KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3444 times:
I'm a new aviation photographer and have had 20 successful uploads to a.net in the past month. (you can find my a.net photos here: http://russellfam.us)
Right now I'm using Agfa Optima 100 and 200 films and have also used Fujifilm Super HQ 200. As I'm not very impressed with either I'm still looking for better 35mm film for producing finer grain photos. What 35mm print film have you had excellent results with?
-Benjamin R Russell
IwantaBBJ From Ireland, joined Jun 2002, 770 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
I'm also a big fan of Fuji's Reala... For MY eyes, it produces excellent results, fine grain.... BTW: It's been a while since I saw something lower than a ISO 100-speed film, I was told there are none left on the market now.
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3405 times:
Derek, Mike and Wietse, thanks for your comments, I plan to try out Fuji Reala in the near future. As for higher speed film (400, 800) what can anyone recommend? I'm looking to stop rotor blades and with the best possible results. Thanks.
-Benjamin R Russell
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
I say, you could stay all the way from ASA 100 to ASA 800 with Fuji. I've tried few rolls of Fuji Superia Xtra 800. That film is just amazing! It's not of course as fine grain as any ASA 100 film, but as for an ASA 800 film, it beats even some ASA 400 films.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 3362 times:
I've used Reala quite a few times in the past, a really nice film. However, after trying Superia 100, that's what I've been using since then when shooting prints. There's really not much difference between Reala and Superia in terms of grain, but I find Superia gives less of a colour cast compared to Reala.
Tried Kodak Royal Gold once, never again.
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3318 times:
I did a search for remarks containing "Reala" and a bunch of photos came up. However, the amount of photos taken with Reala (or claimed to be taken with Reala) has significantly decreased since 2002 and 2001. Does this film produce a sharp enough picture to keep up with a.net's ever-increasing quality standards?
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3278 times:
If I wasn't interested in making prints from my photos, I might use slide film.
You can always scan the frames you want prints of, burn the files on a CD and take it to the closest lab where they make prints out of files. Some labs, however, make prints directly from mounted slides, but the results are not that good.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3273 times:
Joge said: Some labs, however, make prints directly from mounted slides, but the results are not that good.
What??? Nothing could be further from the truth. If the lab does it right, a print made directly from a slide (no inter-neg) will be way way better than anything you could achieve from printing a home-scanned slide burned onto a CD.
But you could do it that way - home scanning, and it doesn't work out too bad with small size prints. Either way, for submitting pictures here, you really need a dedicated film scanner, not a flatbed. Once you've got that, you can as has been said scan print from a scanned slide, or for that really special job take the slide to a lab and get it printed properly.
In answer to what slide film... There's only one - Kodachrome 64!
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3267 times:
Like with the negative scan, the printers attempt to make some kind of (color) corrections with the slides too, but not on file prints, if set so. For instance, the Agfa d.lab machines apply one kind of smart blur filter on the image before the print, if printing a slide. This is to reduce the amount of grain in the picture, but some of the prints look more like a painting!
My point is, that if you scan your slides by yourself, you can do all the crop, rotate, color correction and everything else you want.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3254 times:
And the REAL photographers use black and white
What kind of bs is that? Doesnt matter what you use, everyone is a REAL photographer when he takes a picture.. stop promoting b&w film.. there are new types of photography on the horizon, and just because you dont use any of those methods, doesnt mean that it isnt REAL photography...