 |
 | 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 / October 2006What? No 400 speed slide film?
So this weekend I needed 400 speed slide film. I went to one pro photo store and asked for Kodak 400 speed slide film. "We don't have any." "How about Fuji?" Nope, sold out. He said "We have 200 speed film that you can push to 400." No thanks. So I go to Calumet Photo in San Francisco and the guy behind the counter is busy with a young woman. I wait and wait and wait. 5 minutes goes by and he's busy on the computer. So, what does he finally say when he speaks up? "To find the place you need to go down the street, to blah, blah, blah..." He was looking up directions! He made me wait so he could play tour guide; actually, flirt with the woman he had no chance with. So he turned to me rather irritated that I would need help and asks if I need help. I said "Yes, I'm looking for E400 in 120 format. Do you have it?" "Yes." "Can I have 3 rolls?" So what does he grab? Portra 400. He starts to ring it up and I said "is that E6 film?" knowing damn well it wasn't. So he's all irritated and says "We don't have Kodak 400 slide film. We have 200 speed you can push to 400." Uh, no thanks. "How about Fuji?" Now he's really irritated because I'm cutting into his flirting time. "NO! We don have any." I asked "So you don't have any 400 speed slide film?" "NO WE DON'T." Wow, what a jerk. We then went to Photo Supply and the guy gave me some Fuji 400 slide film. Why is it so hard to find 400 slide film? I know digital is big now days, but come on, there are still people using medium format film cameras. I went to the Kodak site and they truly don't have E400 film! What the...? They want us to spend extra money to get E200 pushed processed if we want faster speeds. What a joke. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll go with Fuji who have the smarts to continue selling 400 and even 800-rated speed slide film. > Why is it so hard to find 400 slide film? I know digital is big now > days, but come on, there are still people using medium format film > cameras. I went to the Kodak site and they truly don't have E400 film! It isn't listed as an e-series film, but Kodak does make Ektachrome 400x in both 120 and 135. <http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e161/e161.jhtml> Freestyle sells it: <http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=1302&pid=797> Peter.  Signaturepirwin@ktb.net I always though most people avoided 400 slide film since the grain was an issue. Shooting 400 neg was less grainy. > I always though most people avoided 400 slide film since the grain was > an issue. Shooting 400 neg was less grainy. You know, I heard the same about 400 speed slide film too. I remember in the really old days one of my instructors said "blah-blah-blah...so just use 400 speed negative film." I never heard why since that's literally all I remember hearing. However, a few years ago I tried Fuji's 800 speed slide film and it was fantastic. Grain wasn't much of a problem and it was pretty sharp. I figured that Kodak's 400 speed film shouldn't be that bad (I still had a bias against Fuji for some reason or another). Since it was sold out in San Fran I got to try Fuji's 400 speed slide film. We'll see if I have as good an experience as I did with their 800 speed film. > > I always though most people avoided 400 slide film since the grain was > > an issue. Shooting 400 neg was less grainy. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Fuji's 400 speed slide film. We'll see if I have as good an experience > as I did with their 800 speed film. Is that Provia 400F then? Or the new one Fuji was talking about? The Provia 400F is a pretty good film, lowish in contrast and I find it maybe a little blue, but not bad stuff at all. Peter > Is that Provia 400F then? Or the new one Fuji was talking about? I'm pretty sure it was Provia 400F. I didn't need the higher saturation and vivid color (faster speed Velvia?) 400X. > The Provia 400F is a pretty good film, lowish in contrast and I find it > maybe a little blue, but not bad stuff at all. The low contrast is something that will be good, especially for the high contrast scene I was shooting. The blue...not so good. We'll see how this film stands up to a scene with the setting sun behind me. One of the reasons why I originally moved away from Ektachrome a billion years ago was because it was so blue. With Kodak's E100 film I found it was pretty good at reducing the bluish cast and for me was a good replacement to then just discontinued Kodachrome 64 in 120 format. >The low contrast is something that will be good, especially for the >high contrast scene I was shooting. The blue...not so good. We'll see >how this film stands up to a scene with the setting sun behind me. Provia 400 tends to go a little blue in overcast conditions. I always use a warming filter with it when it's cloudy out. SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net > Provia 400 tends to go a little blue in overcast conditions. I always > use a warming filter with it when it's cloudy out. Got my slides back from the lab and they're fantastic. They are a little blue, but not much. I'm happy about that. There's very little visible grain. I'll see how it looks after I scan the slides, but I'm sure they'll look just as good. So I'm very happy with Fuji's 400 speed slide film. >You know, I heard the same about 400 speed slide film too. I remember >in the really old days one of my instructors said "blah-blah-blah...so >just use 400 speed negative film." I never heard why since that's >literally all I remember hearing. However, a few years ago I tried >Fuji's 800 speed slide film and it was fantastic. Grain wasn't much of Agreed - Sensia/Provia 400's a very capable film, with minimal grain. I've gotten decent enlargements from scans of it, even in 35mm. I've also shot Velvia 100 pushed to 400. That's really extreme stuff - ultra-contrasty and ultra-saturated. Really cool for landscapes and florals under overcast skies. SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net > So this weekend I needed 400 speed slide film. E200 pushed "IS" actually less grainy, your lose. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com Greg _ wrote: > > So this weekend I needed 400 speed slide film. > > E200 pushed "IS" actually less grainy, your lose. You mean "my loss?" I'll try it some other time. One good thing with film is that it's relatively cheap and experimentation is pretty painless. However, if it's something important, then playing around with an unknown isn't painless. I didn't want to experiment on this particular shoot so I wanted something that was strictly rated at the particular speed I needed. > I didn't want to experiment on this > particular shoot so I wanted something that was strictly rated at the > particular speed I needed. So,... you didn't bracket either? SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > So,... you didn't bracket either? Why do you ask? I'm perfect so no, I didn't bracket. ;-) > So this weekend I needed 400 speed slide film. I went to one pro photo > store and asked for Kodak 400 speed slide film. "We don't have any." [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I'll go with Fuji who have the smarts to continue selling 400 and even > 800-rated speed slide film. It is getting harder to find all types of film in general. Unless you have some specific reason to shoot slides I suggest you really try negative film instead. If you are making chemical prints there is less problem with excessive contrast (unless you like the Ilfochrome look). Getting the film processed is easier since even most 1 hours can do 120 - although they may not realize it. If you are going to scan the film and make prints or put it online than whatever "look" the slide film has can be pretty well matched by suitable adjustments in a good image editor like Photoshop. Finally grain is better, although sharpness is slightly less. If you are shooting 120 then you probably won't see the difference in sharpness unless you are making really big enlargements. As you said film is cheap, why not do a side by side shoot out and see for yourself. SignatureRobert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs http://robertdfeinman.com mail: robert.feinman@gmail.com > It is getting harder to find all types of film in general. Unless > you have some specific reason to shoot slides I suggest you really > try negative film instead. If you are making chemical prints there I think the reason why I use slide film goes back to when I didn't have much money and getting photos was a top priority. Buying negative film meant getting it developed and printed. At that time prices for developing and printing ranged from $8 - $30 a roll! With slide film I was able to just get it developed and I had my pictures. The cost was $2.50 - $6 a roll. So it was economics. Also, I just found slide film to be sharper, I got to see the colors as they were meant to be (not the 15 - 20cc too magenta look of the prints I got from the machine operator), and finally I liked the look of slides when projected. Now days, though, I just like putting the slides in a sleeve and being able to hold them up to the light and seeing what's on them. It's a lot easier than rifling through a bunch of photos. Also, if there's a problem with the slide I can fix it in Photoshop, just like the negatives as you pointed out. It may not be as easy to fix an underexposed or overexposed slide as opposed to a negative, but I live under the motto "all or nothing." ;-) > is less problem with excessive contrast (unless you like the Ilfochrome > look). Getting the film processed is easier since even most 1 hours can > do 120 - although they may not realize it. I wonder if Costco will do 120 film? Hmmmm... As for Ilfochrome, I like the way it looks, but it's a lot of trouble making masks and stuff. I have a bunch of 16x20's that I printed more than a decade ago and though I like the way they look there were a lot of details missing in the shadows because of the high contrast. I never made a mask to print them. I always said that the way I was able to determine what a Cibachrome/Ilfochrome final print would look like was to project the slide onto a white wall with the lights on. Whatever details showed up there were what would show up on the print. Some shadow details were lost. Now that I have a film scanner (yeah, I'm finally in the 20th century when everyone else is in the 21st) I'm seeing what I've been missing. I'm going to reprint all those old Ilfochrome prints now. Nathan I've been using 120 Fuji slide film for many years with good results. A photo buddy (rafe b) suggested that I try Reala, so I bought some from Adorama and took both Reala and Provia on the same day. I used 100 and 400 Provia, and also pushed a couple of rolls of the 100 to 200. The camera was a Pentax 6x7 with the 55mm F4 and 165mm F2.8. Both lenses had B+W UV MRC filters. I scanned with a Microtek 120tf at 4000dpi and the Lasersoft Silverfast software. I tweak things in Photoshop 5.0LE. This time around I made several prints at 11"x14", printed on an Epson 7600. Pictures are at http://chasfs.com/broadmoor. The difference between using slide and print film is substantial. Both resulted in acceptable 11"x14" prints. But the print film is much grainier, and requires more work with Neat Image and in Photoshop. I've had no problem making 24"x30" prints from Provia, but haven't tried that large with the Reala. The Fuji data sheets say that the Provia 400 can be pushed 3 stops to 3200 - I haven't tried this yet, but plan to. The results from pushing Provia 100 to 200 are really quite good - I had a lot of trouble telling the difference between 100 and 200. It is more expensive to develop but sometimes you just need that extra stop. I can't report on pushing Provia 100 to 400, or how pushing Provia 100 to 400 compares to Provia 400. Bottom line, I'm sticking with Provia as my film of choice. Peace, -chasfs http://chasfs.com |
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.