What happens after ISO 800 is gone?

[AgX]

No: it is Nightbird. (Redbird is not made in type 120 and it seems to be ISO400 initially.)

For the costs: Nightbird is the same price as Kodak over here.

 

[hrst]

Can you expand on this a little? I'm shooting ~ 20 rolls of colour per year and have always thought my level to be too low and the chemical volumes too high for the chemistry to last long enough. I'd love to hear I'm wrong.

Well, the Fujihunt 5liter C-41 kit costs £30 at Ag Photographic and if you are located in UK it's a great deal for you. It processes those 20 films (or more, up to 40-60, if you just shoot more) and probably will last for a year, at least if you refrigerate those small developer concentrate bottles. Not so expensive if you ask me.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Well, I guess color may be in reach for me. I thought it would be very diffrent.

 

[B&Wpositive]

I have a couple of rolls and I haven't shot any yet....Good film you say? I am excited to work with it because I have seen a couple of nice shots taken on it. I wish they offered it in 120. This appears to be the ultimate film. Kodak's data said that it can be push processed to ISO 25,000 That's a lot higer than digital can go I wonder what grain looks like there.

Yes, an excellent film. Does great indoors in low light at EI 6400 and push processed 2.5 to 3 stops. Grainy, contrasty, but beautiful nonetheless.

How is push processing acomplished?

Increase in developing time. Strictly speaking, it's not the ISO that is being increased, but the EI (exposure index). ISO is a strict standard, and standard development is part of the ISO standard.

Well, there is no real alternative (but digital, of course). Push processing and different kind of contrast boosting like B&W dev & bleaching is possible but is not the same thing. Just shoot it to keep it alive. I wouldn't be so afraid. I don't see the end yet, even near. Let's start panicking when there's less than three ISO800&1600 films available. Now there are at least:

Kodak Portra 800 35mm
Kodak Portra 800 medium format
Fujicolor Superia 800 35mm
Fujicolor Superia 1600 35mm
Fujicolor Pro 800Z 35mm
Fujicolor Pro 800Z medium format
Ferrania FG800 35mm (http://www.ferraniait.com/solutions/photography/ph_infoFG800.htm)

Different sizes should be counted as different products because they are different coatings&different master rolls and they are discontinued normally one at a time (of course if the other one is still selling enough).

I had no idea the last one existed. Also, you forgot Kodak MAX 800. It's hard to find, and personally, I don't use it, but it's another one.

And, by the way, the highest ISOs in digital cameras are not real ISOs either. Usually the shadows block up completely. It's very similar to pushing film.

There's about one to two stop real difference in current film and digital technology in the favor of digital. Real 1600 ISO films are available and the best, current digital SLR's have real ISO 3200-6400. Digital ISO 12800 is bullshit and looks bad, unless the subject is carefully selected for these test images and post-processed. Film can be pushed to 3200-6400 at the same "quality", and film scans can also be post-processed.

I guess you haven't seen output from the new Nikon D3s. ISO 12,800 is stunning. And it's not a "pushed" digital EI either; the camera really goes up to ISO 12,800 (actually it goes up to EI 102,400). It looks great up to about EI 25,000 actually.

For 35mm shooters, there is always Kodak Vision2 500T. There is a favorable comparison of 500T being faster than 800Z.

I was fascinated by this possibility. And it's a tungsten film, too. But I haven't found anyone able to process short lengths of it. What a shame. It uses ECN-II, not C-41.

 

[hrst]

I guess you haven't seen output from the new Nikon D3s. ISO 12,800 is stunning. And it's not a "pushed" digital EI either; the camera really goes up...

I was talking about Nikon D3s. I looked at the images when people were screaming all around how good they are. All I saw was images with completely blocked shadows, ugly colors (only yellow, if shot indoors) and high level of post noise reduction, and people still were screaming how good they are. I can see that marketing can affect even what we see by our eyes.

If the shadows are more blocked at ISO 12,800 than at ISO 200 with the same metering style, then either ISO 400 or ISO 12,800 is not the real ISO. It's that simple. And there was at least 1-2 stop difference in shadows as I can see.

