Justification to buy films

[Sjixxxy]

Are you telling me that Kodak makes not just the film base, but also prints the Arista name on the film, puts the film in an Arista branded cassette, puts that in an Arista branded box, and then ships it off to Freestyle?

Not if you buy in bulk. I take care of the quality control of the spooling myself and put it into my own branded cassettes and forget about the branded box.

 

[epatsellis]

To which I say again,



There's no 1 way to print a negative. I had a negative that I took of my roommate for a portraiture project of him in his white meditation robe - if I had simply done a perfect print, it wouldn't have been a remarkable shot. However, with the contrast turned all the way up and the print exposure adjusted for balance, his robe melted into the white wall which gave him this really cool ninja look. It sounds stupid but it's not something I could get or even see happening with your "consistency".

Depends, did you pre-visualise it that way and expose accordingly? Consistency is the first step to being able to visualise and expose accordingly, I'd suggest some reading, Adam's "The Negative", Phil Davis' "Beyond the Zone System" or Chris Johnson's "Practical Zone System" to get an basic understanding of what I'm referring to.

Besides... if you're talking about something like, me taking 3 rolls in the same spot at the same time and wanting similar results, just use a tank that can take 3 rolls

3 rolls isn't worth the effort, I process anywhere from 10 to 40 rolls a week, mostly 120 film, rarely 35mm. Many weeks I'm also processing 4x5 negative films as well. A lot of the commercial and product work I do requires absolute color accuracy, i.e. color profiled scanner, and completely profiled workflow. I use film for a certain look for my professional work, several films have specific responses that work well for some of my clients.

A far different animal than the snapshots you keep referring to. For personal B&W work, I shoot 8x10 primarily, at $5 to $10 a sheet, you get your ducks in a row before you start throwing away money like it grows on trees.

 

[Battou]

Or, keep your eyes open on Craigslist and Ebay for a smaller (Wing Lynch or Thermaphot) processor, my Wing Lynch Pro6 processes everything frm my 35mm to 8x10 C41 and b&w with a consistency that no hand line can ever match. Push/pulls are not problem as well. Total cost was $150. The Pro 6 doesn't even need running water.

I work with a local pro that has a Frontier 370, when I need prints or scans, I go to the studio, when he has a customer (or himself) that needs C41 film processed, he drops it off. Everybody's happy, the world is good, etc.

I like the sound of that actually, I'll have to spend some time looking into that.

 

[blash]

3 rolls isn't worth the effort, I process anywhere from 10 to 40 rolls a week... A lot of the commercial and product work I do requires absolute color accuracy, i.e. color profiled scanner, and completely profiled workflow. I use film for a certain look for my professional work, several films have specific responses that work well for some of my clients.

A far different animal than the snapshots you keep referring to. For personal B&W work, I shoot 8x10 primarily, at $5 to $10 a sheet, you get your ducks in a row before you start throwing away money like it grows on trees.

1) Yeah, but are those 10-40 rolls all from the same event at the same time of day? If not, then slight color differences between scenes wouldn't be noticeable (but if you're aiming for complete color accuracy, that's a whole different ballgame I agree... for commercial work though most people shoot digital now for a reason, so I'm not quite sure what you're doing here)
2) B&W film has color accuracy? I thought we were talking about B&W film here lol

Here is a comparison shot I found (not my pics) one with Tri-X, one with Arista Premium, I can't tell the difference.. (large pics)

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QT2x-63363584.jpg
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QT39-63365584.jpg
from this thread:
Arista Premium film: is this stuff Tri-X? - Photo.net B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum

Are you serious?!
1) Look at the top right corner of the Arista print and don't tell me you don't see anything. For class, I would have either had to completely ditch the print or crop it and neither is acceptable.
2) The Kodak print has a smoother tonal change (looking at top center to top right here) from the darker shadows to the wall, also the wall actually looks gray, the same color on both top and bottom on the right side, instead of the Arista print where the shade of the wall changes.
3) Highlights are brighter on the Arista print (uncomfortably to my taste).
4) Lower left corner, Arista print makes the border between wall and floor look like its bleeding a bit closer to the edge of the print, to the point where the border blends into the floor right at the edge.
5) Also do not tell me that the shades for the floors between the two prints is the same, because the Arista is noticeably darker.

