I've been fairly unadventurous about trying other brands besides Fiji. I recently was given a roll of 400 Kodak Max & the results were awful although that might have been due to poor (cheap) processing. I am obtaining excellent results with Fugi 200 but hear the latest Agfa is pretty good. On overseas trip I run off up to 20 rolls of 36 so it is a significant outlay each time.

For the record I use an F100 Nikon (the F5 was too heavy) and have owned an F4, FA, FE. Lenses are 24-120 (brilliant general for use), Micro 105mm (superb for portraits), 75-300mm zoom & f1.14 50mm (rarely used). There are a number of flashguns with the SB28 in most frequent use. My eyesight forced me into autofocus lenses when too much came back out of focus!!

I'm pleased with the F100 although this is the only NIKON which has broken down on me - it had a heart attack in the middle of an Egypt tour wouldn't you know. Fortunately another kind traveller lent me her small f2.8 Nikon and the results came out brilliantly although I missed a few excellent opportunities with no telephoto. After much waiting NIKON replaced the F100 and this one has (so far) performed flawlessly. I guess they have so much in the way of electronics in them at the moment that the possibility of breakdown is much increased.

I'll look at digital soon - they are getting pretty good.

John

 Ilford for b & w, Kodak Gold 100 for colour... Dr. Al 19:57:52 05/17/01 (0)
 Sadly, gave up on analog for now... traded the Hassey 503CW kit for a Canon D-30 and some "L" lenses <nt> Steven R. Rochlin 17:31:21 03/28/01 (2)
 Well then.... Van 21:39:25 04/21/01 (1)

...

Show full thread outline!

 Ilford for b & w, Kodak Gold 100 for colour... Dr. Al 19:57:52 05/17/01 (0)
 Sadly, gave up on analog for now... traded the Hassey 503CW kit for a Canon D-30 and some "L" lenses <nt> Steven R. Rochlin 17:31:21 03/28/01 (2)
 Well then.... Van 21:39:25 04/21/01 (1)
 SORRY for the VERY late reply... (more) Steven R. Rochlin 09:01:07 05/10/01 (0)
 Re: Keeping it simple. Jim Willis 03:07:05 03/27/01 (0)
 Re: 35mm film - I use Fugicolor, what do you? RBP 01:47:44 03/25/01 (3)
 Which digital camera? Keith 16:09:58 03/25/01 (2)
 Re: Which digital camera? marantzman 10:16:11 03/29/01 (0)
 Re: Which digital camera? RBP 18:55:29 03/25/01 (0)
 Re: 35mm film - I use Fugicolor, what do you? Jim Couch 01:01:57 03/24/01 (0)
 My current picks jj 18:47:06 03/23/01 (28)
 Why not take a lower speed film and push it? Van 21:46:47 04/21/01 (0)
 It�s like to use the $300 analog system + Vibroplane and to adjust the Vibroplane pressure for each record � Romy 09:20:35 03/24/01 (12)
 Dear Romy ... jj 15:41:49 03/24/01 (11)
 Great Pics jj! (nt) Rich Brkich 01:00:44 03/25/01 (0)
 OK, OK, OK... Romy 19:25:40 03/24/01 (7)
 Yeesh! jj 01:14:11 03/25/01 (6)
 O yes Romy 13:35:07 03/25/01 (5)
 COOL IT! The Moderation Group 00:30:47 03/26/01 (0)
 City fellers! Silver Eared John 20:40:49 03/25/01 (0)
 GET REAL jj 20:35:41 03/25/01 (2)
 Another example jj 16:26:58 03/24/01 (0)
 An example... jj 15:52:42 03/24/01 (0)
 Don't forget the Sensia II Keith 22:50:00 03/23/01 (1)
 Sensia indeed. Sorry, I did forget it. jj 00:56:18 03/24/01 (0)
 Re: My current picks Pam 21:10:31 03/23/01 (6)
 You mean Agfa Ultra 50? jj 21:40:54 03/23/01 (3)
 Re: You mean Agfa Ultra 50? Pam 18:00:53 03/24/01 (2)
 Whoops, read you wrong the first time. Dinno jj 01:03:45 03/26/01 (0)
 Refrigeration??? jj 01:24:22 03/25/01 (0)
 Hello again Pam! RBP 21:25:22 03/23/01 (1)
 Re: Howdy howdy! Pam 18:30:40 03/24/01 (0)
 Re: My current picks Des 19:15:14 03/23/01 (2)
 Oh, yeah... jj 21:41:46 03/23/01 (0)
 Tech Pan jj 21:39:45 03/23/01 (0)
 Re: My current picks JB 19:11:04 03/23/01 (1)
 Sadly... I don't have darkroom access presently jj 21:36:41 03/23/01 (0)

