One thing to keep in mind with regard to the cost is what you get to do instead.
For paid gigs like weddings and portraits I simply don't have enough time to do the backend stuff myself, I need to hire that out regardless of the medium shot.
Given that need, RPL is dang cheap compared to the alternatives.
The other thing I like about RPL is that they listen and remember. If I tell them I want my future orders to lean warmer or cooler or lighter or whatever its as good as done.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
I see what you mean no doubt, but i'm fast enough and good enough at the computer, not to mention when it's things like color correction, I don't have so much stuff where i'd have to contract it out.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
My main film of choice is Portra 400. Incredible stuff, but it's got a totally different rendering:
Originally Posted by Jedidiah Smith
Also, straight off the Frontier.
I think you will do well in the incredibly competitive field of wedding work.
I am not sure whether the Frontier helps or it is just the film but the colours are beautiful.
Originally Posted by F/1.4
The way you see lighting is also great!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I love Ektar for its vibrant colors and high contrast and Portra for its more neutral tones but I find for pastel tones, overexposing Fuji Reala works well. Portra 400 overexposed doesn't go pastel as it has such great latitude but if you can't get Reala (only available in 120, perhaps large format) then try Portra 160 as it has much narrower latitude than the 400 so you can get some pastel on overexposure and the opposite effect with underexposure (developed normally).
Thanks Harry, I'll try overexposing Reala next time I use it.
I shot 120 Ektar and Reala back to back a couple of months ago in the same light and the Reala came out colder and less lively. It kind of put me off but I'd like to give Reala another try (well, since I still have 8 rolls left!).
Pastel says toned down, less lively to me and overexposing it worked well, better than overexposing Ektar.
Congratulations, nice shots!
Originally Posted by F/1.4
I have always achieved excellent results with Fuji Pro 400H. Shot dozens of weddings and portraits shootings with it.
Excellent results printed on Fuji Crystal Premium RA-4 paper.
Fuji Crystal is the benchmark for RA-4 papers, best archival stability and excellent color reproduction.
My professional lab does always an outstanding job printing on this paper.
Compared Portra 400 printed on Fuji Crystal to Pro 400H printed on the same paper.
Lots of rolls in different shooting conditions. Used Portra 400 and Pro 400H parallel.
The prints from 400H on Fuji paper do look a bit more natural, a bit better, more precise color reproduction.
400H has a bit more sharpness and higher resolution, Portra 400 a bit finer grain.
Overall the differences are small and you need huge enlargements to identify the differences.
But Pro 400H cost much less per roll than the very expensive Portra 400.
Therefore I will stay with Pro 400H, because overall better value to me.
Yes, both Pro 400H and the new Portra 400 are quite nice. I have a feeling the results would have been nearly the same, but slightly favor the Kodak film if the paper was Kodak Endura Lustre or something like that. I mean, it makes sense the films will be almost identical quality at this stage in the game, but each would favor their own brand of paper (one would think).
I'm much more into shooting slides, but the great news is, they are both $5.99 a roll at B&H, so those into neg films can shoot whichever they like without a financial penalty one way or the other!