Those films fix dye deficiencies in other methods. Or don't do as good of a job. Slide film is maskless as well.
Also, film made for the movie industry most definitely has a color mask. At least the film used in cameras for capture. It is true that the projection film (release print) doesn't. I believe the process (when doing a chemical finish to a film, which is hardly ever done now) is camera negative (with masking) -> interpositive -> internegative -> release print. I'm pretty sure the films used for the interpositive and internegative steps are also masked. The release print film is not.
According to PhotoEngineer on APUG (he worked at Kodak his whole career): Double masking is very ungood. The motion picture print films and color papers are unmasked for just this reason.
He didn't go into the reason unfortunately. I'm sure if you were really curious you could send him an email - I have in the past and he's very responsive.
Morfeus wrote:
why do you say this? I find it much easier to scan slide film than negative film because I can have the film on a lightbox besides the monitor and see exactly how the scan should look like.
In our days is it quite difficult to find a good lab. I was using a pro lab that I knew from the old days for a couple of weeks and experienced all sorts of color casts. Then I switched to a real pro lab - there are only a handful left in Germany that deserve the pro - and all my problems where gone. ...Show more →
you are very right about what you say about slide films, however, i have to admit that i find it hard to reproduce my slides properly, when i scan them.
i have gotten much better over the time but i still have to do a lot of adjusting to get it right. color negatives usually seem to scan much better, at least that is my impression.
as for the good labs, i am actually quite lucky to have found two very good labs here in munich. the recent incident is actually the first time where i suspect that something might have went wrong with the development.
These taken with 35 mm Canon K2 and Canon EF 15mm Fisheye lens. Naples FL. I've been having a hard time finding a serious lab that can develop my negatives with good quality. I always find water marks, dust, etc. And the scanning quality is very cheap.
I pretty much just shoot black and white film...love T-Max for sharpness. TMY properly exposed looks like a 100 speed film. If you want something with bigger grain and more "filmness" Tri-X is good. Also loved Plus-X Pan, but that's been discontinued. I've shot a lot of Ilford, but for some reason never loved it.
Here's some T-Max 100 shot in my Calumet C-1 8x10 view camera (now that's a negative!) http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n259/toolbox007/8x10%20Ultra%20Large%20Format/1st%20shoot%20Anniversary%20Rose/anniversary_rose.jpg
I send my film out to either NCPS or Precision. It takes a little longer, but the quality of developing is pretty good (no scratches, etc.) and the scans are huge. I can do better scanning at home, but an extra $5 for huge scans of the whole roll is totally worth it to me; my time is worth more than that.
I find the budget scans are good enough from NCPS (3000x2000). For Precision, go to rangefinderforum.com and use the banner ad on the left. You'll get a better deal. Precision's scans are larger. They both work out to be about $10-12/roll.
c00kiem0nster wrote:
as for the good labs, i am actually quite lucky to have found two very good labs here in munich. the recent incident is actually the first time where i suspect that something might have went wrong with the development.
Has anybody used the new Portra 160? How does it compare to the 160 VC in terms of saturation and color balance? I love the new 400, so I am curious if it's been changed similarly. It seems like the newer Portras trend closer to their old NC brethren.
I've used the new 160, but haven't gotten the rolls developed yet
But, Kodak did say that the new Portra 400 has 400NC's contrast and it's saturation was somewhere in between 400NC and 400VC. On the other hand, for the new 160, they said it had 160NC's contrast and saturation. See the charts on this page:
kidtexas wrote:
I send my film out to either NCPS or Precision. It takes a little longer, but the quality of developing is pretty good (no scratches, etc.) and the scans are huge. I can do better scanning at home, but an extra $5 for huge scans of the whole roll is totally worth it to me; my time is worth more than that.