Low speed People - Portra 160 NC, Ektachrome (warm), (sometimes) Kodak Supra 100. (The Supra 100 makes a good all-around print film)

Medium Speed Landscape - Kodak Portra 400 VC, Ektachrome VS, Fuji Press 400.

Medium Speed General - Fuji Press 400, Supra 400

High Speed People - Fuji NHG II 800. Everything else pales if you have to go this fast and shoot people. It's expensive, though.

High Speed General - Fuji Press 800, Kodak Supra 800

B&W Low Speed - Ilford Pan F, TMX 100, Techpan 25 (wonderful film, but nobody handles it very well for processing), Ilford 125.

B&W Med Speed - Tri-X, Ilford 400, TMX 400.
JJ

Good Shooting,

Des

Do you know of any that may be preferable? Sticking shutter and general cleaning would be the tags' description.

Ever get a chance to try those interconnects I described?

I picked up a HP215 Dig...and like it.

Hope you are doing good!

I tend to do some pretty wide-ranging shots, they printed my last Pan F shot on Contrast Grade Zero :)

And did one stop of burning in one corner.
JJ

Even IPG has a debate with it, but I have some GOOD shots on it.

Pan F the lab uses D76. As long as it's not too warm, (if it is you get clumping in heavy (exposed) areas) that works very nicely.

The Tmax and the Tmax developer seem to go together well, but they are a pair, not for anything else I can see.
JJ

I think they still make it. I didn't much like any of the Agfa I've used, sorry to say.
JJ

And... you can push the sucker to 400, no problem. I think the pack of 100 from B&H would only run you around $200.

Kodachrome 64 (I have shot Kodachrome for years and love it's color)
Agfachrome RSX 100 (Nice neutral color balance - reasonable grain)
Fuji Astia (Very fine grain, again good color balance, not to contrasty or saturated.)

For faster films I am still really searching Kodachrome 200 is very sharp, nice color, but a bit more grain than I would like. The Agfachrome RSX 200 is very nice for it's speed in all respects, but kind of hard to find.

Jim Couch

despite that some of your comments are generally correct they have NO practical meaning and can serve only self-entertaining purpose. In the situation when you don’t control the development process is very difficult and practically impossible to get predictable result and take advantage of film’s idiosyncrasies. (Witch easy could be overcome by certain exposure and custom developing techniques) Even if hypothetically we assume that you use VERY good lab then, even there, the quality control of C-41 will be not up to the E-6’s point of the demands. Not to mention the B&W. Even good custom lab has a $10-12/hour teenager who cooks all his film in badly controlled and already dead D-76 (witch is not the best choice to begin with). The proper B/W development is lost knowledge (as well as manufacturing good sound). It is very unfortunate fact. I am not object what you said. I question of this has a practical meaning for you guys….

Romy the Cat.

First, I get very reliable results both from 35mm and 120/220 at the labs I use, in fact I've shot test rolls, etc, at various times, and they are quite consistant, INCLUDING their B&W (not C41 B&W either) performance. The 35mm lab I use is a completely automated place not far from work that's run by a couple of old folks, too, they are fine with it, but the lab is nothing special. The C41 results are entirely consistant, on ISO rating, and I've yet to have them be far enough off in processing to notice. Occasionally they can't handle a really odd negative, but that's not the fault of the processing, some things just have to be printed by hand.

Second, the type of film, contrast, gamma, and saturation are indeed important in shooting situations EVEN IF THE LAB IS NOT GOOD.

I have no idea why why you've chosen to spread some really inaccurate rumours about photography and processing, but you're wrong.