I'm not using any software here, just my bare naked eyes on a scanned print. Thanks for proving my point.

Happens all the time, across all industries. Most of what you pay for with 'Name' brands is the advertising.

Yeah, but I don't think Kodak owns Fuji or any of the other brands like the Italian brand mentioned before.

 

[bhop]

Are you serious?!... etc...

You win.. Arista sucks.. you're the man.

 

[blash]

You win.. Arista sucks.. you're the man.

Did you give up here or am I just blabbing nonsense to you and you're tired of this discussion?

 

[bhop]

Did you give up here or am I just blabbing nonsense to you and you're tired of this discussion?

A little of both.. your standards are obviously way higher than mine, so there's nothing that can be done.

 

[epatsellis]

I wouldn't buy Arista - they're cheap for a reason (absolute ****). For color, the vast amount of your work will be with Velvia 50, and for film either with Ilford FP4, Ilford HP5, or Agfa APX 400 (but you either already know this or already have favorite films, but I wouldn't guess from the title). In any case, buy a few rolls to experiment before investing....

Out of curiosity, why would somebody's vast amount of their work be done with Velvia 50? Have you tried some of the newer C41 films, the Ektar 100 has a finer grain structure than velvia and is capable of tremendous color saturation, as is the Portra VC line, and to some extent the Fuji 160C product.

As an aside, I use Arista.edu from time to time, and properly calibrating the EI and development yields fantastic negs. It's just a matter of how much time you want to put in, assuming nothing and testing to establish EI and desired CI.

 

[blash]

Out of curiosity, why would somebody's vast amount of their work be done with Velvia 50? Have you tried some of the newer C41 films, the Ektar 100 has a finer grain structure than velvia and is capable of tremendous color saturation, as is the Portra VC line, and to some extent the Fuji 160C product.

As an aside, I use Arista.edu from time to time, and properly calibrating the EI and development yields fantastic negs. It's just a matter of how much time you want to put in, assuming nothing and testing to establish EI and desired CI.

It's not about "grain structure" or "color saturation", it's about the feel. Tell me why most people will describe Macs as being more 'higher-up' than PCs. Is it the sex appeal? No. Is it OS X? No. Linux is more secure than OS X, general populace knows how to use Windows better than OS X, and God knows there are some sexy Windows machines out there. Yet when you see a Mac commercial, you turn around and look instead of just tuning it out. Why is that? "Sex appeal"? "Security"? No - it's the soul of the product (note: I'm not a Mac fanboy in fact I've never owned a Mac in my life, Thinkpads and custom-built machines tend to be better IMO and I'm not trying to start a flame war here). It's the same thing with photography in general - it's what you get overall from Velvia that you don't get from Portra and others.

What I meant by vast majority of work should be done with Velvia, is that Velvia isn't good for everything - portraiture being prime example. But for landscapes etc. there is really no substitute in the final prints that are laid out before you.

 

[epatsellis]

well, I won't even get into the mac/pc issue, I use both, and both have their flaws (and both have serious ones at that), though the single biggest isssue between the two is simply marketing.

If the intent is to scan, Velvia is the wrong film for 99% of most peoples work, period. The single biggest issues are exaggerated color reproduction, inaccurate color response and poor scannability. (unless, of course, you have pockets full of money or a money tree in the back yard, drum scans are expensive as hell and why bother with 35mm at that point, might as well shoot 6x7 or larger to get a better gradation and tonal response) The newer C41 dyes are specifically designed for scanning, one of the advantages of C41 films are that the negative contrast and density is moderately low, and the print contrast is high, effectively compressing the data at capture and expanding it at printing, if you will.

