Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 72,457   Posts: 1,597,366   Online: 1107
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In a darkroom far, far away...
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,081
    Blog Entries
    30
    Images
    19
    I've used slide film very little. And I have some very colorfully vibrant images. But for me it is black and white negative film. The reason, It is all I have used recently and it hasn't bitten me yet. It has treated me well. I know how to use it and am doing some nice work. Right now there is no need for me to change.
    Thank you.
    -CW

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  2. #22
    naturephoto1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Breinigsville, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Images
    84
    I shoot basically only transparencies in 35mm, medium format, and 4 x 5. I am partial to the colors I am able to record, the clarity and sharpness, grain, etc. My work is scanned and digitally printed. Love the final large prints coming off the Chromira or LightJet as does the public.

    Rich
    Richard A. Nelridge
    http://www.nelridge.com

  3. #23
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,075
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    For colour work, I use print film only when I have to, i.e., for very practical reasons of higher ISO and better exposure latitiude. Otherwise I adore slide film, it's so sharp and easy to loupe through, when you look at the transparencies you know immediately what you've got. I like b&w slide film (e.g. agfa scala) as well, you can make gorgeous paper negs with that.

    I am a bit annoyed that the digital workflow is causing me to have to shoot print film more often. It's just too much of a hassle to get good scans off velvia.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    218
    It's mainly slide film for me. Years ago I saw prints with decent sharpness, but since minilabs have converted to hybrid methods, they seem a bit less perfect.

  5. #25
    roteague's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kaneohe, Hawaii
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,671
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by bob01721 View Post
    FWIW, I've been told that there're some significant differences among 35mm scanners regarding the way they handle slides. Apparently, some are more "slide friendly" than others.
    It isn't the scanners, as much as it is the film.

    I shoot primarily transparencies, although I have been known to shoot a little B&W, from time to time (just keep this a secret though). My reasons for shooting transparencies are pretty much the same as naturephoto1, for prints.
    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

  6. #26
    snegron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hot, Muggy, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by 3Dfan View Post
    It's mainly slide film for me. Years ago I saw prints with decent sharpness, but since minilabs have converted to hybrid methods, they seem a bit less perfect.
    I'm probably off topic, but I think you are right. I spoke with employees at a local pro lab and it turns out that they scan most of their 35mm film before it gets printed. They develop the negatives the traditional way, but I think they have done away with their chemical processing for prints. It is not noticeable on small prints like 4x6, but you can actually see the pixelation on 8x10" and 11x14" prints. I discovered this some time ago when I had 11x14 prints made from a 120 negative; it looked like a digital print!!! When I asked them why, they explained their process.

    This brings me to another off topic question, does anyone know of any labs in the US (mail order or online) that still prints color enlargements from negatives using an actual enlarger instead of a scanner and printer? I really miss the quality.

  7. #27
    Daniel_OB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mississauga, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    420
    I have started with B&W and will finish. It is because I work around art photography and art do not deals with compromising, and I beleive that it is the best way to perfect one particular medium.
    Skin tones I also found the most beautiful in B&W large format when light is "correct".
    www.Leica-R.com

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Skagway, Alaska
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by snegron View Post
    I'm probably off topic, but I think you are right. I spoke with employees at a local pro lab and it turns out that they scan most of their 35mm film before it gets printed. They develop the negatives the traditional way, but I think they have done away with their chemical processing for prints. It is not noticeable on small prints like 4x6, but you can actually see the pixelation on 8x10" and 11x14" prints. I discovered this some time ago when I had 11x14 prints made from a 120 negative; it looked like a digital print!!! When I asked them why, they explained their process.

    This brings me to another off topic question, does anyone know of any labs in the US (mail order or online) that still prints color enlargements from negatives using an actual enlarger instead of a scanner and printer? I really miss the quality.
    Greetings,

    I use FinePrint Imaging in CO for all of my printing, and they print via both enlarger and scanner. I have them print almost all of my negatives by enlarger and the quality is amazing.

    Mike

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA!
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Parker View Post
    I use slide film for virtually every thing except images that contain people, I don't like the skin tone rendering on chromes, so use print for that, but everything else, landscape, products, commercial, wildlife, etc. is chrome.
    Pretty much the same for me, except for people I use digital (Blasphemy!). Nearly all of my people pics tend to be snap shots anyway, and I tend to have such a low hit rate with people pics, that digital became more cost effective and conducive to work flow. But I pretty much use chromes (namely Velvia and Sensia) for everything else.
    "A good photo may make the landscape look beautiful, but a good laugh makes the world look beautiful." -www.CianPerez.com

  10. #30
    snegron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Hot, Muggy, Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    808
    I just got back several Velvia rolls I shot recently (both 35mm and 120). The colors appear very similar to Kodachrome, skin tones only a tad less warm. I will be trying Sensia soon, hopefully I will get more accurate skin tones when I scan the slides.

Page 3 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