But, it's to be expected at that high EI, and tungsten light is hard for digital at that EI, too. It would be impossible to make a really good EI 12,800, because there is a limit in the amount of photons, and I admit that the quality is very good for that EI. But you could well push Superia 1600 to 3200-6400 and get about same kind of blocked, muted results, with more grain because there is no post-processing noise reduction in analog world. Now, no-one speaks about D3s and its "ISO 12800000000000000000000" anymore. People learn the real capabilities the hard way.

 

[mikebarger]

And the D3s fits into APUG how?

 

[B&Wpositive]

If the shadows are more blocked at ISO 12,800 than at ISO 200 with the same metering style, then either ISO 400 or ISO 12,800 is not the real ISO. It's that simple. And there was at least 1-2 stop difference in shadows as I can see.

But, it's to be expected at that high EI, and tungsten light is hard for digital at that EI, too. It would be impossible to make a really good EI 12,800, because there is a limit in the amount of photons, and I admit that the quality is very good for that EI. But you could well push Superia 1600 to 3200-6400 and get about same kind of blocked, muted results, with more grain because there is no post-processing noise reduction in analog world. Now, no-one speaks about D3s and its "ISO 12800000000000000000000" anymore. People learn the real capabilities the hard way.

12,800 is still an ISO calibrated rating on the D3s. Digital cameras, just like film, lose dynamic range, resolution, and saturation as ISO increases. Just like an ISO 800 film has less shadow detail than an ISO 100 film, so too with digital. But that doesn't mean it's not a true ISO rating. It just means there are tradeoffs as you use the higher ISO settings. However, the lack of noise at 12,800 with this specific digital camera makes for images with the graininess of an ISO 800 or even ISO 400 color print film.

Simply, if you're shooting handheld in low light, this is the only way to get the shot. Now with color film, you can't shoot at ISO 12,800 and you can't really shoot at EI 12,800 either. But fortunately, EI 6400 is high enough for most existing light shooting. But take away the 800 and 1600 speed film, and it will get trickier.

And the D3s fits into APUG how?

Because if they take away the high-ISO color films, how are we going to shoot PJ style in low light? You'll have to either shoot digital, push the hell out of your 400-speed film, or use b&w. And I want to know if anyone has tried pushing the snot out of their 400 speed film yet. Maybe it will be a viable alternative to achieve an EI of 3200 or 6400. Otherwise, digital will be it for color in low light.

 

[mikebarger]

This is a purely analog forum, there is a hybrid site for your conversation.

 

[AgX]

Mike, comparisons must be allowed.

 

[B&Wpositive]

This is a purely analog forum, there is a hybrid site for your conversation.

Technically, we shouldn't be talking about digital at all here. But it's not a hybrid method either...it's a digital method. So I don't think the hybrid forum is the correct place either. I think we need to just pretend that only film photography exists. Because if we start mentioning digital too often, the whole purpose of this forum will be defeated.

That said, I think we have a few more years of high speed color neg for sure. But why is no one as concerned as I am? We need to start trying to find alternate films that can be pushed to achieve an EI of 3200 or 6400. That way, when they do pull the rug out from under our feet, we don't go nuts.

 

[AgX]

Don't forget there's also Fuji Superia 1600 which is very good shot at box speed. So, 800 is not even the fastest.

We should not forget that there even was a ISO 3200 CN film (by Konica).
Perhaps I should not look through old data sheets... But it shows what is possible if a there is a substantial request.

 

[B&Wpositive]

We should not forget that there even was a ISO 3200 CN film.

Yes, you mean the Konica SR-G? Right? But all those over 1600 are long gone. The fastest color neg I ever used was Fuji 1600 (pushed a stop). But lately, I've wanted more speed for color work, and the 800 speed films seem to work well at EI 6400.

There are currently 21 color neg films by Fuji and Kodak on the US market. I can't help but think that because most are holdovers from the previous decade, that there may not be enough users to keep making all of them...especially the 1600 speed Fuji and possibly the 800 speed pro films like 800Z. Unfortunately, these are the ones I find a lot of use for. In fact, I just shot some Fuji Superia 1600 2 nights ago.

