Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,493   Posts: 1,542,983   Online: 848
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 67
  1. #11
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,852
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwardv View Post
    I am still waiting for the return of 220 in Plus-X.
    That would please me a good deal more than Ektar 100 in 220, but then, I think that everything should be available in 220.
    Charles Hohenstein

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    That would please me a good deal more than Ektar 100 in 220, but then, I think that everything should be available in 220.
    Hear! Hear! Another around of drinks for every film in 220.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1

    Reason for 220

    I really, really prefer 220 because I get the dinky CD horrible scan at time of processing, particularly if using negative film as otherwise I have no idea what I have and don't own a scanner. When I find images I really like, I have them drum scanned and sometimes rent a flextight at a local place. But in the short term I use the 3 - 5 MB images on the CD scan at time of processing - which is 20 or 25 bucks per CD or something like that. It doesn't matter if its 120 or 220. So, if I go out for a 3 or 4 day shooting trip and come back with what would either be 6 rolls of 220 or 12 rolls of 120, it costs *a lot* more if I'm using 120.

    And obviously, if you do 6X9, 6X12 or 6X17 then 220 rocks! And I do rent a 6X17 on ocassion.

    I do have to say, though, after years of exposure and f-stop bracketing with the same camera (and going through tons of 220 because of all the bracketing ) I'm getting to the point where I take very very few pictures, and a high percentage of them come out well. My 'digital' brothers and sisters on the other hand shoot at anything that moves or doesn't move and have a very low percentage of keepers. It is all very interesting... (I don't think the shotgun approach is bad, but I do find the difference interesting. It is a hobby after all, whatever makes people happy!)

  4. #14
    Aurelien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Limoges, France
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    669
    Images
    96
    I agree: larger choice of film in 220 would be wonderful. In particular in B&W, where only txp 320 is available. Plus X would be a great choice.
    Aurelien, Analog Photographer

    the analog place to be

  5. #15
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,812
    I doubt it, at a time when most manufacturers are thinking of discontinuing 220 film because of the low sales volume, I'll just be happy that they continue to make it in 120 if the level of sales justify it .
    Last edited by benjiboy; 06-05-2009 at 03:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  6. #16
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,117
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    I doubt it, at a time when most manufacturers are thinking of discontinuing 220 film because of the low sales volume, I'll just be happy that they continue to make it in 120 if the level of sales justify it .
    Ditto.

    When I pickup up MF again, I wanted to shoot 220 but the selection of available films was not.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    45
    Somewhat off topic but hopefully useful..

    A few observations after my first roll of Ektar 100 in 120 shot and scanned. Be careful about underexposing shadow areas in a scene if you don't intend to have black shadows with very little or no detail. One stop of underexposure in shadows worked out ok for my taste but not more. Please note that a high-end scanner may give different results compared to my ones. I overexposed a few shots by about two stops (metering sunlit areas) to have good shadows and the highlights looked great. Box speed is fine for backlit scenes with low contrasts. I have read that some people rate it at 64 or 50, but I would say you should rate it according to the scene and conditions. Sometimes it will be iso 25 and sometimes box speed. Colors are beautiful but not necessarily natural. I photographed mostly violet and purple colored flowers, green leaves and grass and blue skies. The colors pop in a strange cold manner. I like it but you need to judge for yourself. The film scans very well.
    جزاك الله خير

    My website

  8. #18
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,852
    Images
    5
    I'm another person who would be happy if Kodak could offer more emulsions in 220. But increasing the number of black and white options would take priority for me over Ektar 100.
    Charles Hohenstein

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Indeed. I want TMax in 220 badly!

  10. #20
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,852
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Indeed. I want TMax in 220 badly!
    I'm a little surprised that Kodak didn't offer the new TMax 400 in 220, since Kodak seems to push their TMax films and the latest version ought to have wide professional appeal.
    Charles Hohenstein

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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