 |
 | 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 / Medium format / February 2005Fuji 120 NPH vs NPS grain at 20x30
I'm shooting portrait of about 20 people tommorrow, indoors, and I've got a question. I have two B800 bees and 2 B400s. Obviously, I will need the B800s. I'm using white umbrellas. I'm using digital for proofing, but since they want a 20x30, I'm going to shoot it in medium format, not chancing it with my E1, which is only 5 megapixels. Since I'm thinking the B800s should be powerful enough for F/8 (F/11 is my goal), but I'm thinking of using ISO 400 film to get more light from the bees, in case the B800s are not powerful enough at ISO 160 However, at 20x30, what kind of grain should I expect on a 20x30 from Fuji NPH (120) 400, is there a noticeable difference compared to ISO 160 (NPS) film? Patrick > However, at 20x30, what kind of grain should I expect on a 20x30 from Fuji > NPH (120) 400, is there a noticeable difference compared to ISO 160 (NPS) > film? Are you being paid to do this job? >> However, at 20x30, what kind of grain should I expect on a 20x30 from >> Fuji >> NPH (120) 400, is there a noticeable difference compared to ISO 160 (NPS) >> film? > > Are you being paid to do this job? What does that matter? Answer the question or piss off.  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > > Are you being paid to do this job? > > What does that matter? Answer the question or piss off. I don't see how my counter question warranted your belligerent response. Well , It may matter a great deal to the people that were convinced he had the skills to do the job and be paid to do so,.. which is why I asked. It was a simple question on my part. I do wonder how many other professional photographers get sick of seeing people ask questions after the fact that they took a paying job from them. A photographer that contracts a job better accomplished by someone that would have known what to expect and do is a huge burden to the very competitive market place. That photographer seldom does the client any favors in terms of quality. Maybe he is not getting paid which places his question in whole other context. Why should I answer a question for someone that is claiming to be a professional ? This response of yours puts you in a whole new light to me. Thanks for clarifying yourself - Clara. >> > Are you being paid to do this job? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Maybe he is not getting paid which places his question in whole other > context. Really? How does a question about grain change whether he's getting paid or not? > Why should I answer a question for someone that is claiming to be a > professional ? whine whine whine--do you know anything about grain? Can you answer his question? Maybe you can, but your bullshit makes clear you're not interested in doing that. You're worried about losing a job. Keep on whining, I'll be happy to take the work out from under you, too. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > Really? How does a question about grain change whether he's getting paid or > not? Obviously you did not read his whole post. > > Why should I answer a question for someone that is claiming to be a > > professional ? > > > whine whine whine--do you know anything about grain? Can you answer his > question? Yes >Maybe you can, but your bullshit makes clear you're not > interested in doing that. Your the only one that cares and is taking issue with a simple question. >You're worried about losing a job. Keep on > whining, I'll be happy to take the work out from under you, too. Yawn- "Right",.... LOL. I feel so intimidated. > Your the only one that cares and is taking issue with a simple question. That's not quite true. He's the only one who has mentioned anything about your way of not answering a question. So far. Now he even isn't that. If you have an issue with what someone is asking, explain what it is, tell us why you feel you shouldn't answer the question. But you didn't. If your question answering a question was supposed to lead to something pertinent, tell us what that is. But you didn't do that either. Or don't respond at all. But you did. Best however would have been if you just answered the question that was put. Which again you didn't. I think your response ("simple question"... you do think we are complete idiots here, do you?) is completely pointless. And yes, i did, and do, take issue. > > Your the only one that cares and is taking issue with a simple question. > > That's not quite true. > He's the only one who has mentioned anything about your way of not answering > a question. So far. > Now he even isn't that. Ok so your number two. There's probably more "so" whatever. > If you have an issue with what someone is asking, explain what it is, tell > us why you feel you shouldn't answer the question. But you didn't. I guess I'll just stay quiet next time. > If your question answering a question was supposed to lead to something > pertinent, tell us what that is. So you want me to auger the OP's response to my question? How would I know wether the response he gives would/will lead to a meaningful dialogue? > But you didn't do that either. How could I ? Without more feedback from the OP > Or don't respond at all. > But you did. Yes, I asked a question. > Best however would have been if you just answered the question that was put. > Which again you didn't. Nothing says I have to, or that I have to respond the way you say I do. > I think your response ("simple question"... you do think we are complete > idiots here, do you?) is completely pointless. Hey I never said you or anyone was an idiot, however in your case you can try to persuade me. > And yes, i did, and do, take issue. That's your choice, it doesn't get you far but its your choice. >> Really? How does a question about grain change whether he's getting paid >> or [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yawn- "Right",.... LOL. I feel so intimidated. I guess you really don't have anything of worth to add, just reiterating the same crap. Apparently you can't answer his question. I've reread his whole post, and there's nothing in there about payment or any of the other bs you're hitting on. All you really want to do is question his ability. Why not try to give the guy some good advice and encourage him? That's not your bag, I see. Just look at your question, "Why should I answer a question for someone that is claiming to be a professional?" He never claimed to be a pro (why don't you re-read his post, in case you're not sure). So it's obvious you've got your own agenda here, and you're not interested in helping this person become a success. By all means, don't answer any questions here. From your pov, we're all claiming falsely to be pros, eh? I won't waste any more time reading or responding to your posts. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > I guess you really don't have anything of worth to add, just reiterating the > same crap. Apparently you can't answer his question. I've reread his whole > post, and there's nothing in there about payment or any of the other bs > you're hitting on. Hey I asked a question, thats all. If he was/ is a pro he should know his stuff before taking a job. I did not say he was a pro, merely asked if he was being paid. > All you really want to do is question his ability. Why, he is the one asking the question. >Why not try to give the guy some good advice and encourage him? I would if he answers my question. My question is why would someone take a job if they didn't know how to perform it. >That's not your bag, I see. No my bag was learning most of what I know by hard lessons learned doing some of the same idiotic BS the poster may or may not be doing. I guess we won't know because you jumped into make this an ugly thread. > Just look at your question, "Why should I answer a question for someone that > is claiming to be a professional?" That question was in the context of making a point which you obviously missed and have made personal. >He never claimed to be a pro (why don't > you re-read his post, in case you're not sure). So it's obvious you've got > your own agenda here, and you're not interested in helping this person > become a success. People learn to be a success by not making themselves look foolish. > From your pov, we're all > claiming falsely to be pros, eh? Thats not true & I don't care what "anyone" claims to be. I just don't like it we people claim to able to do a service an then can't manage it, I don't like it when it has happen to me from both sides of the coin. I learned my lesson in that regard many moons ago. > I won't waste any more time reading or responding to your posts. Good, likewise feel better? > Why, he is the one asking the question. Yes. And you are the one acting the annoying idiot. Now that's perfectly clear, i suggest you stop doing so. > > Why, he is the one asking the question. > > Yes. And you are the one acting the annoying idiot. > Now that's perfectly clear, i suggest you stop doing so. Its funny I never called anyone a single derogatory name but I been called one by two people that frequent this group and others I have read and enjoyed for many years. I apologize that I have offended your "pristine sense abilities". I guess I won't ask anymore questions of you or Matt. Take care and best regards. > I'm shooting portrait of about 20 people tommorrow, indoors, and I've got > a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > NPH (120) 400, is there a noticeable difference compared to ISO 160 (NPS) > film? I use Kodak portrait films, but it's a sure bet that at 20 x 30 there will be noticeable grain whatever the film you're using. When I shoot wedding portraits I use the 160. There are other considerations, like how long you'll have to drag the shutter if you want to capture ambient illumination (say, of a church interior). If at all possible, go there and shoot a test roll or two. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com I just learned from someone who has tested NPS and NPH at 20x30, and he reports no noticeable difference in grain, which makes NPH the best choice. To those whose responses are courteous and friendly, thank you. Patrick > I just learned from someone who has tested NPS and NPH at 20x30, and he > reports no noticeable difference in grain, which makes NPH the best choice. > To those whose responses are courteous and friendly, thank you. > > Patrick Thats a very good way to learn, hopefully its someone you can trust, if you have not seen the results yourself. Take care. > > I just learned from someone who has tested NPS and NPH at 20x30, and he > > reports no noticeable difference in grain, which makes NPH the best choice. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Take care. I hope you learn what "patronising prick" means (yes, we do spell it with an "s" where I'm from) > I hope you learn what "patronising prick" means (yes, we do spell it with > an "s" where I'm from) Now that we know what you call yourself. Why don't you take your two cents and go back there, wise a.s. >However, at 20x30, what kind of grain should I expect on a 20x30 from Fuji >NPH (120) 400, is there a noticeable difference compared to ISO 160 (NPS) >film? Patrick: I realize this might be a bit late, but for a 20x30 group shot, I'd be equally concerned about resolving power as grain. NPS has about 20% more resolving power than NPH. But if you can't get the DoF you need from NPS, then it's moot. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > I'm shooting portrait of about 20 people tommorrow, indoors, and I've got a > question. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Patrick Obviously, the f-stop will have no actual effect on the grain... I shoot Kodak Portra, usually 160, sometimes 400 on 6x6 and 6x7. I commonly enlarge Portra 160 to 16x20. The grain is there when you get out a magnifier, but when you hang it on the wall, it looks just fine. IMHO, enlarging 400 speed negs to 20x30 may be pushing it, especially if it's a formal style portrait. You could maybe get away with it for a casual portrait. Why not throw in the B400's also? It might get you that extra stop you want. Ken Hart |
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.