 

[MattKing]

I am yet to buy a roll of Gold 800 to shoot other than shooting it in a disposible....I wonder if one can get good results with it.

FWIW, here is a shot at last weekend's 10,000 meter Olympic Speed Skating final in Vancouver.

It is shot on Kodak's UltraMax 800 film, bought at one local drug store, and processed and printed (after scanning) at another.

This is just a resized version of the scan.

For top level speed skating, you need a film that is good with orange .

Matt

 

[apconan]

This is a purely analog forum, there is a hybrid site for your conversation.

Jesus, I don't shoot any digital and is as devoted to film as the next guy, but I'm well aware that the community won't survive in the long run rejecting digital like that. The discussion at hand is in the context of film anyways.
Get out of here with that pretentious bullshit.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Jesus, I don't shoot any digital and is as devoted to film as the next guy, but I'm well aware that the community won't survive in the long run rejecting digital like that. The discussion at hand is in the context of film anyways.
Get out of here with that pretentious bullshit.

Who you calling Jesus? Didn't you know there is a religion forum specifically for such comments?

As for digital being mentioned, I think it's really up to the moderators and the administrator. We haven't heard from them yet.

Personally, I shoot both film and digital and find it occasionally helpful to compare the two. I've shot digital since 1998, in fact...and film since 1995. So I've been using both for the majority of the duration of my photography experience.

But still, we don't want to talk about digital too much, because that's not what this forum is for.

I really think that we won't see anymore discontinuations for several years. But what happens after those several years go by? Higher speed film will be in the most danger. Just look at E6; there used to be ISO 1600 film, but now 400 is the fastest (and only Fuji makes that speed). If this ever happens, digital-only users will be laughing at us with our slow speed film, and how we can't shoot in low light without flash. I remember when NPZ 800 came out, and Pop Photo tested it pushed to EI 6400. It was usable.

 

[B&Wpositive]

FWIW, here is a shot at last weekend's 10,000 meter Olympic Speed Skating final in Vancouver.

It is shot on Kodak's UltraMax 800 film, bought at one local drug store, and processed and printed (after scanning) at another.

This is just a resized version of the scan.

For top level speed skating, you need a film that is good with orange .

Matt

Nice color. Then again, I'll bet the quality of lighting was great there since it was televised, so the film isn't necessarily the limiting variable.

 

[mikebarger]

apconan

Just in case you haven't read the forum rules posted on the site. "-no digital vs. traditional threads" is one of the rules. I'm not a moderator, and wouldn't want to be one.

I do like the pure analog nature of the site. So when this thread drifted to comparing Nikon digital response to film capture, I put a friendly reminder of the intent of the site. I use digital some myself, but discussing high ISO capture and prints to those from film seems to be outside the rules.

Not sure if you're having a bad day... or what. Civility is another great thing about this site.

Mike

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Digital vs. analogue is generally an off topic debate on APUG, because it rarely produces anything productive. If you want to have that debate, please take it to the Soapbox. APUG isn't opposed to digital photography, and many APUG members use digital methods, but they discuss them elsewhere, so that APUG may remain a well focused resource for the discussion of traditional techniques. Even if digital can get better results at high ISOs, for instance, APUG should be the place where someone can find out how to get the best results in low light with film without having to wade through discussion of digital methods that are covered better elsewhere.

 

[2F/2F]

The 800 and 1600 color films will not be here for long, the way I see it. (When it gets right down to it, I don't think any color film will be here for long, but the higher ISOs will be the first to go.) When they go, I will use up all that I have, and then invest in a nice digital camera or two that can shoot at at least ISO 6400 (cursing and grumbling about the expense and the lack of dynamic range and exposure latitude as I drop the cash, and wondering how the hell I will afford the computer and software and lenses I will need to "go" digital for 50 - 75 percent of what I shoot).

 

[2F/2F]

FWIW, here is a shot at last weekend's 10,000 meter Olympic Speed Skating final in Vancouver.

It is shot on Kodak's UltraMax 800 film, bought at one local drug store, and processed and printed (after scanning) at another.

This is just a resized version of the scan.

For top level speed skating, you need a film that is good with orange .