I find the budget scans are good enough from NCPS (3000x2000). For Precision, go to rangefinderforum.com and use the banner ad on the left. You'll get a better deal. Precision's scans are larger. They both work out to be about $10-12/roll....Show more →
Do you know the website for "NCPS or Precision" ? I type in Google, but the links don't take me to the right place. I'm tired of the cheap developers in Miami, Walgreens, Costco, etc.
corposant wrote:
Has anybody used the new Portra 160? How does it compare to the 160 VC in terms of saturation and color balance? I love the new 400, so I am curious if it's been changed similarly. It seems like the newer Portras trend closer to their old NC brethren.
I have Portra 800 in camera and might finish the roll tomorrow. I never tried Portra before so I'm curious how it will turn out. I develop and scan in lab. Hopefully they will do a fine job. I also have Portra 160 to try out and some Ektachrome E100VS too.
corposant wrote:
Okay - since there's not a whole lot of discussion here:
Which B&W ISO 400 film is best to push 2 (or more) EV? Delta? Neopan?
I'm betting most will say Tri-X. In my tests, Tri-X and T-Max 400 pushed almost the same in XTOL 1:1. And since pushing can bump up the grain a bit, particularly in the shadows, T-Max 400 might be better for this. Even though I like grain, I think the graininess you get from pushing sometimes looks bad.
Neopan never looked as fast as Tri-X or T-Max to me, which makes me think it might push worse. But who knows - it's worth testing yourself. HP5+ in my experience is pretty close to Tri-X in most situations. Never used Delta 400.
For ISO 1600, I personally prefer T-Max 3200 shot at 1600.
mirkoc wrote:
I have Portra 800 in camera and might finish the roll tomorrow. I never tried Portra before so I'm curious how it will turn out. I develop and scan in lab. Hopefully they will do a fine job. I also have Portra 160 to try out and some Ektachrome E100VS too.
Hey big spender! Portra 800 is $11/roll here in the US. I have seen Portra 400 pushed 2 EV and look pretty good. I'd probably do that if I needed fast color film instead of buying the higher rated stuff, but I guess if somebody, you know, "gave" me some Portra 800 I'd be okay with that too.
kidtexas wrote:
I'm betting most will say Tri-X. In my tests, Tri-X and T-Max 400 pushed almost the same in XTOL 1:1. And since pushing can bump up the grain a bit, particularly in the shadows, T-Max 400 might be better for this. Even though I like grain, I think the graininess you get from pushing sometimes looks bad.
Neopan never looked as fast as Tri-X or T-Max to me, which makes me think it might push worse. But who knows - it's worth testing yourself. HP5+ in my experience is pretty close to Tri-X in most situations. Never used Delta 400.
For ISO 1600, I personally prefer T-Max 3200 shot at 1600....Show more →
Hmm, I was never a huge fan of the Kodak B&W options. I don't really like Tri-X even at its rated speed. There's a lot of color here so I don't shoot B&W too much, but I have a couple of trips coming up so I should probably experiment.
Personally, I don't think most people can tell the difference between HP5+, Tri-X, and Neopan. Neopan might be a tiny bit finer grained (and slower) but nothing to lose any sleep over. T-Max 400 is noticeably finer grained and is less sensitive to blue. Again, not much experience with Delta 400, but I would think it is finer grained than the first three at the very least.
Development, exposure, and post processing (scanning, printing, however you do it) have a larger impact in my mind than the choice between Tri-X, Neopan, or HP5+. Or even TMY or Delta if you get down to it.
Back to pushing - it's really important what you mean by 'best'. Fine grain? Shadow detail? Tonality?
RE: Portra 800. Great film. I like it. It is more expense than Portra 400, but it IS faster. And push developing adds to the cost usually as well. If I know I need the speed, I just use Portra 800.
kidtexas wrote:
Back to pushing - it's really important what you mean by 'best'. Fine grain? Shadow detail? Tonality?
RE: Portra 800. Great film. I like it. It is more expense than Portra 400, but it IS faster. And push developing adds to the cost usually as well. If I know I need the speed, I just use Portra 800.
I will accept an increase in grain, but I'd want to maintain the tonality and contrast as much as possible. Shadow detail will suffer too, but the less the better.
NCPS has never charged me to push/pull, but I know many other labs do. I can't figure out why.
