[Gooshin]

now THIS film i like, and funny enough it was the cheapst out of the whole bunch, i think 11 dollars for 3 rolls @24 frames

it has medium and not overly saturated tones in teh day time and night time, very little had to be done with white balance adjustments.

i like the grain, and i like the sharpness, will try again.

$/results blow fuji 400 pro out of the water (i think i paid 12 dollars for the roll of fuji 400 pro!!)



outdoors daytime:

Cosina 55mm, F? , 1/2000s





outdoors nighttime

Sigma 28mm, F4, 15(fifteen) seconds




Indoors Good Lighting

Cosina 55mm, F? (probably 2.0 or 2.8), 1/250s




Indoors Poor Lighting

Sigma 28mm, F1.8, 1/6s ( YES< HANDHELD 1/6 SECONDS)





this shot blows my mind

get this

Sigma 28mm F1.8 1/10s (WIDE OPEN< 1/10s HANDHELD!!!!)





and finaly my through-glass-trick shot

Sigma 28mm, F5.6, 1/8s

[stevebrot]

Hey Gooshin, I like your test shots. Looks like pretty nice stuff! And you say that it is cheap too?

Steve

[k100d]

nice pics, enjoying your survey of different films. hope to see more.

best place to get this stuff is at Loblaws who relable the film. $30 5 pack WITH development but scanning is a bit pricier. i used a whole set for testing my new cameras for light leaks. the results i've gotten back have been very good. i think blacks also does this relabeling thing but they're more expensive.

as for 400H prices, the cheapest place is B&H at $4 a roll. at elpro, the guy was selling a 5 pack for $40, not bad and he also has the new Ektar 100.

[Gooshin]

Steve,

Superia is Fuji's consumer brand, the junk you can get almost anywhere, equivalent to kodak "gold" i think (altho i have yet to try Gold)

its the cheapest to process and cheapest to buy simply because of the volume.


also now that i have this fany scanner i would never bother with other stuff

i get 4000 dpi 16 bit tiffs out of this baby. Also scanning takes a boat load of time, i cant imagine some dude at a shop putting in as much effort as i am scanning these.

[stevebrot]

Steve,

Superia is Fuji's consumer brand, the junk you can get almost anywhere, equivalent to kodak "gold" i think (altho i have yet to try Gold)

its the cheapest to process and cheapest to buy simply because of the volume.


also now that i have this fany scanner i would never bother with other stuff

i get 4000 dpi 16 bit tiffs out of this baby. Also scanning takes a boat load of time, i cant imagine some dude at a shop putting in as much effort as i am scanning these.

Thanks for the clarification regarding products. I am slowly getting back into film shooting and don't have the products sorted out yet. That is, except for the Ektar 100 that currently holds the position of honor in my refrigerator.

Congratulations on getting a film scanner. One of these days, I will have to take the plunge. For now the drug store scans will have to do.

Steve

[CSoars]

I agree with you, I shot a roll of superia 200, then tried some fuji PRO 160C, I didn't find a great deal of difference, and the 160C wasn't as saturated as I had hoped, maybe it's the dull winter light at the moment. I'm trying some kodak 400UC at the moment in the quest for colour saturation.

Scanning your own stuff is pretty great, so much more control and way cheaper after the up-front price. I usually speed things up with 2400 DPI jpegs that net me a 2100x3300 or so image that sits around 3.2 MB. Saving 4000 DPI tiffs with digital ICE on really slows things down, but the results can be pretty great w/ 48 bit colour.

[thePiRaTE!!]

now THIS film i like, and funny enough it was the cheapst out of the whole bunch, i think 11 dollars for 3 rolls @24 frames

it has medium and not overly saturated tones in teh day time and night time, very little had to be done with white balance adjustments.

i like the grain, and i like the sharpness, will try again.

$/results blow fuji 400 pro out of the water (i think i paid 12 dollars for the roll of fuji 400 pro!!)


...outdoors nighttime

Sigma 28mm, F4, 15(fifteen) seconds




...

I really like this shot, turned out great. Thanks for turning me onto this thread Gooshin. I will give it serious thought, it would be good to have the experience of a 24x36 capture area to know if my suspicions of its advantages - especially in the dof dept - are as apparent in use as I hope. Are you really noticing the difference?

K.

[woof]

I agree with you, I shot a roll of superia 200, then tried some fuji PRO 160C, I didn't find a great deal of difference, and the 160C wasn't as saturated as I had hoped, maybe it's the dull winter light at the moment. I'm trying some kodak 400UC at the moment in the quest for colour saturation.