As my MS is in fact in optical processing, I do in fact have a very good clue as to how to both test and evaluate processing and film results. In fact, I've done some res charts, colour balance (yes, I have a target, etc) and so on, and the negs are right on, with no special processing and no comment to the lab. It just comes out right.

You DO notice that consumer films (i.e. gold, etc) are low on my list, because those FILMS are not consistant.

I've had no trouble with the new supra, for instance, in C41. It has a bit lower max OD but that mostly serves to make it a LOT easier to scan.

I WILL say I prefer either Kodachrome or E6 for serious colour shooting, though. UNfortunately, I can't get my 120 K25 any more, (&(*&( it.

Btw, don't knock D76. If you KNOW that's what is going to be used, and how, you can get results that are as good as anything else. If you want, mail me privately and I'll point you to some scans of some D76 developed PanF, etc that there's nothing to complain about.

For the record, I despise Microdol, the stuff you use from concentrate that I hated so much I don't remember the name, and I'm not real swell on Tmax except on Tmax film, either. Technitol is a pest, but Tech Pan is wonderful stuff IF the lab handles it well. On that point I will agree most don't, and most get far too much contrast. I don't generally shoot litho.

I do wish I could still get FG7 split solution (type A/B) for situations where the compensating property would come in handy, though.
JJ

C41 220, processed in small 1 hour lab (yes, a good one) scanned by Minolta Scan Multi. Portra 160 VC.

This is how they do all the time.
JJ

Supra 800, N70 autoexpose, tripod. 50 mm 1.4. Somewhere around 5 seconds or so.

Scanned with Scan Multi. The specking isn't dust, mostly it's stuff that was up there.

Not art, but this one was printed just fine by the lab, and the processing was dead on.

I don't see any real problem, you just have to find a good lab.
JJ

All I remember is that I thought "wow, that looks really drab" for a moment and then realized that it was actually a lot closer to what I'd actually seen with my eyes (instead of that larger than life vibrancy that most films seem to give) and that the earth tones were dead on. Probably not a great film for art prints due to the low color saturation, but great for realistic landscapes. Just checked their web and it doesn't look like they make the stuff anymore (unless it's maybe RSX-100) Haven't tried Fuji NPS yet so might give that a try after I use up all the Reala (hm, just found a roll of Ilford SFX 200 IR film in there... wonder how long that stuff keeps... looks like it expired 3 years ago but it's been refrigerated.... How long can you keep film after the expiration date if you keep it refrigerated?).

Interconnects... not yet... been in Nashville for a couple of weeks taking care of my best friend who's HMO kicked her out of the hospital on the second day after major surgery (doh, love those places that tell doctors what to do). And, haven't been anywhere near an RS store lately, but I'll keep a note in my purse to pick up some of that cable when I do get to one. I did talk someone into trying my RG-214 Mil ICs though (said it was only marginally less transparent than Cardas Golden Cross on the treble but about the same in bass and midrange... haven't heard how it compared after breaking it in on a mobie yet. Anyway, can't beat that for freebe ICs I made by just pulling some extra antenna cable out of the closet (^0^). That's the big problem with my cable experiments... I can't afford the well known name-brand stuff to compare them to, so I'm stuck begging more "well heeled" people to try stuff for me)

HP 215 huh. I picked up a little Olympus digital that will fit in my purse.... crappy pictures but good enough for e-mailing snapshots and I'm more likely to lug it around than my Tank [ Canon T-90 ]. Really would like to find a digital back for that as it is a shame to have all those good FD mount lenses and then turn around and spend a fortune on a good digital camera that can't use them.

Well, and I am very comfortable to be in my wrong state. Read on.

***First, I get very reliable results both from 35mm and 120/220 at the labs I use, in fact I've shot test rolls, etc, at various times, and they are quite consistant….

You are very lucky to have this place. I hope you would be able to get the same result going through 80 rolls 220 dally. I wish… Unfortunately I made my statement not after “shot the test rolls” but after the setting and calibration many of the machines this “fully automated place” use and establishing and managing the number of the commercial labs. Yes, generally they produce the STABLE results.

***Second, the type of film, contrast, gamma, and saturation are indeed important in shooting situations EVEN IF THE LAB IS NOT GOOD.