Matt

Nice pic. I shoot ice hockey all the time. Well-lit ice sports venues do well with 400 or 800 IME, without even needing anything faster than a 2.8 lens. Truly dark conditions require more light gathering ability from lens and/or film.

 

[2F/2F]

So, you could take the two aforementioned ISOed color films (800 and 50) and process them in the same tank and they would come out right? Asking because I don't process color film but this sounds wrong to my thinking.

Absolutely correct. C-41 is a standardized process. You can throw any speed film, and even E-6 film for cross processing, in to the same tank. Films are designed to work with the fixed process, unlike b/w, where the process is customized to work with the film.

 

[B&Wpositive]

The 800 and 1600 color films will not be here for long, the way I see it. (When it gets right down to it, I don't think any color film will be here for long, but the higher ISOs will be the first to go.) When they go, I will use up all that I have, and then invest in a nice digital camera or two that can shoot at at least ISO 6400 (cursing and grumbling about the expense and the lack of dynamic range and exposure latitude as I drop the cash, and wondering how the hell I will afford the computer and software and lenses I will need to "go" digital for 50 - 75 percent of what I shoot).

If ISO 1600 color film goes away during 2011 and then ISO 800 goes away in 2015 or whatever, I will not be happy. We will have lost a medium, and digital will be the only option for low light color work.The problem with that is that there are low-light photographers who pruposely pick film over digital due to personal preference.

I really don't see Portra 160 NC/VC, 400 NC/VC, EKtar 100, or any of the FUji equivalents disappearing anytime within the next 5 years. But I do see the higher speed C-41 film 4 of the 9 different Fuji E6 emulsions, and Kodak E200 and Elite Chrome 200 as being in danger over the next few years. It's possible that even Fuji Provia 400x won't make it to the year 2020.

When the only ones left are black and white negative film, E6 film in ISO 50 and ISO 100, and color neg in ISO 100, 160, and 400, we will have lost something significant. Now is the time to start to prepare and find alternate ways to shoot film in low light handheld.

In 5 years, I'm guessing that the product line could look like:

Kodak:

Ektar 100
Portra 160 NC
Portra 160 VC
Portra 400 NC
Portra 400 VC
MAX 800 only in disposable cameras

E100 G
E100 VS
Elite Chrome 100

T-Max 100
T-Max 400
Tri-X 400

Fuji:

Reala 100
Fujicolor 100
160 S
160 C
400 H

Velvia 50
Provia 100
Velvia 100
Provia 400X

Acros 100
Neopan 400

Ilford:

Delta 100
FP-4 125
HP-5 400
Delta 400
Delta 3200
SFX-200

 

[Ektagraphic]

That sound about right. I think that I would take off Kodak's transparency films though. I think they going to leave e-6
You are saying prepare and I'm with you on that but at the same time we should shoot the low light films all the more instead of d***tal means for low light.

 

[B&Wpositive]

That sound about right. I think that I would take off Kodak's transparency films though. I think they going to leave e-6
You are saying prepare and I'm with you on that but at the same time we should shoot the low light films all the more instead of d***tal means for low light.

Yes, we should bang the hell out of them while we've got them. Especially Fuji 800Z. And at the same time, start finding substitutes. Just the other night, I was shooting some Fuji 1600.

I think Kodak will always offer between 1 and 4 E6 films. Fuji will offer between 3 and 7 for the forseable future. Kodak won't get totally out of E6 in the next 5 years, nor will E6 die totally within 10 years, though it will come close possibly. And it's clear that Kodak will only offer 1 or 2 types of E6, probably only 100 speed E100G eventually.

But the trend is clear: high speed color film (over 400) is in the greatest of danger. One only needs to look at the E6 market progression over the last 5 years. It's now repeating itself in the C-41 arena. Up to ISO 400, we'll be safe for a long time, I think. The first sign will be when the Fuji Superia 1600 goes away; the 800 speed film s may follow. I hope it wont' be for a decade or more, but it's probably going to be a lot sooner.

B&W will be easier, with less products discontinued. But it won't be a walk in the park for high speed film either.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Maybe film will all of the sudden become extremely popular and they will have more new films of all speeds than ever before ....I WISH