Try Fuji Superia Reala 100.

woof

[Gooshin]

I really like this shot, turned out great. Thanks for turning me onto this thread Gooshin. I will give it serious thought, it would be good to have the experience of a 24x36 capture area to know if my suspicions of its advantages - especially in the dof dept - are as apparent in use as I hope. Are you really noticing the difference?

K.

i most definetly noticing the difference, not sure if its the DOF or the film quality itself, but its very easy now to use wide angle lenses (20-30) at regular distances and good apertures (f2.0 - 2.8) to really make teh subject pop out and fade everything else.

also i would like to add that its much easier to shoot at slower speeds (provided you do mirror lockup), perhaps if i pixel peep digital is still better, but i'm slowly learning to not bother with pixel peeping, esp when my images are 6000X4000

check out this shot, nothing special but i hope you can see what i'm trying to convey, how things just start to evenly fade out, much harder to get on digital.

[Gooshin]

I really like this shot, turned out great. Thanks for turning me onto this thread Gooshin. I will give it serious thought, it would be good to have the experience of a 24x36 capture area to know if my suspicions of its advantages - especially in the dof dept - are as apparent in use as I hope. Are you really noticing the difference?

K.

also, since you liked that shot, you MAY like this shot even more, i didnt post it because i felt not everyone would "get it".... but i cant recal ever getting thsi sort of result on digital

[thePiRaTE!!]

i most definetly noticing the difference, not sure if its the DOF or the film quality itself, but its very easy now to use wide angle lenses (20-30) at regular distances and good apertures (f2.0 - 2.8) to really make teh subject pop out and fade everything else.

also i would like to add that its much easier to shoot at slower speeds (provided you do mirror lockup), perhaps if i pixel peep digital is still better, but i'm slowly learning to not bother with pixel peeping, esp when my images are 6000X4000

check out this shot, nothing special but i hope you can see what i'm trying to convey, how things just start to evenly fade out, much harder to get on digital.

THATS what I'm saying (and suspecting) all along. With a larger capture area (sensor etc) you can stand closer to your subject, thus decreasing dof and enhancing subject isolation. Where I'm obligated to use a 58 now to get all of my subject in, I could use an 85. Or, as you've shown - to be able to stand close enough with a wide angle to get substantial subject isolation. It probably means more to me than other shooters because dof is such a big part of what I do. My folks have an old Ricoh screw mount. I think I'll try it out with my M42s, but as far as digital goes - I'm waiting until March.

also, since you liked that shot, you MAY like this shot even more, i didnt post it because i felt not everyone would "get it".... but i cant recal ever getting thsi sort of result on digital

Works quite well I think, still a strong central focus point in the fireworks, which is actually enhanced by the blurred, softened background buildings. Makes a light bulb go off in my mind. Alternate ways to produce subject isolation. I was looking over the site of Darwin Wiggett today, who uses long exposures to 'paint' backgrounds with. Food for thought.

K.

[tranq78]

Try Fuji Superia Reala 100.

woof

I agree. For landscapes and portraits/people Reala is excellent with very tight grain and great colors.

Often I use negatives (Reala) instead of slides for landscapes if I know I'm going to have more than 4 stops of contrast, usually sunrise/sunset photos in the mountains.

I find I either need ISO100 or ISO400 but rarely anything in between. So for 400 speed, I use Superia 400. I find there is hardly any difference in grain or colors between Superia 200 vs 400.

When my freezer full of Reala is used up I'll try the Kodak Ektar 100.

Recently I discovered the Shoppers Drug Mart "Easypix" brand ISO400 film. I've bought a whole bunch on sale for $3.99 per 3 pack. Even though it is really cheap it is surprisingly good, reminding me of Konica Centuria (sp?).

[Mechan1k]

Nice work Gooshin ... I have a few rolls of it ... and I know i can get a hell of a lot more of it too.

Makes me really want to head outdoors again and shoot ... I need to get used to non-APS-C as well ... might put my 85mm Super Tak to good use now with it. For now though I really love using the 55mm f/1.8 on it.

[jgredline]

Nice work my friend!. I also have that film and have taken a real liking to it. I don't think I paid as much as you did, but it could be the exchange rates kind of thing...

[john carter]

I use that film, or at least I think I do, I use Fuji Superia Xtra 400 (not 200). I get it at Costco in Danville, CA for about $1.37 (USA) per roll. But I have given up on it, too much grain or aliasing, I now shoot only Tmax 100 or Ektar100 in 35mm. Now that I have a Pentax 6x7 my life has changed. But when I shoot Fuji Superia in any of my 120 cameras I really like it.