I'm guessing, you're in your mid to late 20's top, art student or taking photography classes and/or learned alot of what you know online, right? It may be hard to fathom, but before you were born, I was shooting product for Fortune 500 companies, 70 hours a week, 52 weeks a year,with transparency film, in large and medium format. I probably shot more film in a month than you shoot in several years. (a restaurant style walk in freezer was our film storage area).
Spend some time shooting some of the newer C41 films, you may very well change your mind. (or if you prefer, stop drinking the Kool Aid and test for yourself, being blunt and to the point)

I rarely shoot trannies any more, and only a few clients insist on a film/digital shoot, as some of their fashion type work looks better on film. With the advantages that the new C41 films bring to the table, it's a natural, E6 films don't have nearly the exposure latitude, or dynamic range that the new C41 films do, something to think about when you have to get the shot, no ifs, ands or buts. (I don't ever relish having to pay the cost of a reshoot)

There are advantages to shooting digital, and I do use it more than I may let on, to me it's more of my red headed stepchild. Though I don't use a Dslr, as there are just too many compromises to work effectively for me in my workflow. Take a good scan back on a 4x5 camera,the lack of an anti aliasing filter is a huge advantage here (and the reduction or elimination in sharpening needed, as well as the obvious adjacency effects that come with it) and there is little to no post processing needed. Suddenly that 3 minute capture saves 10-15 mins of post time, seems like a net win to me, especially if you factor in the fact that either way, it typically takes anywhere from 1-2 hours to dress a set prior to shooting, a few mins additional isn't that big of a deal.

 

[blash]

Well I generally print optically - I like the final results better and I don't see much of a reason to put stuff online when this is all for personal use only. C41 may be better from a high-volume business perspective, I wouldn't know.

I'm guessing, you're in your mid to late 20's top, art student or taking photography classes and/or learned alot of what you know online, right?

Actually I'm 18, a computer science major, and I've taken 1 photography class so far (although I did learn most of my props online) :er:

 

[coreduo]

I love film photography. I have my own digital SLR but decide to use film instead. I use Pentax SLR. Experts all agree that if you want to master black and white photography, one has to listen to the advice that it would be better to use color film, scan them, and convert them to monochrome through Photoshop. I use Elements. I used to have Lightroom but after deleting it and installing it, something went wrong. So I use Elements instead. If you're a fan of the enlarger, then use black and white film and print them via enlarger. I find enlarger tedious and consumes to much developer, bath and fixer. I'd rather develop them inside the washroom late at night, scan them and edit them in Photoshop. As for me any kind of color film is acceptable whether you buy it anywhere. There is always the editing software to make them look good. Trust me on that except if you shoot with black and white film, scan them and edit. It would be best to convert color to black and white through edit software. As I said, all experts agree on that.

By the way, read the editorial of this month's Black and White Photography magazine. You'll be amazed that even the experts are all mesmerized by film photography.

Suggested readings: THE NEGATIVE Ansel Adams. Always available in any public libraray.

 

[flea77]

Experts all agree that if you want to master black and white photography, one has to listen to the advice that it would be better to use color film, scan them, and convert them to monochrome through Photoshop.

That sounds like a bunch of caca to me. Simple "convert to monochrome" on a color shot has never come remotely close to what FP4 can do for me. I have seen some dedicated software made just to convert color to B&W that does a fairly good to good job, but a good B&W film is still almost impossible to beat.

Despite your "experts", I will stick with B&W film for my B&W work, thank you.

Allan

 

[coreduo]

That sounds like a bunch of caca to me. Simple "convert to monochrome" on a color shot has never come remotely close to what FP4 can do for me. I have seen some dedicated software made just to convert color to B&W that does a fairly good to good job, but a good B&W film is still almost impossible to beat.

Despite your "experts", I will stick with B&W film for my B&W work, thank you.

Allan

Guess some people like you reads more credible given that the author of the book SCANNING NEGATIVES AND SLIDES, Sascha Steinhoff's software did not do well for me, with due respect also to an expert like him. I got it from his book. QuoteUnquote, Steinhoff.

 

[blash]

That sounds like a bunch of caca to me. Simple "convert to monochrome" on a color shot has never come remotely close to what FP4 can do for me. I have seen some dedicated software made just to convert color to B&W that does a fairly good to good job, but a good B&W film is still almost impossible to beat.

Despite your "experts", I will stick with B&W film for my B&W work, thank you.

Allan

+1 :thumbsup: although, what he's talking about isn't a "convert to monochrome" button but rather playing with the sliders in order to approximate the results on putting different colored filters in front of the lens when doing B&W film (i.e. how a red filter vastly increases contrast) - to be clear though, I still think nothing beats good old B&W film, especially either FP4/HP5 or my favorite, Agfapan APX-400.

And who the hell is Steinhoff?