Your film choices are they changing

[simonpg]

Since I have found that lately my film preferences have changed a lot, I wondered how others' preferences might have altered.

Of course how such changes occur among pros may be very different (if any at all) than among we amateurs, but nonetheless would be interesting.

Having been a Fuji fan for many years I have shifted significantly towards various Kodak choices - seeming to now prefer some more warmth in tonality.

So, in normal daylight (after 10:00am up to about 5:00pm) I prefer negative films finding the exposure latitude is kinder to the shadows in more contrasty conditions and smoother - Kodak Portra NC, VC and UC depending upon what I am shooting and if in doubt I use VC variants.

More serious shooting earlier and later in the day I use positive film - Kodak E100GX or Elite Chrome 400.

For B&W generally I'm using XP2 or for more serious shooting I use Acros 100 or Neopan 400/1600. I find Acros 100 absolutely superb.

The same applies generally in my 135 format shooting. 99.999% of my LF work is done with positive film and until now has mostly been with Provia.

Occassionally I wonder if I'd better just shoot positive all the time (can't resist seeing those strips post processing!). I wonder how others feel about that too?

 

[gjames52]

Simon:

You almost need to be librarian to keep track of all that.

With few exceptions I shoot Kodak 100 VS in all formats. I loved Kodachrome 25 and the 100 VS is as close to it as I have found. The extra speed is also kind of fun. Also, when you shoot slides you get what you put into it. Viewing a projected slide on a large screen is rewarding to me.

Regards:

Gilbert

 

[simonpg]

Gilbert, I agree - one of the great joys is to see a large projection of a good 6x6 slide!

Yes, maybe I over complicate film choice for myself?

 

[colin]

Simon,
Like Gilbert I mourn the demise of Kodachrome 25.I miss the smell upon opening the box of the newly minted slides!
I am a strong fan of Velvia 50 and now 100. Love the impact of MF slides projected on a screen
Seldom use negative material but prefer Reala in 220 and NPS (160)for weddings and location portraits.
For monochrome work I use Tech.Pan in 120 and 35mm, together with Acros 100.
Personally, I dislike fast films and have never used anything faster than 400 ASA in 50+ years of photography.

 

[fotografz]

Since almost all commercial work has been via digital backs for me
for some time, film has been used mostly for weddings and some vacation/travel. ISO 400 Kodak Portra NC and Kodak C-41 B&W films predominate because of changing lighting conditions, mostly handheld shots, and the need for simplicity in a hectic situation. Once in a while I substitute the Fuji equivalent.

Neg film is standard for weddings because of the latitude.

I do recall many years ago the thrill of shots taken on positive film while deep in Yellowstone during the winter. When projected on my old Kinderman projector, they felt like you could step into the scene.

What are you guys using to project your slides now days?

 

[flo]

Hi everyone
Can't add much other. Monochrome I also use Acros 100 (exposed at 80) in MF.
For concert photography (monochrome as well) I usually use Fuji Neopan 1600.
For colour photography I like Fuji Provia 100 due to its truth to colour. Unlike its reputation this film has a subtle warmth. Of course not that warm as a Kodak (say Elite) was.

 

[colin]

Marc,
I use a Rollei P11 projector to show my MF slides, but am hoping to upgrade to the Rollei Dual 66. A Leitz Pradovit 250 Colour serves as my 35mm projector

 

[gjames52]

Colin:

If I may, I like my Rollei Dual 66 even more than I expected. I set out to buy a new Hasselblad but was unable to find one. The clarity is outstanding and as I have stated before much like Mark did: if there were some ambient light in the room you would think you were at the sight you made the photograph. The programmable features are enjoyable to use and in some ways fascinating. Frankly, I am very happy with it.

Regards:

Gilbert

 

[colin]

Gilbert,
Thanks for your comments. Which lens do you use?
Do you think there is very much difference the new Rollei AV- Apogons vs the Schneiders of similar focal length? I was thinking about the 120mm AV-Apogon when I buy the projector.
Regards
Colin

 

[gjames52]

Colin:

I considered that lens as I read that it is impecible, but the 150 3/5 S Heidosmat has performed for me and from 14'6" projects a 5' x 5' image. After seeing the performance I did not feel that I would receive a $2,200 better image. I hope I am not wrong. But, IMO this lens performs as well as my Leitz Colorpan and may provide the vivid color I get from my Zeiss Ikon 35 mm projector lens.

Also, if you plan to use it to show full size 35mm slides you will need to purchase an additional condenser lens.

If you have not read the features and specification, you may like to see them at B & H
http://http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=135554&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Good Viewing:

Gilbert

 

[simonpg]

Marc, I share your enthusiasm for projected 6x6. On a large wall a good image becomes something GREAT and memorable.

Last year I was offered a nice Rollei 6x6 projector with 2 original lenses for AU$450; and STUPID me passed it up! I could scream now when I think of it, but I thought my family would scream louder.

However if I find another I'l buy it and I want to get into 6x6 projection at home. So, Marc I echo your question - what projection gear and lens focal lengths are members using today?

