Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,489   Posts: 1,644,780   Online: 882
      
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    43
    has anyone tried the "KODAK PROFESSIONAL ENDURA Premier/Metallic", I would love to give them a try.
    Need to find myself a color enlarger, I am going to go broke wit all this ;-)

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    3,340
    Kodak is still a major supplier of RA4 papers, but most of it is in rolls for pro lab use. I don't know if
    anyone cuts it for private label rebranding. Possibly. Ilford (Switzerland - not Harman) and Mitsubishi also make RA4 papers. Plenty of sources. I personally use Fuji.

  3. #43
    RPC
    RPC is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    517
    Kodak doesn't sell Endura cut-sheet paper for home darkroom use any more but you might be able to find some old stock somewhere. Kodak still makes it in rolls for lab use.

    I have seen the metallic paper, which has a silvery look to it, used at the lab where I work but never used it at home.

  4. #44
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,449
    Images
    12
    Most current papers are "optimised for digital" which means "not optimised for straight response or equal response in each channel; we expect you to calibrate it out in your printer profile". So there are not many papers available that will give a good straight optical print without having the odd hue shift or crossover; some of the Fuji papers are quite bad for this. Certainly you can buy some Endura Metallic and give it a bash, but it comes on big expensive rolls, has little dynamic range and might not give you accurate colour. Definitely try printing on plain RA4 paper first to get your process working reliably before using the super-expensive paper.

    I would suggest if you're interested in the metallic look to order an 8x10" metallic print from your local pro lab from a digital file and see if you like it. Maybe you could even get the lab to sell you some paper off their roll if they're feeling generous. The metallic has a very nice glow to it when lit diagonally - it looks like backlit transparency - and works best IMHO with highly saturated colours. It doesn't glow so much in the shadows and loses highlight detail easily, so aim for an image with narrow dynamic range and no delicate highlights.

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,111
    The exposure generally looks OK, but you forgot to adjust for backlight and sidelight. The old rule of thumb (with manual cameras) was to open up about a stop for backlight and about half a stop for sidelight. Automatic exposure cameras handle these situations in a number of different ways, and you just have to figure out what your camera does and adjust accordingly. Portra 400 probably works best at box speed, although some people prefer to overexpose a bit. Just don't go too far. 320 is a perfectly acceptable speed for this film, and it gives you a bit less grain and a bit of room on the shadow side. Try bracketing and see what works best for you.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    curious was this NEW Portra or one of the older Portra VC/NC versions?

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    43
    That was the new portra 400. Went to the shop to get the dev. of two rolls of T max 400 and ended up getting some provia 400 lol ;-)

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228

    Portra 400 exposed at box speed

    Quote Originally Posted by LucRoMar View Post
    That was the new portra 400. Went to the shop to get the dev. of two rolls of T max 400 and ended up getting some provia 400 lol ;-)
    Oh well provia isn't bad :whistles: but you better get more accurate on that exposure


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    282
    The shots don't look bad for 35mm. I'm assuming you are unhappy with the visible grain. Tips on reducing visible grain: 1. Different chemistry yields different results; I find the Tetnal press kit produces more visible grain in my scans than the Rollei Chemistry. 2. For Portra 400 I err on the side of overexposure; negative film can handle it well and it will help reduce visible grain. 3. Scan at 2000 to 3000 dpi with no sharpening, apply your post processing changes before reducing the size, reduce size then sharpen to taste remembering that sharpening will enhance the visible grain so its a balance of what is acceptable to you.

    Hope this comment doesn't stray to far into digi-land for APUG or I will be chastised........... Another thing I have read you may want to consider when evaluating your shots is that blue will typically have more noise than the other channels in a negative scan. This is because that channel would have higher amplification relative to the other channels in a negative scan to compensate for the orange mask. This is consistent with what I have seen and makes sense. So perhaps overexposing when you have a lot of blue in the frame may help to reduce apparent grain in your scans. I have not actually done any purposeful testing to verify but it makes sense because it would result in a higher SN ratio on the blue channel. Good luck!

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamar View Post
    The shots don't look bad for 35mm. I'm assuming you are unhappy with the visible grain. Tips on reducing visible grain: 1. Different chemistry yields different results; I find the Tetnal press kit produces more visible grain in my scans than the Rollei Chemistry. 2. For Portra 400 I err on the side of overexposure; negative film can handle it well and it will help reduce visible grain. 3. Scan at 2000 to 3000 dpi with no sharpening, apply your post processing changes before reducing the size, reduce size then sharpen to taste remembering that sharpening will enhance the visible grain so its a balance of what is acceptable to you.

    Hope this comment doesn't stray to far into digi-land for APUG or I will be chastised........... Another thing I have read you may want to consider when evaluating your shots is that blue will typically have more noise than the other channels in a negative scan. This is because that channel would have higher amplification relative to the other channels in a negative scan to compensate for the orange mask. This is consistent with what I have seen and makes sense. So perhaps overexposing when you have a lot of blue in the frame may help to reduce apparent grain in your scans. I have not actually done any purposeful testing to verify but it makes sense because it would result in a higher SN ratio on the blue channel. Good luck!
    Now now, no talk of scanning techniques or resampling, those pics nor discussion aren't allowed here :-P

    (Only because you asked for it haha) (and also because I was just reprimanded for even ASKING such a question about if it were ok... haha)

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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