 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / September 2004Antarctica print film
We are going to Antarctica, South Georgia, and the Falklands in Feb 2005. Any suggestions on type of print film ( Kodak vs. Fuji) and speed? I have a Nikon F-100. When we went to Churchill 2 years ago, I used mainly Kodak Royal Gold 200 and 400 speed films and got wonderful polar bear pictures. I figured I would do the same this time since it is film I am familiar with. However, the light is going to be different so I was not sure if I should use different speed. Thanks I would suggest a high quality film from Kodak or Fuji. Bring some 100 speed and 800 speed. I would also be careful about show, ice and other bright, white scenes that will fool an in camera meter. More important that the film is finding a high quality lab to process the film and make prints. Jon Well I just discovered that Kodak does not make the Royal Gold anymore. I have emailed them about their high def film but wondered if anyone has used it or has other suggestions? I want to try several rolls of whatever film I use before next year so I am not experimenting on the trip. Thanks in advance for your help. > Well I just discovered that Kodak does not make the Royal Gold anymore. > I have emailed them about their high def film but wondered if anyone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks in advance for your help. It seems that Kodak, in yet another breath-takingly stupid move, has renamed Royal Gold as "High Definition". Kodak marketing never ceases to amaze me. It is beyond incompetent. We need a new term for it. Thanks Mike-I had a feeling it was something like that. Tracy > It seems that Kodak, in yet another breath-takingly stupid move, has > renamed Royal Gold as "High Definition". > > Kodak marketing never ceases to amaze me. It is beyond incompetent. We > need a new term for it. Greetings Mike, I can appreciate the concern and questions around the new High Definition film. I think that the naming was to help people understand what the film could do over a name that implied 'the best = Royal Gold' High Definition does a good job of that as the film does provide that and more. Since I am not in the marketing group, I am sure they were trying to help by being more descriptive. Talk to you soon, Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company > > Well I just discovered that Kodak does not make the Royal Gold anymore. > > I have emailed them about their high def film but wondered if anyone [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Kodak marketing never ceases to amaze me. It is beyond incompetent. We > need a new term for it. >> It seems that Kodak, in yet another breath-takingly stupid move, has >> renamed Royal Gold as "High Definition". >> >> Kodak marketing never ceases to amaze me. It is beyond incompetent. We >> need a new term for it. > I can appreciate the concern and questions around the new High Definition > film. I think that the naming was to help people understand what the film > could do over a name that implied 'the best = Royal Gold' High Definition > does a good job of that as the film does provide that and more. Since I > am not in the marketing group, I am sure they were trying to help by being > more descriptive. Ron, until this posting, I was sure that Kodak HD film was marketing nonsense, especially since Walmart and drugstores were involved (at least locally). Maybe I might try a roll or two now. Leave the descriptions to spec sheets. > >> It seems that Kodak, in yet another breath-takingly stupid move, has > >> renamed Royal Gold as "High Definition". [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Maybe I might try a roll or two now. Leave the descriptions to spec > sheets. HD/Royal Gold are just about the most amazing color negative films around. > Greetings Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ron Baird > Eastman Kodak Company The film is marvelous. It is, however, the THIRD name for the film line in 15 years. Ektar Royal Gold High Definition Interestingly, both 'Ektar' and 'Royal' have a long history with Kodak as brand names. 'Ektar' was used for lenses(!) and 'Royal' has been used for many films (Royal Pan, Royal Ortho) and I think for some equipment as well. The point is that constantly changing the names is confusing. It is also highly doubtful that Kodak needs TWO amateur color negative film lines. In addition, the name 'Kodacolor' which had long been used has been dropped, and we have instead a variety of names for Kodak's 'regular' line of films, which are now termed 'bright sun' or 'max'. What's wrong with 'Kodacolor 400'? It's easy to remember (fancy that!) and descriptive. In addition to dropping the name 'Kodacolor', Kodak has also dropped the name 'Ektacolor', which had been used for Pro films. 'Vericolor' replaced it, to no great advantage. Kodak has so many lines of color negative films that I cannot keep them straight, so how is the layman consumer supposed to do it? There are THREE lines of pro neg films (THREE!). Portra has two subsets (NC and VC) and then there's Ultra. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorNegativeIndex.jhtml?id =0.1.18.14.11&lc=en In other parts of the world, there are others: http://wwwin.kodak.com/IN/images/en/corp/img/products/films/Kodak_Ultima_Lflt_V1 .12.pdf How about this: 'Kodacolor' and 'Royal Color' for amateurs. Fuhi's naming system seems better. Hi Mike, These are similar negative films but quite different in their response etc. They evolved over time and the coatings on them changed over the years as well. Kodacolor was actually introduced in the year I was born, so we have the same birthday. Kodachrome was released a few years earlier in 1935). The film names were plentiful then as Kodak technology allowed for some very sophisticated coatings (something they are better at than any in the world). So the films were different based on the ability to create so many varied coatings. Since film was used so much in that era, there was a great demand for many film types and variations. Lighting was also a factor and some films came with different lighting preferences as well. I don't think that Royal was introduced into the Kodacolor or negative product line until much later than 1942, I would guess closer to the late Sixties or seventies. Again, a distinction used by many for the number of products that were offered at the time. For me, I see the naming convention today to be much more explicit and helpful. Kodacolor 400 is very well known to me, and I understand what it can do. But for someone who never took a picture they would not know anything about it. The newer name of 'Bright Sun' however, tells me a lot about how to use and what I might choose in the store to get good pictures in those conditions. Certainly a small point, Mike, and I just wanted to share with you on what I saw as the reasoning behind some of the names used for Kodak film. Talk to you soon. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company > > Greetings Mike, > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Kodak has so many lines of color negative films that I cannot keep > them straight, so how is the layman consumer supposed to do it? Hello Mr. Baird, Thanks for the helpful information. > Hi Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > for many film types and variations. Lighting was also a factor and some > films came with different lighting preferences as well. With your mentioning coatings, you brought up an issue about some Kodak films. There are differences in storage between pro films, and consumer films, yet there are also some differences in final image results. An example of this is Ektachrome E200, compared to Elite Chrome 200. I tried some extreme push situations with Elite Chrome 200, that I already know work with E200. While the exposure index worked out the same in results, there was a noticeable colour difference between rendering of these two films. It seems to me that Elite Chrome is more similar to the older Ektachrome (EPD), than to the newer E200. Indeed the designation of ED also leads me to think that is the situation. Is that true, or is there that much difference in the coatings? Or is it simply the difference of intended storage conditions that ages the film differently? Thanks for any input you can place on this. Also, I have lots of information from testing push settings for E200, and I am willing to share those with others. Is there some way to get the PDF information updated so that more photographers could benefit from my experiments? I agree with you about the consumer film naming, though I should point out that some professional film naming just went the other direction. The older E100SW could be thought of as Saturated Warm, while the new E100G and E100GX do not provide any similar connection. Any ideas on those? Thanks again. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated! Greetings Gordon, As you know one of the differences between a professional and a general use film is the need for consistency by the pro. Very often a professional wants to make sure the film he or she uses is going to be the same in its response when processed at a Qlab or a pro lab where the process is precisely controlled, generally more so than you might find in a home lab etc. This way the photographer will know that their purchase of several hundred rolls of film will let them zero in that emulsion so they can account for abberations etc. that might be in lenses and individual camera bodies. So with that overcome they can move ahead and use the film knowing that when it is processed the results will be exact. Professional film does have some precise coatings that make it a little different but it also has a specific dating scheme that lets the professional know that it is within its peak when they get it, as long as they store and use correctly results will be consistent with what they had in the past. Push processing is tricky business, and again, needs very careful processing. Remember, Gordon, the process you use must be exactly the same, i.e. temperatures, chemical mix, agitation, times, and so on. If there are variations in one it can effect the rest and hence the resulting images. I mention this for those reading the thread and I am sure yours meet these criteria. As to what is in emulsions, Gordon, I am not privy to that kind of information any longer. I can tell you though, that Kodak spends a lot of money making sure it knows what the user wants and applies that information to its new products and enhancements. Talk to you soon, Gordon, enjoy talking to you. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company > Hello Mr. Baird, > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated! > ... Also, I have lots of information > from testing push settings for E200, and I am willing to share those > with others. Is there some way to get the PDF information updated > so that more photographers could benefit from my experiments? Gordon, I would be interested in reading your comments. Is there an alternate venue where you could publish them? > Hi Mike, > > These are similar negative films but quite different in their response etc. ... Someone else wrote: >> The film is marvelous. It is, however, the THIRD name for the film >> line in 15 years. >> >> Ektar >> Royal Gold >> High Definition Coming into this discussion late, I am left with a question. I have not been seriously involved in photography for a long time, when I left it, I had enjoyed using Ektar 25. From what I saw in the stores (at least here in Israel and in the magazines with U.S. and U.K. ads) that the film is long gone. Tuning in late here gives me some hope that it stil exists, maybe not at ISO 25, but as a similar faster film. So the question is, does the Ektar line of film still exist under another name? How can one use it to get the best results similar to the old Ektar 25? Thanks, Geoff.  SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, C.T.O. GW&T Ltd., Jerusalem Israel gsm@mendelson.com gsm@gwandt.com IL Voice: 972-544-608-069 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 > Does the Ektar line of film still exist under another name? > How can one use it to get the best results similar to the old Ektar 25? Ektar technology was carried forward into the Royal Gold line. Or perhaps you could say it was simply a name change. Ektar 25 was called Royal Gold 25 when it disappeared from the market. T-grain technology, which may have been pioneered in the Ektar line (I'm not certain) has spread to almost all Kodak films now. At least this is what I've heard, although some films (e.g. Ultra Color 400) seem far less grainy than other supposedly T-grain films at the same and lower ISO ratings. There really isn't any film like Ektar 25. Konica Impresa 50 @ EI 40 came close in resolution and grain, though not in color rendition, but it has been discontinued. Fuji Reala 100 is perhaps the highest resolution / lowest grain print film currently on the market. Hello Bill, Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about writing something of my experiences with very far push processing films. To help you, and some others that are interested in this, I will try to write a short article with this information. Whenever I get it done, I will post the article location here, and allow people to download it as a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200, though I will mention some other films with that. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! > Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have > dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a PDF for future reference. Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200, > though I will mention some other films with that. / Ciao! Gordon, thanks for the follow-up. E200 is rather out-of-fashion now. Even before the digital onslaught Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh? Otherwise I think your article would probably belong in Photo Techniques magazine. I'm interested in E200 because it's versatile and low contrast but I'm not sure how many other people are. So I'd be happy to read any comments you might have. > > Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have > > dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Provia 400F was the "hip" thing, although it is quite grainy and people > who like it recommend shooting @ 200 and pulling one stop. Weird, eh? Definitely. Fuji Provia 400F is a pain to scan on most film and drum scanners. The grain is indeed more noticeable than taking E200 and pushing it to ISO 800 (actually a three stop push with exposure compensation considered. I probably use more E200 than any other film. It is very even in colour saturation, and quite good for natural subjects, or even for mixed lighting, or night exposures. It would be nice if Kodak updated this film with even smaller grain, though I don't know if they will ever do that. I suppose with all the slow zoom lenses out there now, that ISO 400 is something people find more useful. Both push and pull processing cost extra at nearly all labs, so not too many people do that. > Otherwise I think your article would probably belong in Photo Techniques > magazine. I'm interested in E200 because it's versatile and low contrast > but I'm not sure how many other people are. I am familiar with that magazine, and I have a few copies that I have kept as great reference material. I guess that would be a consideration, though I could just post something on my web site. Maybe there is not much interest in E200. I like the lower contrast as well, and that even up to push three settings, there is little noticeable change in contrast. It even works well at ISO 100, and pulling, though I prefer Fuji Astia 100F as a low contrast ISO 100 film. If I had to do so, I could probably do 90% of my work using just E200. > So I'd be happy to read any comments you might have. It might take me some time to write it up, though I will let you know. Currently, it is several notes and many image examples. There is also Kodak Ektachrome P800 and Fujichrome MS100/1000 for comparison, both of which were my previous low light film choices. P800 is now really expensive, and I would expect it to be discontinued soon. MS100/1000 has already been discontinued. The advantage over E200 of both of those was the ability to go even higher in push processing settings, though the results were much more apparent grain, much higher contrast, and somewhat strange colour shifts. My basis to determine push characteristics started by investigating long time exposures, and reciprocity characteristics. That originating point gave information for me that indicated possible push settings and exposure compensation. Testing determined my thoughts to be correct. All this knowledge extends the possibilities of colour photography under low light conditions. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! > > > Sorry to respond on this thread, but my news server seemed to have > > > dropped the earlier posting. I have thought about what you said about [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > or night exposures. It would be nice if Kodak updated this film with even > smaller grain, though I don't know if they will ever do that. I second the E200 thoughts, I use it a lot doing interior photography. I might just give it a try in 4x5. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 What is E200? Never heard of that one??? I have found that Kodak 200 print film is the most grainy film I have ever used. It is about as grainy as 800. Fuji's 200 is not as bad but it still has more grain than their Superia 400. Smitty Mostly, this would concern using Kodak E200, > though I will mention some other films with that. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! > What is E200? Never heard of that one??? It is transparency film (positive film), also sometimes called slide film (like in 35 mm sizes). > I have found that Kodak 200 print > film is the most grainy film I have ever used. It is about as grainy as 800. > Fuji's 200 is not as bad but it still has more grain than their Superia 400. > Smitty I rarely ever use colour print films (negative films). However, if you only want lots of prints from your images, then there is not much advantage to using positive films. If you want to learn more about E200, and transparency films, visit: <http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/e200/e200Index.jhtml> One thing I have been discussing here is that I have found consistent settings to allow push processing of E200 beyond the ISO 800 that Kodak indicate in their materials. Unfortunately, Kodak have little interest in advertising that capability, so it seems that I would need to do my own write-up to share my information with others. It may take some time, but I promise to do that. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! Perhaps I did not make my self understood. I shoot mostly chromes. I use provia 100f, Velvia 50 and 100. E100SW, E100VS and sensia 100. It was the E200 designator I had never heard of. Smitty > > What is E200? Never heard of that one??? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If you want to learn more about E200, and transparency films, visit: <http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/e200/e200Index.j html> > One thing I have been discussing here is that I have found consistent settings > to allow push processing of E200 beyond the ISO 800 that Kodak indicate in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! E200 is Kodak Ektachrome 200 Professional, similar to E100G but faster and grainier and with lower contrast. E100SW is no longer around. > Perhaps I did not make my self understood. I shoot mostly chromes. I use > provia 100f, Velvia 50 and 100. E100SW, E100VS and sensia 100. It was the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> A G Studio >> <http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html> Updated! > Perhaps I did not make my self understood. I shoot mostly chromes. The comment about Kodak 200 print film threw me off a bit. > I use > provia 100f, Velvia 50 and 100. E100SW, E100VS and sensia 100. It was the > E200 designator I had never heard of. > Smitty Okay, I have used, or continue to use, all of those. Compared to E200, all are higher contrast, though not by a great amount. Kodak E200 has less apparent grain than Provia 100F, though more than any of the other films. Also, some have mentioned that they though Elite Chrome 200 was the same film, though in some extensive recent testing, I have found that the colour response characteristics are not the same. I was a bit sceptical about E200 initially, though a few other working photographers kept suggesting I try some. After finally using E200 in 35 mm and roll film, I really never stopped using it, and now buy more of that than any other transparency film I use. The only thing I think Kodak could improve would be even less grain, though I am not sure if they will do that in the future (I hope). Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated! > > > What is E200? Never heard of that one??? > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > my > > information with others. It may take some time, but I promise to do that. > Okay, I have used, or continue to use, all of those. Compared to E200, all > are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > some extensive recent testing, I have found that the colour response > characteristics are not the same. What difference did you find? There is of course batch-to-batch variation. The published specifications are indistinguishable the last time I checked. > I was a bit sceptical about E200 initially, though a few other working > photographers kept suggesting I try some. After finally using E200 in 35 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > future (I > hope). I have been told that they are going to do so -- it will be similar to the upgrade that E100 and Elite Chrome 100 underwent about a year and a half ago, with very little fanfare. The upgrade *may* catch us unawares. Please keep me posted if you have any interesting test results from E100, E200, or their relatives. These are currently the best films for long-exposure astrophotography. SignatureClear skies, Michael A. Covington Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html > > Okay, I have used, or continue to use, all of those. Compared to E200, all > > are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What difference did you find? Mostly a more green bias in daylight images. Also, in night images, there is a tendency to be more affected by fluorescent light sources. > There is of course batch-to-batch variation. So I bought a five pack batch and kept it refrigerated, much as I would have for E200. Maybe I should not have treated Elite Chrome 200 like professional film, and it might work better if kept warmer prior to use. However, I have forgotten about a roll or three of E200 in one of my camera bags, let it sit at room temperature for weeks, and never got close to the colour rendition of Elite Chrome. While not strictly scientific, I do not have any results from E200 that look like anything I have using Elite Chrome 200. The greatest difference was in night images. The E200 needs less blue filtration, and can handle about 1/3 stop less exposure than Elite Chrome 200. Since I do lots of night imagery, to me that is a significant difference. My work is often somewhat colour critical (consistency) specific, and I could not afford to be too far off with using Elite Chrome 200 instead of E200. To my eyes, the end results are noticeably different. > The published specifications are indistinguishable the last time I checked. They are very close, but it seems to me that these are not super finite graphs, so that comparison might not hold up as well as one would expect. It very well might be that the storage requirements are what affects the final outcome, and could be more important than the chemical construction. I have briefly used Ektachrome 200 Professional in the past (roll film only), which Kodak previously labelled as EPD. It is interesting that Elite Chrome 200 is labelled ED, though I have nothing to go by on if they are similar. The last data sheet I have for EPD shows it to be really close to ED, and really close to E200, though the few results samples that I can compare indicate a slight colour difference in all three. Basically, E200 provides a very consistent response. If Elite Chrome is supposed to respond the same, then maybe I got a really bad batch. However, the risk of getting another possibly bad batch will put me back to only using E200 in the future. > > I was a bit sceptical about E200 initially, though a few other working > > photographers kept suggesting I try some. After finally using E200 in 35 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > upgrade that E100 and Elite Chrome 100 underwent about a year and a half > ago, with very little fanfare. The upgrade *may* catch us unawares. I never used much E100SW, but I did use E100S. The newer E100G is not much to my liking, though I think the E100GX is an improvement. Of all ISO 100 transparency films, I use E100VS more than anything else. I would welcome an improved E200, as I think many other photographers. > Please keep me posted if you have any interesting test results from E100, > E200, or their relatives. These are currently the best films for > long-exposure astrophotography. I never tried astrophotography, but I have many long time night images done with E100VS and E200. My extreme push usage of E200 is one realm that a few people have expressed some interest in reading more . . . so I am working on a short paper (or article) to help out other photographers. I will try to post something here when I get that done. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Updated! > Hi Mike, > > These are similar negative films but quite different in their response etc. > They evolved over time and the coatings on them changed over the years as > well. Kodacolor was actually introduced in the year I was born, so we have > the same birthday. 1942? My point was that the name 'Kodacolor' wasn't 'broke' and didn't need to be 'fixed'. It had a tremendous history behind it and everyone knew what it was. It had considerable 'brand equity' as it's called. > Kodachrome was released a few years earlier in 1935). > The film names were plentiful then as Kodak technology allowed for some very [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sixties or seventies. Again, a distinction used by many for the number of > products that were offered at the time. The term 'Royal' is an old Kodak designation. Royal Pan, Royal Ortho, etc. were black-and-white sheet films listed in my copy of 'Kodak Black-and-White Films' from 1958. From what I can gather, the term 'Royal' was introduced in the 1950's. The name was aslo used for the Royalprint B&W paper processor. 'Ektar' dates from at least the same time, perhaps earlier, and was used first for Kodak lenses. The prefix 'Koda' identified films for amateurs (Kodachrome, Kodacolor) and the prefix 'Ekta' identified films for pros (Ektachrome, Ektacolor). The suffix 'chrome' identified transparency and the suffix 'color' identified negative materials. It was all very simple. Pros used Ektachrome sheet film in the studio for catalogue photography and Ektacolor negative film for weddings. Kodak offered processing services for 'Koda' materials only (i.e., Kodachrome and Kodacolor) for many years. > For me, I see the naming convention today to be much more explicit and > helpful. Kodacolor 400 is very well known to me, and I understand what it > can do. But for someone who never took a picture they would not know > anything about it. The newer name of 'Bright Sun' however, tells me a lot > about how to use and what I might choose in the store to get good pictures > in those conditions. You could use both. The point I was making is that Kodak have now used 5 or 6 names for Kodacolor film: Kodacolor (Kodacolor, Kodacolor-X, Kodacolor II, Kodacolor 100, 200, 400, Kodacolor VR 100, 200, 