. Kodak Australasia, located in Melbourne not far from us, asked us to make life sized pictures of everyday people shot by Kodak employees in everyday life. The idea was for these prints; which were about 2m high by about 900mm wide, would be displayed in pharmacies, camera stores and in the then emerging shopping malls. In other words, if film was being sold somewhere, there would be one of these life sized photographs. The best prints were always from film that was exposed at exactly box speed, which we later found out was 25 ASA +- one third of a stop. Ektar 25 did not like exposure, other than correct exposure. The resulting photographs amazed us in the lab, here we were, making small mural sized photographs from a bog standard straight out of a 35mm camera film, that looked as sharp as a tack and the colours were just so beautiful. Kodak certainly delivered the goods with that film, I've never seen anything like it before or since.

(5) In studio lighting was extremely consistent, we actually worked to a three stop range from shadow to highlight. The effective printable range usually was in the vicinity of five stops maximum. The prints from these negatives were always a sight to behold. With stuff that was shot on location, usually a fashion shoot outdoors. We usually had two extremes. Wild exposures with super high contrast light, combined with thin, medium, or dense negatives. These negatives were very problematic to print. The other extreme was where the photographer had used black fill reflectors, diffused natural light and within reason, a tight highlight to shadow range, usually around 5-7 stops; these were easyish to print.

With my own colour negative experience, I used colour negatives extensively for around 20 years for personal use. I picked up a Lici Colorstar analyser, used my Wallace expodisc. Film was developed in a Jobo CPE2, paper was run through a then new to the world Durst Printo (basic) paper processor. I applied the same standards with regard to film exposure as what happened in the studio at work. in other words, slight over exposure of colour negative film to obtain negatives that gave good grain structure and vivid colour. My best pictures taken outside, were almost always where the highlight to shadow range was under 7 stops, with about 5 stops being superb.

These days I have forsaken colour photography for B&W, but I still keep my hand in. Last year I helped run a C41 to colour print in your home darkroom, for people who are interested in doing their own colour; a bit like riding a bicycle.

Mick, in wonderful Iceland.

 

[Paul Howell]

Mick, in wonderful Iceland.

Jealous in Arizona. Hope to return next year for longer trip.

Paul

 

[Cholentpot]

Matt, I'll be a bit brief as I'm writing this in real time in Iceland, whereas at home I almost always pre-write then submit.

(1) the time period was from 1986 through to 1992.

(2) Generally we used professional films; all Kodak. However whenever we had to photograph something or someone outside, then we used whatever film would be the most suitable. Rather surprisingly, Kodak 200 ASA amateur negative film was what everyone liked using.

(3) More or less. To put it into perspective, we once had a huge amount of colour negative film from a photographer working in remote outback Australia. He/she was doing helicoptor photography for the Northern Territory government of various locations. We clip tested about 10-12 rolls from a 200 + batch of 120 film sent to us, pretty dismal and obviously the photographer was going to be in trouble if this continued. Somehow we relayed to the photographer to expose the 200 ASA (or maybe 400 ASA) film with either half a stop or maybe even a full stop of over exposure. We managed to then get prints of very high quality. It was this happening on my watch in the lab, that really alerted me to slight to not so slight over exposure film grain differences. The helicoptor photographer would probably have been contending with a 10 to 12 stop range of light at a minimum.

(4) Essentially, the end result; magazine production, certainly altered the way we exposed our films. That said, we also did huge prints of normal scenes. We had an in-house facility whereby we manufactured billboard sized material. Basically we often started with a transparency from a photographer or stock agency. This would then be duplicated onto Kodak print film (google it) from there we would then make a series of prints mostly 1.8m high by 6m long in size. These prints were then overlapped as best as possible, then cut up, then sewn onto light canvas, then they would be sent to a billboard company where they would be stretched over the billboard and obviously displayed. Their life was generally four weeks. We would sometimes get a colour negative that came off of a roll of standard film that was shot especially for a billboard subject. The negative chosen, was almost always a slightly more dense negative, or slightly overexposed.