Yes, it is correct. However, it is correct only if you use the development process as standard fixed parameter. Should you have an opportunity to understand deeper the underlying mechanism of development you would learn that the film quality, exposure and development methods are 3 connected, complex and flexible processes. So-called contrast, gamma, and saturation are not defined parameters of the film. They are measurements (most of the time marketing and not “completely” correct) how the film behaves under normal development and exposure condition. It’s it, but there is a lot of more to it…

***I have no idea why you've chosen to spread some really inaccurate rumours about photography and processing, but you're wrong.

OK

***As my MS is in fact in optical processing, I do in fact have a very good clue as to how to both test and evaluate processing and film results. In fact, I've done some res charts, colour balance (yes, I have a target, etc) and so on, and the negs are right on, with no special processing and no comment to the lab. It just comes out right.

Those accomplishments you mentioned I demanded from my employees who got paid less then $8/hour. It doesn’t say anything about the quality of the people I worked with but is dose say something about the value of our MS status. As a professional photographer and creator of number of developers and development techniques I assure you that there is a lot of room in “special processing” because there is no “standard processing”. There is only the correct correlation between the input conditions, the result and the method how you reach the best possible result.

***You DO notice that consumer films (i.e. gold, etc) are low on my list, because those FILMS are not consistant.

If you have chance try to get some film that people use in movie industry. You would be surprised and perhaps reevaluate the term “professional film”

***Btw, don't knock D76. If you KNOW that's what is going to be used, and how, you can get results that are as good as anything else. If you want, mail me privately and I'll point you to some scans of some D76 developed PanF, etc that there's nothing to complain about.

16 years ago I called D-76 “the great equalizer”. I did not mean the film. I meant the photographers. You just have been equalized. However, generally it is OK developer if you do not know better and spent too much time in school vs. a photography studio.

***For the record, I despise Microdol, the stuff you use from concentrate that I hated so much I don't remember the name, and I'm not real swell on Tmax except on Tmax film, either. Technitol is a pest, but Tech Pan is wonderful stuff IF the lab handles it well. On that point I will agree most don't, and most get far too much contrast. I don't generally shoot litho.

O man, I am sure you got a big party after your MS graduation….

Regards,
Romy the Cat

PS: Nice pictures… and of course they convinced me that you are all correct…

Boy, Romy, you take the cake for arrogance. If I *only* can use a commercial lab, then it's GOOD if I have a nice, stable process, and I can use the right film FOR THEIR PROCESS. This does not deny that if you happen to have a C41 setup, an E6 setup, and a full wet lab for B&W you can't do some neat things. Of course you can. The point you started with was a claim that information on what film to use was WORTHLESS. You're still dead wrong on that. Any lab that is close to calibration (and yes, I do know some aren't) will get the results most of us expect from RG100 or RVP or whatever. This means that film recs are entirely useful, because the emulsions are made for specific performance. All of your wailing about labs is wrong. Yes, someone may have to try to find a good lab. I had to. Anyone who cares will.

Your sliding from reliability (which is what your FIRST article addressed, and incorrectly) into custom development is simply trying to change the subject and engage in nice exercise of the fallacy of the excluded middle to make a personal attack.

To the point of what film to use, NO AMOUNT OF FIDDLING WITH DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO TURN K25 into RVP, now, is it? NOPE.

(me)As my MS is in fact in optical processing, I do in fact have a very good clue as to how to both test and evaluate processing and film results. In fact, I've done some res charts, colour balance (yes, I have a target, etc) and so on, and the negs are right on, with no special processing and no comment to the lab. It just comes out right.

***Those accomplishments you mentioned I demanded from my employees who got paid less then $8/hour. ***

WHAT accomplishments, pray tell? I didn't mention any. Do you mean the Fourier Optics, or the high-speed optical autocorrelation system that could find the eye of a needle, or the what? The res charts are what I do now from the comfort of my own home, to check what my lab is doing to me, as was entirely clear the first time. Your kind of game-playing here is more fit for r.a.o.

***It doesn’t say anything about the quality of the people I worked with but is dose say something about the value of our MS status. ***

Look, I spent time fiddling with about 2 tons of hologram plates, etc. THAT is what I did for an MS.