400, etc.) Ektar Royal Gold (Select Series) High Definition Max Bright Sun The relationship between them is not clear to the causal photographer. It is also not clear that Ektar, Royal Gold, and High Definition are the same line renamed. Ektar originally was available in 25, 125, 400, and 1000 speed versions. > Certainly a small point, Mike, and I just wanted to share with you on what I > saw as the reasoning behind some of the names used for Kodak film. There are too many names and too many films, and too many name changes. > Talk to you soon. > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Kodak has so many lines of color negative films that I cannot keep > > them straight, so how is the layman consumer supposed to do it? > Ektar originally was available in 25, 125, 400, and 1000 speed > versions. If I remember correctly Ektar 25 was different. If the higher speed versions had a "look" similar to Ektachrome, then 25 had the "look" of Kodachrome. Geoff SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, C.T.O. GW&T Ltd., Jerusalem Israel gsm@mendelson.com gsm@gwandt.com IL Voice: 972-544-608-069 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 > > Ektar originally was available in 25, 125, 400, and 1000 speed > > versions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Geoff Perhaps because of the fine grain. But 'Ektar' films were all made with a different crystal technology (T-grain) than the 'regular' negative films. > Greetings Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ron Baird > Eastman Kodak Company Where are you going my little one, little one? Where are you going my baby, my own? Turn around and you're two, Turn around and you're four, Turn around and you're a young girl Going out of the door. Where are you going my little one, little one? Little pigtails and petticoats, Where have you gone? Turn around and you're tiny, Turn around and you're grown, Turn around and you're a young wife With babes of your own. Ah Mike, You have hit on one of my favorite songs. I have played it weddings and for my two Daughters. Thanks for the memories. Ron Baird Eastman Kodak Company > > Greetings Mike, > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Turn around and you're a young girl > Going out of the door. << Kodak high def film >> I have used some just recently and was very pleased with the results. Most of my shots were indoors using a Vivitar 285 flash. I thought the color saturation was better than Kodak Gold. That is great to hear. I will be mainly doing outdoor shots but I am making a trip to the east coast next month so I can try it out. Thanks-Tracy >> > I have used some just recently and was very pleased with the results. Most of > my shots were indoors using a Vivitar 285 flash. I thought the color > saturation was better than Kodak Gold. Last year i traveled to Antarctica, I shot only slide film (Fuji Velvia & Provia). However I recommend that if your not good at exposure then don't take slide film. My recommendation in Negative would be Fuji Reala . However it's a little more expensive than your standard Kodak Gold/Fuji superia, but then hey, you just spent $3000USD on the boat trip down, so why suddenly get stingy on the film! > Well I just discovered that Kodak does not make the Royal Gold anymore. > I have emailed them about their high def film but wondered if anyone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks in advance for your help. James-which airports did you fly through and did security do a hand-check of your film instead of X-ray? We are limited to 55 pounds per person on the charter flight from Santiago to Ushuia so I would like to leave the lead bags at home if I can. Thanks-Tracy I'm Australian, So my flights consisted of Sydney -> Auckland Auckland -> Beunos Aires Beunos Aires -> Ushuia antarctic voyage Ushuia -> BA BA -> Auckland Auckland -> Sydney I had about 50 rolls of film, and the airport staff wouldn't hand check it at any point. So it went through in total 6 hand baggage x-ray scanners, and the film was not damaged at all. No signs of any fogging. Mind you it was only 50 & 100 speed film, so i didn't expect any damage to occur. Cheers James > James-which airports did you fly through and did security do a hand-check of > your film instead of X-ray? We are limited to 55 pounds per person > on the charter flight from Santiago to Ushuia so I would like to leave > the lead bags at home if I can. > > Thanks-Tracy > We are going to Antarctica, South Georgia, and the Falklands in Feb 2005. > Any suggestions on type of print film ( Kodak vs. Fuji) and speed? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Thanks I would use tghe Royal Gold but be sure to have them processed at a lab that uses KodaK paper. Thanks for the answers. I generally use Kodak paper and I always do on big trips. I am glad to hear that I can use the same film-makes things much easier. You have both been very helpful-thanks again > and got wonderful polar bear pictures. I figured I would do the same this time There's no bears down there's. SignatureOtzi No bears and I understand you can smell the penguins from miles away. With the polar bears, I had to be careful too with the light. Doing spot metering in the center of the bear worked well. I was still learning how to use my Nikon F-100 but I was so happy with how the pictures turned out. There were several people with digital cameras who had all sorts of problems because of the cold weather and I ended up sending them copies of my pictures. Considering that I am quite the amateur, I was quite pleased. > There's no bears down there's. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.