... and Marc how are you finding the needed "latitude" issues with a digi-back? Is it insufficient or cumbersome for weddings, hence your continued use of negative film?

 

[simonpg]

Flo, I share your commitment to Acros 100 - I think its is a sensational film with beautiful tonality. Consistently the other Acros/Neopan films are outstanding.

I used to be committed to Ilford B&W but since I first used Acros 100 a few years ago, I'd never change.

I may have even "mastered" exposing it as my B&W lab always comments that I "nailed" the exposures.

So, I suppose commitment to a film is greatly influenced by how well you understand its attributes etc..

 

[fotografz]

Hi Simon. I have continued interest in film because, unlike many fledgling photographers who never mastered it, I trust it.

Like you, when I deal with my lab, they always say how on my exposures are "on the money". They even suggested I do a seminar for them because so many of their wedding customers bring them negs in need of "special attention" ( i.e., badly exposed) . LOL.

The digital backs are much better than the DSLRs in terms of latitude. Being 16 bit, and offering more "real estate" helps in that cause. Also, experience in using the RAW processing software can make a huge difference.

The 22 meg back is starting to close in on film for quality and latitude. In March Hasselblad/Imacon will be upgrading this new H2D to a 39 meg sensor. Well see then how it compares to film in those areas of performance.

In terms of look and feel, film remains the "apple of my eye" ; -)

 

[gjames52]

Gentlemen:

Now that Nikon has joined other companies not providing film cameras.

What are your feelings as to how long film will be available?

Regards:

Gilbert

 

[jotloob]

Gilbert
Think , of how many MF and 35mm Cameras are on the market .
I think , that film will still be available for a very long time . If not from the big known brands , others will take over .

 

[fotografz]

B&W film probably a really long time. It is something easily processed at home, and may even give rise to mixing your own chemicals again ... like in times past. Digital B&W lacks the soul of film IMO. Even thought I haven't done hardly any darkroom work in the past few years, I've kept it intact for the future ... a seemingly conundrum of a concept ... in the hope to someday offer beautiful silver based prints to special wedding clients. I just hope B&W papers don't fall prey to the digital inkjet juggernaught ( But, I do think that WILL be a cottage industry if the big companies all stop offering it).

Color films is more where my fear is. Digital color is making great strides forward, and offers color temp control and ISO shifts on the fly, one shot to the next. It can be totally done at home also, which was a real PITA with color film.

However, even though some people think the handwriting is on the wall, I am seriously thinking about diverting funds away from further MF digital capture toward securing an Imacon Flextight Scanner.

 

[rcyoung]

> You could always start making your own platinum and palladium > papers .....

 

[qnu]

Yes, that's what we could always do. Dry plates too...

Because, Jürgen, making film of todays quality isn't something you and i, or some small garden-shed type company can do. It requires considerable investment (research, quality management, production). And that in turn requires a 'big-enough' market.
So others may indeed take over. But what will they be offering?

 

[jotloob]

Q.G.
Yes you are right .

My imagination of the far future (don't ask me when that will be , nobody knows) is , that only one producer for films might survive , and that new company , has bought all knowledge , technology , and production machines from the died ones , might be KODAK , FUJI , ILFORD or others , and produces films as good as today in a smaller variety . Think of FORTE ! ! Or a chinese production ? ? ?

And i dare to make a joke : Buy 100.000 films of each brand , put them in deep freezer , and when your grand , grand children ask you : what is a film ? Then go to the deep freezer and get a film out . You will then see bright eyes as never before .

What i want to say with that , is , that we , our generation , should not be afraid of running out of films . Also not the next generation . And after that time , it should not bother us anymore . That's my opinion , and i feel fine with it .

 

[simonpg]

Thanks Marc - interesting comments to hear.

Jurgen, I am quite relaxed about 35mm film availability generally as I feel that while it certainly will decline in availability - the channels that offer it (already in decline) and the manufacturers that will continue to make it; I feel B&W 35mm will likely outlive colour with niche players offering it in the very very long term and the same may happen to colour films, while the variety on offer will almost certainly shrink significantly. And, for me 35mm is where I would most likely enter the digital capture world, sooner rather than later.

However, I suspect that 120 film will have the longest assurance of manufacture although convenient availability will obviously decline as the channels see lower and lower margins. My reasoning is that whilst digital capture in MF is already at an excellent/near film quality point; it will continue to be the domain of professionals and the very very wealthy enthusiast for in the forseable long term. So, I remain relaxed about 120 film's availability in the long term.

Given my 35mm SLR shooting is more the "machine gun" type of shooting I certainly would be happy (quality and cost) shooting that on a digital sensor. But for my Leica rangefinder shooting (mostly B&W) I'd like to continue using film.

In MF, I have no choice as even with the relatively rapid cost improvements, it will still be a very long time before I could afford to consider digital MF capture no matter how good it gets. I cannot apply commercial payback principles nor afford the upfront costs regardless. Of course the same applies to my LF shooting in 4x5 or with roll film backs.

My "predictions" only, but I feel my logic is reasonable. Funny how 120 film has historically proven to be such an enduring technology and one that may continue to be well after 35mm film's demise!