One project that was interesting, was the release of Kodak Ektar 25. Kodak Australasia, located in Melbourne not far from us, asked us to make life sized pictures of everyday people shot by Kodak employees in everyday life. The idea was for these prints; which were about 2m high by about 900mm wide, would be displayed in pharmacies, camera stores and in the then emerging shopping malls. In other words, if film was being sold somewhere, there would be one of these life sized photographs. The best prints were always from film that was exposed at exactly box speed, which we later found out was 25 ASA +- one third of a stop. Ektar 25 did not like exposure, other than correct exposure. The resulting photographs amazed us in the lab, here we were, making small mural sized photographs from a bog standard straight out of a 35mm camera film, that looked as sharp as a tack and the colours were just so beautiful. Kodak certainly delivered the goods with that film, I've never seen anything like it before or since.

(5) In studio lighting was extremely consistent, we actually worked to a three stop range from shadow to highlight. The effective printable range usually was in the vicinity of five stops maximum. The prints from these negatives were always a sight to behold. With stuff that was shot on location, usually a fashion shoot outdoors. We usually had two extremes. Wild exposures with super high contrast light, combined with thin, medium, or dense negatives. These negatives were very problematic to print. The other extreme was where the photographer had used black fill reflectors, diffused natural light and within reason, a tight highlight to shadow range, usually around 5-7 stops; these were easyish to print.

With my own colour negative experience, I used colour negatives extensively for around 20 years for personal use. I picked up a Lici Colorstar analyser, used my Wallace expodisc. Film was developed in a Jobo CPE2, paper was run through a then new to the world Durst Printo (basic) paper processor. I applied the same standards with regard to film exposure as what happened in the studio at work. in other words, slight over exposure of colour negative film to obtain negatives that gave good grain structure and vivid colour. My best pictures taken outside, were almost always where the highlight to shadow range was under 7 stops, with about 5 stops being superb.

These days I have forsaken colour photography for B&W, but I still keep my hand in. Last year I helped run a C41 to colour print in your home darkroom, for people who are interested in doing their own colour; a bit like riding a bicycle.

Mick, in wonderful Iceland.

BOOM! Lock it up. Thread over.

I love these old war stories...

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Mick. Hope you are enjoying Iceland
It is interesting how the Ektar 35 was somewhat of an exception.
I wonder (just musing) if the latest T-grain technology incorporated in the newer films would have resulted in a different approach?
In particular, given the original question asked in this thread, whether a 1/3 stop difference would have resulted in a different approach.

 

[trendland]

BOOM! Lock it up. Thread over.

I love these old war stories...

We have got now some ideas what you are in love with - Cholentpot .

with greetings

 

[Cholentpot]

We have got now some ideas what you are in love with - Cholentpot .

with greetings

It's more of people are willing to share these days.

In the bad 'ol days every photographer guarded their secrets like it was gold. I learned in 3 years what would have taken me a decade before the internet. And I would have had to befriend someone who was in the know and swear that I would never give his secrets away, scouts honor. We still have some of these on the 'PUG. Troglodytes who sneer at any innovation and believe they are the sole guardians of the knowledge, that in reality no-one really wants anymore except some weirdos like me who love the smell of fixer.

 

[trendland]

Matt, I'll be a bit brief as I'm writing this in real time in Iceland, whereas at home I almost always pre-write then submit.

(1) the time period was from 1986 through to 1992.

(2) Generally we used professional films; all Kodak. However whenever we had to photograph something or someone outside, then we used whatever film would be the most suitable. Rather surprisingly, Kodak 200 ASA amateur negative film was what everyone liked using.

(3) More or less. To put it into perspective, we once had a huge amount of colour negative film from a photographer working in remote outback Australia. He/she was doing helicoptor photography for the Northern Territory government of various locations. We clip tested about 10-12 rolls from a 200 + batch of 120 film sent to us, pretty dismal and obviously the photographer was going to be in trouble if this continued. Somehow we relayed to the photographer to expose the 200 ASA (or maybe 400 ASA) film with either half a stop or maybe even a full stop of over exposure. We managed to then get prints of very high quality. It was this happening on my watch in the lab, that really alerted me to slight to not so slight over exposure film grain differences. The helicoptor photographer would probably have been contending with a 10 to 12 stop range of light at a minimum.

(4) Essentially, the end result; magazine production, certainly altered the way we exposed our films. That said, we also did huge prints of normal scenes. We had an in-house facility whereby we manufactured billboard sized material. Basically we often started with a transparency from a photographer or stock agency. This would then be duplicated onto Kodak print film (google it) from there we would then make a series of prints mostly 1.8m high by 6m long in size. These prints were then overlapped as best as possible, then cut up, then sewn onto light canvas, then they would be sent to a billboard company where they would be stretched over the billboard and obviously displayed. Their life was generally four weeks. We would sometimes get a colour negative that came off of a roll of standard film that was shot especially for a billboard subject. The negative chosen, was almost always a slightly more dense negative, or slightly overexposed.