Tell you what, set up a lithium deturide F-center imaging setup, make it work and show the accuracy and speed of the correlations it makes, and then you can tell me about what I did for an MSEE. Since you claim that your $8.00 an hour employee can do that, show me the employee. After you do that, expect me to find her a job at a bit more than $8.00 an hour, too.

Yes, I also had to use res charts, etc, and calculate from some rather inconvenient densiometer readings the way to get the LiD into the right sort of gamma to give me some decent output, but that is sort of secondary, isn't it? It's all part of doing the work.

***As a professional photographer and creator of number of developers and development techniques I assure you that there is a lot of room in “special processing” because there is no “standard processing”.***

"NO STANDARD PROCESSING?" Get real. Something I send to the lab here and to IPG come out within the noise level. If that's not standard, the word has no meaning.

Now, custom processing is indeed very nice, IF, and I repeat IF you have access to it. I don't, generally, unless I ship stuff far away, so I simply use the film the way it was intended for standard processing, and you know what? I can live with it and make good images.

Now, I am pleased that you are a professional photographer and formulary chemist. I don't doubt that you do good work, either. I do wonder why you're so hostile to the fact that labs can and do a standard thing, be it for C41 or E6 or even a FEW for Techpan.

Just bear in mind that when you use your colour-table optimized JPG, you can go to the patent office and find a few patents that (Lucent, I think) hold in my name on the subject of psychovisual tuning for texture, color, and frequency content, in several color spaces. I don't doubt that you do good work, but you are WAY out of line when you assume that the person you are addressing is ignorant.

I am NOT a line photographer, and I know that. I am, however, entirely capable of checking the results I get from a lab, and they are indeed consistant (for the labs I use more than once or twice, of course), and consistant enough that film recommendations make a great deal of sense.

*** There is only the correct correlation between the input conditions, the result and the method how you reach the best possible result.***

And if you have a nice, stable lab who does consistant work, you know what to do when you expose the film, eh? Isn't that the point, if you don't have access to custom processing? Now, there are days, especially when I'm doing B&W, that I wish I had good push/pull processing, when I've got way too much contrast, or none to speak of, but I don't. I cope. Of course it would be nice to have a darkroom in my basement, but I wouldn't use it enough to keep the chemicals fresh.

The state of small labs out there is NOT as bad as you make it out. Now, there are some that are, well, um, "wretched", indeed. The solution for such labs is to only give them one roll, once. And don't make that one valuable, make it your living room, using familiar lighting, etc, so you KNOW what you get back.

The issue of using the right film STILL matters, even if the person is using a really BAD lab (although I'd not do that twice). You'd hardly use RVP on standard people shots in a studio setting now, would you?

On the other hand, you just MIGHT use RVP in a rain forest when you want that lush green, eh? You'd hardly use 160NC, though, under most situations for that, yes? NHG-2? You'd think twice about Ultra 50, I bet, too.

Yes, recommendations DO have some meaning, now, you have to admit, don't you?

Once again, my cv is included. Pay some attention to the publication list.
JJ

• JJ's CV

As to unrefrigerated film, I managed, in about 1975, to develop a roll of B&W my mom shot in 1944 and left in the attic. It was rather fogged, but we could get "ok" images, even then.

Try a roll, see what it does.
JJ

I don't know "Shit" about development.

Any good place to learn the process on the web that is recommendable?

The Dig cam ...basically has me spoiled.

My wife would tie me up and sic Maddie on me if I were too venture much into it.

First...being a musician, studio owner,engineer, tube head, loudspeaker consultant, acoustic engineer, Professor of the recording arts...now this?

Hell ain't half full....is it...

*** The point you started with was a claim that information on what film to use was WORTHLESS. You're still dead wrong on that.

The information on the film describes the films specification under the "standard" development. The word "standard" is artificial word, which was created in order to have a common denominator for the film evaluation, machines calibrations, and etc. The "standard" development dose not exists for capable photographers who do what they need vs do what is available. The standard development is an Industry term.

