Post your recent film shots!
p.740 #2Post your recent film shots!
Gary Clennan wrote:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpgWow! Great one Jeremy!
Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!
Duckmancgy wrote
Fuji GX617 | 180mm | Kodak Portra 400https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpg
Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!
Nov 14, 2018 at 07:16 AM
p.740 #4Post your recent film shots!
Duckmancgy wrote:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpgWow! Great one Jeremy!Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!
I'll take 400H over both Ektar and Portra.
Gary Clennan wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Fuji GX617 | 180mm | Kodak Portra 400https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpg
I'll take 400H over both Ektar and Portra.
Nov 14, 2018 at 07:45 PM
p.740 #5Post your recent film shots!
rattymouse wrote:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpgWow! Great one Jeremy!Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!I'll take 400H over both Ektar and Portra.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpg
I've been shooting mostly Portra 160 (and 400 only when there's not enough light outside) but I've been reading a lot about rating 400H @ 200 or even 100 and developing normally to get "pastel like colors". Only thing is it's a very light hungry film so I'll have to wait till summer to try this out.
Duckmancgy wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Fuji GX617 | 180mm | Kodak Portra 400https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpg
I've been shooting mostly Portra 160 (and 400 only when there's not enough light outside) but I've been reading a lot about rating 400H @ 200 or even 100 and developing normally to get "pastel like colors". Only thing is it's a very light hungry film so I'll have to wait till summer to try this out.
Nov 14, 2018 at 07:55 PM
p.740 #6Post your recent film shots!
Duckmancgy wrote:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpgWow! Great one Jeremy!Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!
Yep - I love Portra 400 too. Great for day and night. Pretty pricey in 4x5 though...
Gary Clennan wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Fuji GX617 | 180mm | Kodak Portra 400https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpg
Yep - I love Portra 400 too. Great for day and night. Pretty pricey in 4x5 though...
Nov 14, 2018 at 10:45 PM
p.740 #9Post your recent film shots!
hulk2006 wrote:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpgWow! Great one Jeremy!Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!I'll take 400H over both Ektar and Portra.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpgI've been shooting mostly Portra 160 (and 400 only when there's not enough light outside) but I've been reading a lot about rating 400H @ 200 or even 100 and developing normally to get "pastel like colors". Only thing is it's a very light hungry film so I'll have to wait till summer to try this out.
I love the 400H colors, and it's very easy to scan due to the neutral blacks, but what I dislike about basically all Fujicolor films is that the nominal ISO is way overstated. As you said, the 400H should be shot at ISO 200 or lower. Kodak colors are an acquired taste, but the nominal speed is the actual speed.
rattymouse wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Fuji GX617 | 180mm | Kodak Portra 400https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpg
I love the 400H colors, and it's very easy to scan due to the neutral blacks, but what I dislike about basically all Fujicolor films is that the nominal ISO is way overstated. As you said, the 400H should be shot at ISO 200 or lower. Kodak colors are an acquired taste, but the nominal speed is the actual speed.
Nov 15, 2018 at 10:41 PM
p.740 #10Post your recent film shots!
rattymouse wrote:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpgWow! Great one Jeremy!Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!I'll take 400H over both Ektar and Portra.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpg
That is definitely next springs test for me! Had a bunch of people suggest 400H so i'll see how I feel
Duckmancgy wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Fuji GX617 | 180mm | Kodak Portra 400https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpg
That is definitely next springs test for me! Had a bunch of people suggest 400H so i'll see how I feel
Nov 16, 2018 at 07:35 AM
|
p.740 #11Post your recent film shots!
Out around the country side exploring. Leica M5, canon 50/1.8 w/ light yellow filter, kentmere 100, d76 1:1, pakon scan
Weird thing, if you notice some slight scratches in the upper third of the frame in the sky, this is only with bulk rolled k100 shot through my m5. No other emulsion does this in my m5. K100 doesn't do this in my other cameras. Leads me to believe k100 is VERY easily scratched. I like the film, but I also like shooting my m5. No more k100 in it.
Weird thing, if you notice some slight scratches in the upper third of the frame in the sky, this is only with bulk rolled k100 shot through my m5. No other emulsion does this in my m5. K100 doesn't do this in my other cameras. Leads me to believe k100 is VERY easily scratched. I like the film, but I also like shooting my m5. No more k100 in it.
Nov 16, 2018 at 08:24 PM
p.740 #13Post your recent film shots!
edwardkaraa wrote:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpgWow! Great one Jeremy!Thanks Gary, I thought I was all ektar all the time as far as colour neg was concerned... but Portra 400 has won my heart in the right conditions!I'll take 400H over both Ektar and Portra.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpgI've been shooting mostly Portra 160 (and 400 only when there's not enough light outside) but I've been reading a lot about rating 400H @ 200 or even 100 and developing normally to get "pastel like colors". Only thing is it's a very light hungry film so I'll have to wait till summer to try this out.I love the 400H colors, and it's very easy to scan due to the neutral blacks, but what I dislike about basically all Fujicolor films is that the nominal ISO is way overstated. As you said, the 400H should be shot at ISO 200 or lower. Kodak colors are an acquired taste, but the nominal speed is the actual speed.
It's strange, but I half agree with you Edward. 400H seems to lose sensitivity in dark light. Those shots I posted above were at ISO400 and look just fine. But at night, using 400H produces some pretty crushed shadows. It needs more light in those situations and so it's not my go to film in dark light. A real shame that Fuji does not sell Supreria 1600 in 120 size, or any size for that matter now that it's gone.
hulk2006 wrote
rattymouse wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Fuji GX617 | 180mm | Kodak Portra 400https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000aBDQqn84FcI/s/2000/I0000aBDQqn84FcI.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpg
It's strange, but I half agree with you Edward. 400H seems to lose sensitivity in dark light. Those shots I posted above were at ISO400 and look just fine. But at night, using 400H produces some pretty crushed shadows. It needs more light in those situations and so it's not my go to film in dark light. A real shame that Fuji does not sell Supreria 1600 in 120 size, or any size for that matter now that it's gone.
Nov 17, 2018 at 01:36 PM
p.740 #14Post your recent film shots!
rattymouse wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote
hulk2006 wrote
rattymouse wrote
Duckmancgy wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
Wow! Great one Jeremy!http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2857/11461692043_2f64806870_b.jpg
I’m not sure if it’s related to film batches, local processing or something else, but I had similar experience as yours with 400H, Superia 400 and 1600. The only exception is Natura 1600. This film shoots extremely well in low light and can take under exposure without any issues. The last brick of Supreria 1600 I bought was particularly bad. I have to overexpose it by two stops in low light to get decent results. I’m quite hesitant to use the remaining rolls due to the bad results I’ve been getting from it.
Nov 17, 2018 at 11:28 PM
p.740 #19Post your recent film shots!
Out riding around the countryside last month at dusk, nikon n90s, gold 400, nikon 35-70, pakon scan
Nov 19, 2018 at 09:18 PM
p.740 #20Post your recent film shots!
I’m planning on doing a little zoo trip with b/w film gear. Should I go with no filter and try and adjust in post, or should I use a yellow or green or 
Nov 19, 2018 at 09:21 PM