Thanks for your concern Otzi and YES I am for real. Just to let you know I
went to the Library and read up on portrait photography. In addition I took
some photos outside with all of my Cameras to make sure I was getting the
desired effects. ie backgrounds in and out of focus etc. I am now quite a
bit more confident with my manual focus camarea and all of its workings.
I doubt I will screw up any of their pictures. Just want them the BEST that
they could be.
How about some advice on film. I have heard a lot about Portra VC and NC
film. Some people say use 400 asa and some say 160 asa. I get a deal on
Kodak Gold 400 film and can pick it up for next to nothing. Should I just
use this? or should I spend the extra money.
Mark
> Thanks for your concern Otzi and YES I am for real. Just to let you know I
> went to the Library and read up on portrait photography. In addition I took
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Kodak Gold 400 film and can pick it up for next to nothing. Should I just
> use this? or should I spend the extra money.
Portrait film is specifically designed to make pictures of people look
good. Other film is not. IMHO, a good part of what makes
"professional" portraits look different is the film and processing. I
would suggest using a portrait film. I like the Kodak Portra line, the
NC versions, but other people of course have other preferences. If
you're working outside, a slower film should still be fast enough, and
will give the best quality. If you want to go all out, you might check
if there's a pro lab in your area that accepts work from non pros. It
will be quite a bit more expensive than a local minilab, but the results
will look better.
Lisa
zeitgeist - 12 Mar 2004 05:45 GMT
> > How about some advice on film. I have heard a lot about Portra VC and NC
> > film. Some people say use 400 asa and some say 160 asa. I get a deal on
> > Kodak Gold 400 film and can pick it up for next to nothing. Should I just
> > use this? or should I spend the extra money.
film is film if you are having issues with exposure and lighting, once those
are figured out then choice of film can then be an incremental difference.
additionally, taking a pro film to a clueless consumer lab can be
problematic as most of the time they don't check to see that it usually
requires a different basic filter set to start from.
my usual response to the kodak vs fuji question is, what paper does the lab
run, it shouldn't make any difference, though I've always felt fuji film was
better on fuji paper. The point in the question is that the film choice, at
least between competing color neg stocks, is merely another item way down on
the list of priorities.
great film means nothing if the lighting sucks
great film CAN help if the exposure isn't spot on (almost two stops leeway
IF your lighting is excellent, if not then you just have a larger range of
choice to decide which sucks less, highlights or shadows)