*** Your sliding from reliability (which is what your FIRST article addressed, and incorrectly) into custom development is simply trying to change the subject

It is not correct. The badly set machines, poor following the development instructions, disability (most of the time) the machines to handle the development parameters, the idiosyncrasies of the machine processing, and many other factors create the "custom development" (very far from the optimum for the givven film) which most of the time scrutinize the initial parameters of the film. (Assumingly the film is constant which is not true most of the time)

*** and engage in nice exercise of the fallacy of the excluded middle to make a personal attack.

I apologies if you feel this way.

*** Now, custom processing is indeed very nice, IF, and I repeat IF you have access to it. I don't, generally, unless I ship stuff far away, so I simply use the film the way it was intended for standard processing, and you know what? I can live with it and make good images.

Well, you talk about your UPS problems I am talking that I designed (and evaluated the competitors) not just the developer solutions but also the entire lab methodologies. Would you like to chat with me about the development idiosyncrasies related to the character of the light in your enlarger?

*** I do wonder why you're so hostile to the fact that labs can and do a standard thing.

Of course they can do and should do. But when you use the A film and the lab fuck it up and give to you the result witch is more suitable to B film then it eliminates the necessity to "chose" the film to begin with. (it was my initial point) Look, you told the new Kodak color Portra has lower gamma and somehow more "pastel" then "gipsy" Fuji... absolutely correct. Overfry the Kodak with 1 stop and you get the same result("almost")in case of "standard development". How about if your film is one of the 1500 220-rolls that the lab do on Monday (after all those Saturday weddings and bar/bat-ceremonies ) and your film is cooking in the comlitly dead even slightly reanimated soup... Go and ask any wedding studio that shot over 100 jobs a year and you will understand the source of my skepticism. There is no "good film" (for folks who can not control the "standard process") but there is a film, which can tolerate the abuse of the lab... and this film is the "good" one.

*** but you are WAY out of line when you assume that the person you are addressing is ignorant.

JJ, absolutely not. There is no accusation of ignorance at all. I muck some of your statements... being myself: miserable Cat. Do not worry, many Audio Industry Professionals nave no idea what they talking when we talk about the playback systems. But it was music not photography... so we out of danger here in this conversation...

*** film recommendations make a great deal of sense.

O yes, what king film you use when you shot the buildings higher then 11 floors, on Friday, with Bogen tripod and absolute humidity 86.5 %? So, you do adjust that Vibroplane...highly sophisticated tool by the way. Have you heard the Stravinsky's symphony for two violoncellos and one vibroplane?

*** Of course it would be nice to have a darkroom in my basement, but I wouldn't use it enough to keep the chemicals fresh.

Just for fan. When I was 17 years old I developed one very interesting B/W developer (BTW way more superior that D-76) witch was mixed, and left for 11 years (accidentally). Five years ago I receive the email from the guys who found it and decided to use it (very serious person by the way). It crystallized but it perfectly operatable.

*** Yes, recommendations DO have some meaning, now, you have to admit, don't you?

Hey, JJ... good luck with that Vibroplane adjustments... You're all right! As NPR's Click and Clack said "The academia is the diagnosis for an entire life"... No hard feelings...I kind of quit the photography many years ago and now I'm just entertaining myself by barking on the nice people like you. It is OK. Just do not drive like my brother... Peace... and Meow...

Romy The Cat

Looking at all the new pictures taken at www.photo.net with the D-30, it seems like a lot of the colors are still kinda "pasty". Nothing beats a nice scan of Velvia, IMHO.

There's a whole crop of new cameras coming out within the next year or two, and many are probably SLRs using the new Samsung CMOS. Yummy!

***The information on the film describes the films specification under the "standard" development.***

Yep, the situation that most of us poor mortals use.

*** The word "standard" is artificial word, which was created in order to have a common denominator for the film evaluation, machines calibrations, and etc.***

You mean it's a standard use of a standard word, "standard", in the standard way that English speakers use the word "standard". It's no more "artificial" than any other word in the language, or the language itself.

*** The "standard" development dose not exists for capable photographers who do what they need vs do what is available. The standard development is an Industry term.***

You would appear to be saying that "capable photographers" are not able to do the standard processing.

You have also indicated that $8.00 an hour people can. Which is it?

Btw, where is that $8.00/hr person who can do Fourier optics? I'm waiting for that, too.

