Contrast increases with extended development, and shadow detail disappears with the underexposure. Tonality (whatever that is ) presumably gets worse subjectively when you lose shadow detail and bump the contrast to compensate for the underexposed mid tones. So, if you are ok with some more grain, I'd say go with T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200 since these two films make more real speed than 400 speed films.
At the very least, find the fastest 400 speed film you can to push... I'd still say T-Max 400 if you haven't tried it in the last couple years. TMY-2 is pretty amazing.
On the other hand, if you are pushing just because you need/desire more contrast, then it doesn't really matter what film you use since the increase in 'speed' isn't really what you are after.
While I love love Portra 400, Portra 800 would be very nice if they made it in 220. In fact, why wouldn't Kodak bring it out on 220 since they just introduced 3 films for 220? The grain structure on 800 is very nice, almost painterly looking, but I want it on 220 for my Contax vacuum backs so I can shoot wide open. Also, my experience with pushing Portra 400 was not a good one. I need to try it again as either I or Richards lab screwed something up. Should come around to $12 per roll which is fine by me for another 220 stock with character.
Tell me about it. Incredibly expensive (although they do have the best processing and scans from my experience but they're not really worth the price imo because they are so topsy turvy (I should clarify this as they have consistently inconsistent information every time I'm in there) with their customer service and they have good....and some not so good scanner operators). That and they want me to spend $450 to get a profile with them so my files come back consistent. Really? $44 per roll isn't enough to get consistency with 32 images? Job to job consistency is worse as you're dependent on the operator you get. I'm actually borrowing a friend's Nikon 9000 right now but it's still in the box. I've got a lot rolling around in my head with narrowing down how I shoot film but staying with an expensive lab isn't really one of them right now. Richards did my test with pushing Portra 400 2 stops but like I said I wasn't blown away (really need to retry it so I can't blame anyone but myself). I was shooting 35mm so maybe I'm expecting too much with that grain size? I'd love to see some of these blog sized images as print size. The Noritsu scans are cheaper at Richards but I just had a test done to scan on both and I was not at all happy with the Noritsu scans. Blown highlights, too much snap, and the mid tones are quite a bit darker. They CONSTANTLY push the Noritsu scans which is a bit on the annoying side. Sounds like they need to invest in another SP3000 if they're really that busy.
I have to get over that whole shipping an entire job to a lab thing. I know people do it, but I've never had to since I have a lot of local labs. Shipping scares the willies out of me.
My return to film hasn't been successful so far. The local pro lab I'm using has excellent processing, but the scans are simply awful. I ordered a plustek 7600 but now I'm having second thoughts, since I compared results on flickr. The reflecta/pacific image scanners seem to deliver much better colors judging from the small samples on flickr, and the plustek seems to be not so sharp. Anyone has experience with 35mm scanners?
I had the Reflecta 35mm Scanner, Edward, don't remember the exact model, but can look that up if you want. It was excellent, but I sold it because I wanted a film scanner that can scan medium format also. I ended with a Minolta Scan Multi Pro and I am more than satisfied.
edwardkaraa wrote:
My return to film hasn't been successful so far. The local pro lab I'm using has excellent processing, but the scans are simply awful. I ordered a plustek 7600 but now I'm having second thoughts, since I compared results on flickr. The reflecta/pacific image scanners seem to deliver much better colors judging from the small samples on flickr, and the plustek seems to be not so sharp. Anyone has experience with 35mm scanners?
Edward,
Read this review - I think it will assuage your reservations about the Plustek scanner.
I am praying the Reflecta MF 5000 will be as good.
Morfeus, I see three interesting reflecta scanners, the RPS 7200, Pro scan 7200, and crystal scan 7200. All affordable and with excellent color reproduction. Did you have one of these?
Corposant, yep I already read this article. It is quite encouraging actually but the reviews on filmscannerinfo and imaging-resource are a bit disappointing. The MF 5000 looks like it's going to be great even though I can't find any reviews so far (there's only one user review on BH and he gave it 5 stars). That's probably the scanner I would get if I was sure of my long term film usage but at the moment I'm only on probation I am hoping the Plustek will perform as good as in the LL review, but since the focus is fixed, I imagine there should be some sample variations that might explain the differing results.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The local pro lab I'm using has excellent processing, but the scans are simply awful
That can be said for my lab too. b&w scans are fine, color film is awful, I will try slide too. I believe that a part of the problem (together with color profiles) may be oversaturated scanning output or PP. Could I be wrong? I thought about shooting grey card under controlled lighting and see what will turn up in scan. It may seem so, but I am not obsessed with 'color fidelity', just not satisfied with results with color film, and with all that said, as effectively being a novice in film shooting, please take my words with grain of salt. I would like to talk to technicians but I'm not terribly convinced in success of trying that. I am quite sure I'll have to invest in scanner eventually too.
Well, I cancelled my order of the Plustek and ordered a Reflecta Proscan 7200 instead. This one seems to have the fastest scanning times and the sharpest results. It should be here within 10 days so I shoud be able to contribute some photos very soon
I had the Proscan 7200, Edward. Don't believe in the reviews of filmscanner.info too much. He's owns a shop and sells scanners and promotes only the most expensive scanners and software.
Morfeus wrote:
I had the Proscan 7200, Edward. Don't believe in the reviews of filmscanner.info too much. He's owns a shop and sells scanners and promotes only the most expensive scanners and software.
Thanks Morfeus! I already figured that out about filmscannerinfo.info
I actually went through many images on flickr and there is something about the color reproduction of the Plustek that didn't feel right. The scans form the Reflecta Proscan are much more to my liking colorwise and look quite authentic. It seems to have better per pixel sharpness than the Plustek.
Did you scan your Ethiopia images with this scanner?
) presumably gets worse subjectively when you lose shadow detail and bump the contrast to compensate for the underexposed mid tones. So, if you are ok with some more grain, I'd say go with T-Max 3200 or Delta 3200 since these two films make more real speed than 400 speed films.
I am hoping the Plustek will perform as good as in the LL review, but since the focus is fixed, I imagine there should be some sample variations that might explain the differing results.