Ahh yeah, the beach shot. The sky just looked particularly blue and dark in the top part of the frame. I was surprised to see that kind of color on color negative.
Zaitz wrote:
corposant you have too many good beach photos. Makes me hate where I am even more.
What do you notice between 100 and 50? I've done a ton of searching and found conflicting reports. Some say 100 is a tad more neutral with 50 have a bit more magenta but others say they cannot see a difference. I know 100 is supposed to be finer grained and have higher resolution but I am more concerned with color. 100f seems to get generally bad reviews from what I've read as well. So I've stayed away from it. But regular 100 I've used. Not even sure what the heck I used most of it on. ...Show more →
Thanks - though it's helpful when the sun sets into the ocean.
The chief "bad reviewer" of V100 is Mr. Velvia himself Rock Huffwell. Not really sure I agree with him. I'd say +1 to Dan and Edward. Regarding sharpness - I think V50 should outperform V100 if you went by a scientific test. Between Provia 100 and Velvia 100, I'd say Velvia is somewhat warmer, but Provia has more latitude and is maybe more "all-purpose."
kidtexas wrote:
Nice shots on Delta. I've been meaning to try that seriously, but haven't gotten around to it yet. I do love me some TMZ.
Nice feeling in the chairs - is that "new" Portra?
Tim, thanks - this was my "test" roll. I have never been a huge fan of Ilford films, but I guess as Kodak starts to inevitably slow down production, I should probably get used to the fact that this will be THE high-speed B&W film of choice - especially since it's available in 120. I like TMZ, though I sort like Delta's grain - similar to HP5.
Pretty minor differences though I do prefer the bit of warmth in 50. If one was sold out I'd just get the other.
I've been through the below comparison a few times now but I've not seen it posted here yet. Comparing all sorts of films and mainly an IQ180 MFD camera. The 8x10 is quite a bit better in resolution than even the insanely expensive iq180 ($43,990). Even 4x5 shows more definable detail (although a lot of grain too). But the 8x10 is limited in the field with respect to the conditions and the photographers practices. They did the field tests in a 25mph wind which just about meant a waste for 8x10: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Cute dog! I wonder if I should try more HP5 after I shoot through my brick of Neopan 400.
I go back and forth on Precision. They take about 3 times as long as NCPS, and while you'd think 25MB scans would be nice, they end up taking up so much space and at times I think their scanner is out of alignment. However the RFF rate is pretty good.
corposant wrote:
I go back and forth on Precision. They take about 3 times as long as NCPS, and while you'd think 25MB scans would be nice, they end up taking up so much space and at times I think their scanner is out of alignment. However the RFF rate is pretty good.
I know, right? Those files are huge. It seems kind of screwed up to be getting decent BIG scans for cheap and complain that they are too big, but that's exactly how I feel.
The first two times I used them, they were pretty slow. This last time it was a bit more than week turnaround. Not too bad in my mind. I also asked for lower contrast scans to prevent blown out highlights and they complied for the most part. I'll continue to use them.
Nice E100VS shots. That's a nice film that I've only used once or twice.
kidtexas wrote:
I know, right? Those files are huge. It seems kind of screwed up to be getting decent BIG scans for cheap and complain that they are too big, but that's exactly how I feel.
The first two times I used them, they were pretty slow. This last time it was a bit more than week turnaround. Not too bad in my mind. I also asked for lower contrast scans to prevent blown out highlights and they complied for the most part. I'll continue to use them.
Nice E100VS shots. That's a nice film that I've only used once or twice.
I think their development is fine, but I have received so many scans that have hair and crud on them. I think they also don't scan right away, so the negs will curl, so I have gotten OOF scans occasionally, and the "compulsory crop" (where things at the edges don't get scanned.
I am making a mountain out of a molehill - it's probably 5% of the time I complain. However at NCPS I complain only when I get the bill.
I've used Precision 3 times. So far, no curl, crops, or OOF stuff. I have had a couple minor scratches or bits of dust, but nothing too bad. Maybe I'll try NCPS again. I only ever got their budget scans.
I can't figure a place to get Kodak chems in normal sizes. I've thought about it, but I shoot little enough color that I figured in the long run it's easier just to mail it out and get scans at that same time.
iGeekPro wrote:
Corposant you can even come over someday and I'll show you.
Wow, what an offer! I only shoot about C-41 a third of the time these days. Even if I could get 16 rolls out of that kit, Costco is still cheaper. Then I have to scan. I'd rather be shooting.
kidtexas wrote:
I've used Precision 3 times. So far, no curl, crops, or OOF stuff. I have had a couple minor scratches or bits of dust, but nothing too bad. Maybe I'll try NCPS again. I only ever got their budget scans.
I tried NCPS a couple of times. Apart from the prices, the film was not entirely scratch free, though much better than my local pro lab. The film sleeves were full of dust, some of it even got onto the film, but not difficult to remove with a bulb blower. The scans themselves are decent, but of course never as good as I can do scanning myself. At the end I decided to put up with the scratches of my local lab, as I have found out I can develop all my film cheaper than the shipping price to the US alone, not counting the expensive prices of the lab.
For information, the local pro lab charges 3.5$/roll for slides, 4.2$ for B/W, and a whopping 1.75$ for negatives
KatieInTexas wrote:
Here's a shot from the ONE ROLL of slide film I've shot. I sent it to NCPS and selected the wrong scanning I guess - cause this ONE ROLL cost me $24 to dev/scan. OUCH!!!
NCPS is not cheap when it comes to E-6! I think you might have picked the enhanced scans.
After being initially skeptical, I have found that (generally speaking) for web-presentation and reasonable inkjet printing, budget scans are enough. For 645, they are 16 megapixels and about 8x11" at 250 DPI. I am sure you could stretch that out for something bigger.
My skepticism was largely based on - why should I get scans at the highest quality first? After a while I realized that as long as I don't lose the negatives/slides, I can always use budget scans as proofs and either optical print later or drum scan if I wanted to be fancy.
Speaking of, what do you all use for archival storage?
corposant wrote:
My skepticism was largely based on - why should I get scans at the highest quality first? After a while I realized that as long as I don't lose the negatives/slides, I can always use budget scans as proofs and either optical print later or drum scan if I wanted to be fancy.
Speaking of, what do you all use for archival storage?
My thinking exactly. I always went with the budget scans with NCPS. Then again, I don't shoot MF, so there's really not *that* much more detail in a 35mm negative than 2000 dpi or so...
For storage I use the box, folder, and sleeve system from Archival Methods. One of the things I like about Precision Camera is that they sleeve the negatives in a very similar sleeving material. Saves me the hassle of resleeving stuff, or even providing my own sleeves. They aren't cheap - about $8 for enough for 50 6-frame strips. The stuff Precision uses is archival, just as clear, but a little bit thinner.
