Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,925   Posts: 1,522,119   Online: 799
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21
    Noons's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by roteague
    the 100 to be a good substitute in many, but not all, situations. For those situations I have a small stock of the 50 left.

    Interesting statement. Been using 50, but have tried the new 100 and I find it - at least in 35mm - an amazing film indeed. Tried it in the rb67 and found that it needs about 1/3 stop more exposure - that could be a defect of my camera.

    What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!
    Cheers
    from Sydney Australia

  2. #22
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Noons
    Interesting statement. Been using 50, but have tried the new 100 and I find it - at least in 35mm - an amazing film indeed. Tried it in the rb67 and found that it needs about 1/3 stop more exposure - that could be a defect of my camera.

    What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!
    Not Robert,

    But I am a shooter of Velvia 50 going back many years, as well as Kodachrome for many years before that, I don't find the 100 (not 100F) as saturated, the contrast curves are different and the film is more muted than the old ISO 50 was, it is what we have to live with now, but not the same film, the grain structure is good, but I find the subtle difference in the shadow areas not as good, someone else said Velvia 50 would do odd things, I never found it to do anything odd, if you were exposing it correctly and knew how the film reacted to certain situations, I shot Velvia 50 at ISO 40 for many years and processed normally and have had hundreds of shots published over the years in various outdoors magazines with no problems at all.

    I am not saying its bad, but is different and takes some getting used to after many years of shooting is older brother.

    R.

  3. #23
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Noons
    Interesting statement. Been using 50, but have tried the new 100 and I find it - at least in 35mm - an amazing film indeed. Tried it in the rb67 and found that it needs about 1/3 stop more exposure - that could be a defect of my camera.

    What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!
    Noons,

    I don't have a large stock, just enough for my next trip. I love the way that Velvia 50 looks in the desert - deserts are hard enough to photograph that the subtle colors the 50 is capable of rendering can make the difference between a great image and a so-so image. Here in Hawaii I find the 100 to be a good film, and I have successfully used it in New Zealand as well.

    So, the batch I have I am saving for my next trip. This October I am going on a road trip with my friend Steve (from Adelaide); we will be travelling from Adelaide to Alice Springs, where we will spend several days photographing in the West MacDonnell range. Another APUG member from WA is supposed to join us.

    As for Kata Tjuta:

    http://www.visionlandscapes.com/Gall...=AU4020&Page=1
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  4. #24
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,672
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxi331
    I am not saying its bad, but is different and takes some getting used to after many years of shooting is older brother.

    R.
    Roxi331,

    I agree with you. While I'm not happy that the 50 is gone, I am now doing almost all of my shooting on the new 100, and getting used to it; it is the only real choice we have.
    Robert M. Teague
    www.visionlandscapes.com
    www.apug.org/forums/portfolios.php?u=2235

    "A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his brain is a craftsman; a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist" -- Louis Nizer

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Noons
    What do you reserve your 50 for? I've got some 120 size 50 left and was thinking of using it asap and go 100 only, but now I'm entirely curious!
    Others have posted about subtle differences, but let me state that I'm hoarding my small stash of Velvia 50 for the obvious reason: It's one stop slower than any other color film that's currently available. The general public has gotten obsessed with film (or now, digital sensor) speed and has forgotten that slow films enable effects like long shutter speeds to blur moving things and wide-open apertures in daylight to get narrow depth-of-field. Although it's true that ND filters enable you to do these things with faster films, they're a bit of a hassle to use and they aren't always practical. I've got a couple of oddball ultrawide lenses with rear-mounted filters. I expect I'd have to get ND filters custom made for them.

  6. #26
    Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    779
    Images
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxi331

    I have even known those did not like Tri-x, believe it or not!
    Me too. I've never had anything good out of it, but I have had it reticulate and other rolls the emulsion washed right off, I poured it out with the fix and was left with clear base. Oddly, it was a 2 roll tank and I did a roll of HP5 in the tank at the same time and it turned out perfectly. Maybe the Ilford film objected to being in the same tank as the Kodak?

    Since those disasters, I've never used Tri-X again.

  7. #27
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    txp rocks

    *

  8. #28
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,926
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig
    Me too. I've never had anything good out of it, but I have had it reticulate and other rolls the emulsion washed right off, I poured it out with the fix and was left with clear base. Oddly, it was a 2 roll tank and I did a roll of HP5 in the tank at the same time and it turned out perfectly. Maybe the Ilford film objected to being in the same tank as the Kodak?

    Since those disasters, I've never used Tri-X again.
    Since no Kodak film is supposed to reticulate or wash off the support if processed properly, did you complain to Kodak and get the problem resolved?

    They could give you your money back and you could have bought some Ilford film.

    OTOH, if you didn't complain, how would EK know they had a problem, and why didn't you complain? It seems to me, a disaster like this without a complaint is a waste of your money.

    PE

  9. #29
    Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    779
    Images
    39
    The film was given to me, so I wasn't out of pocket anything. I didn't complain at the time because I didn't have an emulsion number or anything traceable (like packaging).

  10. #30
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,926
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Craig
    The film was given to me, so I wasn't out of pocket anything. I didn't complain at the time because I didn't have an emulsion number or anything traceable (like packaging).
    Interesting that this would happen to a Kodak film. Being made in 5000 foot runs up to 60" wide means that if there is such a defect, a LOT of customers are going to have problems. This didn't happen.

    Hardener cannot be misssing from just a small segment of a run without having other major defects present that are visible even on reticulated film. ILEB and subbing problems are more likelly, but the absence of ILEB would have been observed during coating, PreEB would be a probable cause, but again, a lapse in this would be like night and day literally due to the brilliant discharge present. A subbing error would be my guess, and EK would want to know about it. However, it cannot cause reticulation AFAIK. So there are some interesting things about this that should be made known.

    Therefore, IMHO, something else played a part in your problem. For example, did you verify the edge markings? Was it Kodak film?

    I would suggest that even without your information, the code on the edge of the film would help Kodak identify the batch and they would want to know about this. Don't hesitate to contact them and send a sample of the reticulated film with edge markings along with the samples that washed off. They can determine what went wrong.

    And you did incur costs from processing, so you are due some compensation, provided it was not your fault.

    PE

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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