I was never satisfied with the results I got from this film. Skin
tones are too orange, and overall tonality is not impressive. I expose
it at ei 200 and develope "normally". I know that a lot of people use
it pushed, but I was wondering maybe it should be pulled instead. What
is the reall ISO of this film? And for those who get exellent results
with it, do you usually over or underdevelop?
thanks
J.
Gordon Moat - 03 May 2004 18:37 GMT
> I was never satisfied with the results I got from this film. Skin
> tones are too orange, and overall tonality is not impressive. I expose
> it at ei 200 and develope "normally". I know that a lot of people use
> it pushed, but I was wondering maybe it should be pulled instead. What
> is the reall ISO of this film?
While I might be working under slightly different lighting conditions, or
my metering gear might be slightly different, I get the best results at
exactly ISO 200 with E200.
> And for those who get exellent results
> with it, do you usually over or underdevelop?
>
> thanks
> J.
I have pull processed some E200 to ISO 100, mostly to see if it was that
versatile. Basically, the contrast dropped even more, which I thought was
not so good, since it is already medium to low contrast. If you need ISO
200 and great skin tones, then I think Fuji Astia 100F pushed one stop
works better.
Be aware that E200 is a little developer sensitive, and if the developer
is near time to be replenished, then results could be much worse. Also,
it is not a film to be underexposed, so if in doubt about lighting or
metering, add about 1/3 stop. Be aware that using plus 1/3 all conditions
could just blow out the highlights.
As to the skin tones, I do think there are better choices. While E200 is
okay, and can work well for sports, music, low light, et al; I think it
is not the best controlled lighting portrait film. I would choose and use
Astia 100F for controlled lighting portraits.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com
Michael Scarpitti - 03 May 2004 20:53 GMT
> I was never satisfied with the results I got from this film. Skin
> tones are too orange, and overall tonality is not impressive. I expose
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> thanks
> J.
Use Kodachrome 200, mate. It has superb flesh tones.
Gregory W Blank - 03 May 2004 22:30 GMT
> I was never satisfied with the results I got from this film. Skin
> tones are too orange, and overall tonality is not impressive. I expose
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> thanks
> J.
I feel that although two stops is about the max you ever want to attempt pulling
slide film a useful pull is 1/2 stop or less. It will saturate the color if your
scene is slightly contrasty, bright sky dark forground. Aside from that
adjust I always rate slide film at ASA and bracket up to full stop each way.
Film is cheap, reshoots are not. Filter unwanted color is my motto.

Signature
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
<<<For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution
Norman Worth - 06 May 2004 04:40 GMT
I'm not sure, but it sounds a bit like underexposure or overdevelopment.
Are the other areas of the transparency OK? Does the exposure look correct?
If so, it may just be your taste in color and you should try another film.
If not, there are two usual suspects: the light meter and the thermometer.
Both are notoriously inaccurate and inconsistent from one example to
another. You can buy thermometers with guaranteed accuracy, and if you keep
your processing accurate to about a degree, you shouldn't have any troubles.
If temperature isn't your problem, your exposure may be off. Some
experiments are called for to calibrate your camera and metering system
(including your technique). You may find your effective EI is far different
from the ISO speed. It is also possible that your shutter is miscalibrated,
although that usually results in overexposure.
> I was never satisfied with the results I got from this film. Skin
> tones are too orange, and overall tonality is not impressive. I expose
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> thanks
> J.