I am getting back to photography after a long, long hiatus.
I have been looking at all sorts of DSLRs and the like, when it occurred to me I had an old OM2S system in storage. I dug it out, and shot a drugstore roll of film to check it out. Seems to be working fine.
I used to do a lot of landscape photography, especially when I lived in the Pacific North Wet years ago. Now semi-retired, I want to get back in the saddle again. What are my options film wise? They appear limited these days, given digital popularity, but I bought a few rolls of Kodak Ektar 100 color print film to try out. I used to shot Kodachrome 64 years ago.
So what are OM'ers using these days?
Thanks in advance....
I use Fujifilm Superia nowadays, mainly 400 asa but occasionally 800 and 1600 asa as well.
I am a film whore. I will use anything but mostly Kodak or Fujifilm consumer color. For b/w I still have a bunch of Kodak Plus-x and Fujifilm Acros I bought a couple of years back. Fomapan is also a favorite of mine.
Fujifilm still has several slide films. Better get some because you never know when it will disappear.
For Black and White I am using Kodak T-Max 400 mostly and once in a while some Plus-X. For color I have been using Fuji Superia 400.
Hi OMJeff, welcome to the fold. I shoot Fujichrome Velvia 50, 100, and Provia 400. I have a couple of cassettes of Ektar 100 in the 'fridge' which I've yet to try. My intention is to scan the transparancies to various websites as well as producing prints, but as this an analogue only forum, I can't say that.
I have to confess that I shoot anything I can get in my camera. I have a slight preference for Kodak colout print, Illford FP4 for black and white and the odd roll of Fuji slide. But there are exceptions to this. I've recently shot my first roll of Ektar. It's very slide like, but for me the jury's still out on this one.
Without meaning to step on toes, I don't know why anyone would use print film. Might as well use one of those d!#&@l things. I've got 75 rolls of VS in the freezer (Damn you, Kodak!). When that is used up, it will be Provia. Shoot it with a warming filter to fix that cold, Fuji color cast.
Some (most) print film has a better margin for exposure error than transparency film, costs less, consumer versions are readily available, and can be developed and printed locally if needed in an hour.
thuggins, everyone sees colour differently, believe me. I use Velvia 50 and 100 and have never found it to be cold. Ektachrome on the other hand, under many conditions needed an 81C. but that's as I see it. I worked in the photo. trade for many years (when Kodachrome was 10 ASA and beyond), some customers loved it, some would prefer Ektachrome or Agfa. It's personal.
beegee675, probably all neg. film has a better exposure latitude than positive film but many folk find that the colour saturation of a correctly exposed transparency so much more appealing.
Absolutely. If I can, I generally go with transparency film to avoid the the step of the transitional software profile interpreting the negative scan. Some cameras just don't like the transparency films. I used my XA with Velvia 50 and 100 this past fall in Utah's canyons this past fall, intending to take as much advantage of the intensity of colors, and I think they consistantly came out heavy, maybe some under exposed. The meters on the XA did as best job they could... Still, no loss... The pix were great. Have to see if I can post some to show. For the time period, the XA was probably meant to be used with print film.
Yes, go with transparency if you can.
Simple rule of thumb, which you may already know. Negative film - expose for shadows, positive film - expose for highlights. The most important thing is that you understand your camera and how it behaves. I always test a film which I've not used before by bracketing exposure and viewing the results. In most instances the manufacturers have got it right, but some cameras might just see things differently, not because there're faulty it's the way the metering works. There is no true correct exposure, it depends on many things and has to be a compromise, largely due to the contrast latitude of the film.
Just shot a roll of Provia 100f with my OM-4t. Great film and scanned easily. Have noticed that my usual exposure for slide film, slight underexposed, makes for more difficult scans. Hope to post a couple of pics soon.
Black and white only. Ilford FP4+ dev in D-76 1+3.
Kodak Tri-X 400
I like to shoot Tri-X for B&W, but I got both several Lucky 200 from cheapbay, and 8 rolls of Superia 200 from a colleague when it comes to color.
I realize I don't like Tri-X. I adored Plus-X and with all the raves about Tri-X I bought a bunch but I just can't get a look I like.
And i do like Fomapan 400. I also love Fujifilm Neopan 400 so maybe I will try T-max 400.
So have I committed a sin?
Tri-X 400 + D-76, (is it still available?) diluted 1:1 always worked for me. Plus-X, developed similarly also, just a little more contrast and slightly finer grain. It depends on your end product ie; size of print, reproduction in magazine or newspaper etc. and if yours is the only shot of an important happening the press would be glad of anything!
Er, yeh, I forgot to mention the competition - cell phones!!!
I'm sorry - don't understand the question. I thought thought Provia was the only film made.
Na Penceler, there's Velvia as well.
Tri-x @ E.I.320 and Acros @ E.I.80 as far as black and white goes, but for colour I basically run the gamut. Whatever I can get my hands on - lately I've been loving the Fuji Pro colour negs but they are costly; therefore I always have a few rolls of Kodak gold 200 and 400 on me as well. As far as diapositive films go I only have experience with Velvia 50 and 100f; that being said I would love to shoot some Provia 400 especially to test out its push capabilities!