Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,878   Posts: 1,520,324   Online: 1209
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 53
  1. #41
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    6,992
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    I am a huge Kevin Smith fan and weirdly enough whenever he gets a for him Big Budget the movies are not as good as his lower Budget stuff. I believe that a lot of DoP would give their right arm to shoot in real B/W unfortunately the Audience is mostly monochromophobic, good example is the Artist the Audience especially in the US was complaining about the lack of dialogue and color after watching a movie that was advertised as being a silent movie and B/W (digital unfortunately)
    I'm not really a fan of silent movies either though, as an actor I get lots of movies on DVD to vote on every year, including the artist, and I didn't finish watching it. But I do like B&W.

    I couldn't for the life of me find out WHAT type of film Kevin used for clerks, just that it was 16mm...


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #42
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,041
    According to the View Askew Website David Klein used an Arri SR2 with Kodak Plus-X probably 7231 (Neg not Reversal Stock).

    Dominik

  3. #43
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    6,992
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MDR View Post
    According to the View Askew Website David Klein used an Arri SR2 with Kodak Plus-X probably 7231 (Neg not Reversal Stock).

    Dominik
    Ahh thanks for the info, it certainly isn't XX that's for sure, and I THINK the MP version of Plus-X is different than still film plus-X but to me it looks similar to it. And I don't like Plus-X haha

    Good to know what it is though, thanks.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,429
    Plus-X rocks. Would love to shoot MP Plus-X
    - Bill Lynch

  5. #45
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    6,992
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    Plus-X rocks. Would love to shoot MP Plus-X
    I have one roll of Plus-X left... I'll trade you for a roll of PanF+ anyday, or FP4+ or Neopan400 or Acros100 or HP5+ or Delta100 or Delta3200 or Panatomic-X or Verichrome Pan or 400TX or TMY even, which we all know I dispise, all of which I find much better than Plus-X yuck, this roll just sits in my fridge and mocks me for taking up space... Lol


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #46
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Why the heck would you hate PX? Great film. You have some weird film hangups, Stone.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #47
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    6,992
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Why the heck would you hate PX? Great film. You have some weird film hangups, Stone.
    Yup I do, can't explain it, just like what I like, could say the same, why do you like Plus-X ... Haha

    We are all individuals anyway, please take my 120 Plus-X roll? Lol


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #48
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,041
    MP Plus-X is more of the grand daddy of todays Plus-X the contrast was in a likelyhood changed a bit for Still photography use.

    I personally would love to shoot on Kodak Super Sensitve Panachromatic from the 1930's that's just one gorgeous film, Plus-X and Super-XX are superb as well but they already have the look that was domininant in B/W mp photography from the 1960's to the 2000's and I prefer the look of prewar or just post war B/W cinematography with the exception of A Touch of Evil which I consider to be one of the best looking film noirs ever and Vargtimmen a superb film by Ingmar Bergmann.

    I also consider Plus-X to be one of the creamiest in a good way films for still photography it can be extremely beautiful under the right conditions and is not suitable for everything but for Portraits and some Landscapes I just say wowwww.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,472
    As a still film, Plus X had a very long toe and was marketed esp for studio portraiture under soft lighting. Outdoors it could have a problem with
    harsh contrast, since it was geared to highlight expansion rather than shadow separation. The closest thing I can think of to it would be Delta
    100. Super XX was just the opposite - an exceptionally long straight line that would handle just about anything, but conspicuously more grainy
    than most current films (though grain is sometimes a creative attribute). It has been functionally replaced by TMax400, though the two films
    are certainly different in more ways than grain.

  10. #50
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    6,992
    Images
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    As a still film, Plus X had a very long toe and was marketed esp for studio portraiture under soft lighting. Outdoors it could have a problem with
    harsh contrast, since it was geared to highlight expansion rather than shadow separation. The closest thing I can think of to it would be Delta
    100. Super XX was just the opposite - an exceptionally long straight line that would handle just about anything, but conspicuously more grainy
    than most current films (though grain is sometimes a creative attribute). It has been functionally replaced by TMax400, though the two films
    are certainly different in more ways than grain.
    By the way when I say Kodak XX I'm talking about "Double X" not Super XX

    I'm not sure what super XX Looks like since I've never had the opportunity to shoot it.


    Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin