Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,857   Posts: 1,583,088   Online: 918
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    83
    Some information on processing (and scanning, printing) would be helpful, before the usual "film specialists" join in to comment.
    To me, these look like scanned negatives with massively processed colors (typical "standard skin tone", looking like painted plastic). In that case, film choice would not matter much, anyway.

    Georg

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    893
    Saw this Kodak Ektar 100 Portrait posted that I consider to be strikingly good. Of course a child's skin can withstand considerable magnification/resolution!

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    I'm glad people were able to get something out of this. Sure Portra 400 and 400H would have been interesting, but I didn't have a back with Portra 400 in it, too bad.

    My experiment was to see how these films compared and handled overcast weather, not to mention if shooting at ISO 50 would be do-able hand held with a medium format camera in the typical overcast skies we have here in Portland.


    Personally I think the Ektar looks 100x better in this situation. The 400H although having a more even, neutral tone is flat and dull. I just bought a pro-pack to do more experiments with it. I've got some work coming up that I might shoot on Ektar instead of 400h..


    As far as shooting/dev info this is all I know:

    Mamiya 645AFD w/ 80mm f/2.8 @f/2.8
    Ektar 100 @ ISO 50
    400H @ ISO 200

    Developed/Scanned at RPL using their typical dip-n-dunk and scanned on their Noristu.

  4. #14
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    the 80/2.8 for the afd is fantastic even wide open.

    I wont comment on the scan because who knows what "RPL" did anyway.

  5. #15
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    I immediately spotted the Fuji, it looks... real.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    532
    I liked the Ektar photo better. To me the Fuji photo looked sort of mushy.

  7. #17
    ColdEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    733
    Images
    50
    The ektar is better for me. I like colors that are not flat, and I also like colors that are vibrant. Do you have anymore images in different lighting conditions?

  8. #18

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Yeah i've got a few other pictures off the rest of the roll I can show




    a little diptych i made, I like the landscape potential (both Ektar)..


    more of that landscape potential(Ektar)..







    Sorry about the lightleaks, got a back for $45, and now I know why it was so cheap..




    Some patchy sunlight (Ektar)..

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    the 80/2.8 for the afd is fantastic even wide open.

    I wont comment on the scan because who knows what "RPL" did anyway.
    It really is pretty awesome wide open...I just wish it was f/2 and said zeiss on it..

  10. #20
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,182
    To me as a portrait enthusiast this shot is better shot on a film that is formulated for the purpose either Kodak Portra 160 or Fuji Pro. 160S, because although Kodak Ektar is an excellent general purpose film even Kodak don't recommend it for portraiture in it's literature, IMO it's too colour saturated and high in contrast for this purpose..
    Ben

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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