carcrafter wrote:
Thank you all for the kind words. I have had a hard time with her loss these past several months, thankfully my family has been very supportive.
HI guys 1st time posting here Don't know if I done this right.
Developed by cosco scanned at home Epson v550
I think its the Fe2/Portra 160..Still looong way for me to get used to film
I simply wanted to share my own condolences for your loss. Those are simply beautiful pictures. I choked up when I read your story.
Sincerely,
David
carcrafter wrote:
Thank you all for the kind words. I have had a hard time with her loss these past several months, thankfully my family has been very supportive.
This is from just north of Bishop, Ca. Just an old cabin along the side of Hwy 395 that happened to look pretty good under a slightly diffused sky. Mamiya 7, 80mm lens. T-Max100. 25A filter.
Jon Buffington wrote:
How do you like the ektar? Nice work by the way
Ektar is a decent film, although not near being my favorite. For 120 shooters, there's not much available in the way of color print film. I wanted some color negatives made from this trip for the future if I wanted to make some optical prints. So Ektar was my only choice, nothing else available in Japan in 120 size. Hard to believe that the home of Fujifilm would cede that market. I was shooting a near brand new Fujifilm 120 camera for god's sake!!!!
I think there are several areas that ektar shines in. The 35mm market for one hand. I can actually consider using it for critical landscape work (often my home for digital work) due to it's fine grain, resolution/detail. I also find that it has quite a good dynamic range, contrary to what some folks say on the interwebs. I'm sure though in medium format territory these gains are less noticeable due to film size and color palette (one's choice) becomes more of a factor.
Very surprised this is your only option in Japan. Keep shooting ektar, it will grow on you
I think this image is quite lovely. Has a warmth that I really like. I do have to ask all of you that shoot larger than 35mm, please stop! I cannot afford any format larger...
Jon Buffington wrote:
I think there are several areas that ektar shines in. The 35mm market for one hand. I can actually consider using it for critical landscape work (often my home for digital work) due to it's fine grain, resolution/detail. I also find that it has quite a good dynamic range, contrary to what some folks say on the interwebs. I'm sure though in medium format territory these gains are less noticeable due to film size and color palette (one's choice) becomes more of a factor.
Very surprised this is your only option in Japan. Keep shooting ektar, it will grow on you ...Show more →
These are the only options for color negative film in 120 size, Ektar 100, Porta (3 speeds), and 400H.
I was going to be photographing landscapes in the bright sun so wanted a saturated film. That narrows it down to only Ektar.
kwoodard wrote:
I think this image is quite lovely. Has a warmth that I really like. I do have to ask all of you that shoot larger than 35mm, please stop! I cannot afford any format larger...
What's your budget? There's a LOT of cheap MF gear out there. It doesnt take much to enjoy this type of photography.
Well, for me to get into MF, I would need the gear and a scanner... Currently I have access to a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED. I have it for as long as I want... With as tiny a budget as I have, just not going to happen. Heck, I may have to go back to digital to save money in the long run.
kwoodard wrote:
Well, for me to get into MF, I would need the gear and a scanner... Currently I have access to a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED. I have it for as long as I want... With as tiny a budget as I have, just not going to happen. Heck, I may have to go back to digital to save money in the long run.
A Canoscan 9000F can do 120 negatives with good quality. Those are not too expensive. A Fujifilm GA645 is a *gorgeous* camera and gets 16 shots per roll of film.
Digital equipment is *much* more expensive than this.
Any FF camera will set you back $1500 right there.
rattymouse wrote:
A Canoscan 9000F can do 120 negatives with good quality. Those are not too expensive. A Fujifilm GA645 is a *gorgeous* camera and gets 16 shots per roll of film.
Digital equipment is *much* more expensive than this.
Any FF camera will set you back $1500 right there.
Don't know if I done this right.