One project that was interesting, was the release of Kodak Ektar 25. Kodak Australasia, located in Melbourne not far from us, asked us to make life sized pictures of everyday people shot by Kodak employees in everyday life. The idea was for these prints; which were about 2m high by about 900mm wide, would be displayed in pharmacies, camera stores and in the then emerging shopping malls. In other words, if film was being sold somewhere, there would be one of these life sized photographs. The best prints were always from film that was exposed at exactly box speed, which we later found out was 25 ASA +- one third of a stop. Ektar 25 did not like exposure, other than correct exposure. The resulting photographs amazed us in the lab, here we were, making small mural sized photographs from a bog standard straight out of a 35mm camera film, that looked as sharp as a tack and the colours were just so beautiful. Kodak certainly delivered the goods with that film, I've never seen anything like it before or since.

(5) In studio lighting was extremely consistent, we actually worked to a three stop range from shadow to highlight. The effective printable range usually was in the vicinity of five stops maximum. The prints from these negatives were always a sight to behold. With stuff that was shot on location, usually a fashion shoot outdoors. We usually had two extremes. Wild exposures with super high contrast light, combined with thin, medium, or dense negatives. These negatives were very problematic to print. The other extreme was where the photographer had used black fill reflectors, diffused natural light and within reason, a tight highlight to shadow range, usually around 5-7 stops; these were easyish to print.

With my own colour negative experience, I used colour negatives extensively for around 20 years for personal use. I picked up a Lici Colorstar analyser, used my Wallace expodisc. Film was developed in a Jobo CPE2, paper was run through a then new to the world Durst Printo (basic) paper processor. I applied the same standards with regard to film exposure as what happened in the studio at work. in other words, slight over exposure of colour negative film to obtain negatives that gave good grain structure and vivid colour. My best pictures taken outside, were almost always where the highlight to shadow range was under 7 stops, with about 5 stops being superb.

These days I have forsaken colour photography for B&W, but I still keep my hand in. Last year I helped run a C41 to colour print in your home darkroom, for people who are interested in doing their own colour; a bit like riding a bicycle.

Mick, in wonderful Iceland.

Hallo Mick (in wonderfull Iceland) -
I first notice your Foto is as big orange
colored as nobody would aspect from
Iceland.

You are regarding Kodak ISO 200 films -
you have ? " "amateur films ?"

Notice these films were just best seller to
the whole time.
Due to this films at aboud
in the near of 1000.000.000 (one billion) per year the big machines in Rochester and some other countrys ran
day and night.
As a result of profits from this films other
emulsions were avaible.

And this from technical and from financial concerns.

Many professional Kodak emulsions came from there brothers like Kodak Gold 100-400 yes they have different
names every 4 years - you know what I meant.

with regards

(Ohhh .... Just forgetting:War is over.

 

[trendland]

Folks, please take the scanning discussion to DPUG or elsewhere. When the grand site integration is in place, we'll just move threads that go digital/hybrid over there, but for now, please respect the long established topic boundaries of the forum.

Yes - we will do chef. I personaly never
bring these type of theme.

with friendly greetings

 

[Mick Fagan]

Mick, in wonderful Iceland.

Jealous in Arizona. Hope to return next year for longer trip.

Paul

Paul, we are on our first and probably only Icelandic trip; here for six and a half weeks. Do it once, but do it as best as you can.

Actually we couldn't afford to stay longer, automobile hire was a problem, they just didn't believe anyone was renting for that length of time; so wouldn't take the booking. The rental place people, one of which had been there for over five years, had never had a rental that long.

Canada will probably be next in a couple of years, health permitting.

Mick.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's more of people are willing to share these days.

In the bad 'ol days every photographer guarded their secrets like it was gold. I learned in 3 years what would have taken me a decade before the internet. And I would have had to befriend someone who was in the know and swear that I would never give his secrets away, scouts honor. We still have some of these on the 'PUG. Troglodytes who sneer at any innovation and believe they are the sole guardians of the knowledge, that in reality no-one really wants anymore except some weirdos like me who love the smell of fixer.

I always found people to share and help me with photography.