Of course SOME labs have messed up machines. You fire them (by never going back) and that's that. Enough messed up and they'll be washed up.

***O yes, what king film you use when you shot the buildings higher then 11 floors, on Friday, with Bogen tripod and absolute humidity 86.5 %? So, you do adjust that Vibroplane...highly sophisticated tool by the way. Have you heard the Stravinsky's symphony for two violoncellos and one vibroplane?***

Film? If I have to do that, I go rent a short-lensed 4x5 with a lens that will cover 8x10, and hope I can tilt and shift it enough. It has nothing to do with film, as long as the film comes in 4x5.

Btw, *this* is a photo asylum, so go move the music back where it belongs.

Once again, since there ARE good labs that do what they are supposed to do, film reccomendations have value.

Your point of view is a bad joke. You rant about how film rec's are useless, because labs are bad, etc. You ignore the fact that some lot of us (I'm hardly the only one) find labs that aren't.

Of COURSE custom development can be useful, BUT using a film at its target use is an entirely reasonable action, too, and one that us mere mortals with papers and patents in the vision and optics field often use.

Your assumption that I haven't used polycontrast paper is amusing, btw, of course you could also be talking about diffusors vs. condensors, or a few other things, which I'm sure you made sure of so you can't be pinned down.

Now drop it.

You remind me of the cat in the image included here, Romy. If I were you, I'd be careful about annoying the dog any more.
JJ

Just remember, at the end of the night, I ain't lost!

This means that all comments on the thread are to stop. The participants are to cool off or an automatic 7 day ban will be put in place to force them to do so. If this "COOL IT" post is persistently ignored on three different occasions, then the offender(s) will be permanently banned.

No further follow-ups will be considered.

Thank you for your support of the Asylum.

Most of my stuff is underwater, and the Fuji has great saturation and a perfect colour balance for UW. I use the Velvia when I am shooting something particularly colourful up close (and have a 300 WS strobe to cook the subject) or for wide angle when it is a very sunny day. Otherwise the Provia is my standard.

Van

Van

Found the Hassey to be a wonderful camera and was a very enjoyable experience BUT... The camera was not used as much as i had desired. It is big, heavy, and as my work is mainly web related, going with legacy film was too awkward and expensive (over digital).

Going with a good digital camera, like Canon D30, i have all the flexibilities of the Hassey (actually more than the Hassey) and being digital i KNOW immediately if what was shot is good or bad. The ability to post images on the web virtually immediately is a KEY factor here for me.

Yes, the Hassey gives better prints for LARGE blow ups, the D30 seems fine for ALL normal print media to full page size. Furthermore, my local photo store can make TRUE photo prints from my digital images. Add to that i can print color copies onto photo paper (2400x1400 dpi) on to Kodak photo paper.

Guess in the end it came down to ease of integration into my work load combined with the capabilities of using in print magazines and making prints make the D30, for me, the better choice.

If i was doing large scale work for billboards, things may be VERY different. Some say the D30 does a respectable print on photograph paper up to 10 x 14, though i'd peg it more at 8 x 10. For 5x7 i would challenge anyone to truly tell the difference between the D30 and the Hassey under "NORMAL" developing and printing circumstances.

Of course with print you can play around with developing technics and flavors, while in digital we have Photoshop and the likes. Which is more flexible? Photoshop by a HUGE margin of course. Yes you could digitally scan a transparency of the Hassey and have fun, though then we have HIGH COST factors and more technics to insure a CLEAN scan, etc involved.

As Kermit the Frog said "It's not easy being green". The choice for me was NOT an easy one, though the D30 is a wonderful and "reasonably priced" unit whose lenses will not break the bank as the Hasey's will.

In the end it was a personal choice.

Enjoy the music,

Steven R. Rochlin

The Royal Gold Kodak stuff is pretty good. I usually shoot 100 ISO film. I will use Agfa 100 and Fuji 100, but prefer the Kodak. However, I've not been using my Nikon F2 nor my Leica M3 lately as I've gone digital for much of my photography. For b & w, I go Ilford (the 400 stuff that can take regular colour processing is excellent), but I usually use a 125 ISO formulation.

The Kodak Max is okay, but the Gold 100 stuff is preferrable.

Cheers,

Allan