| Author | Post |
|---|
chrisbet
|
Yes - I know, a bit odd on a DSLR forum but I have now acquired an FE to go alongside the FM - in the day I always used Kodak Gold 200 asa for colour and Ilford FP4 125 asa for black and white.
Are these still the best general purpose stocks?
|
Iain
|
I always used Fujifilm.
|
Graham Whistler
|
Are you going to shoot some film with it. I still put the odd roll of FP4 in my Rolleiflex 3.5F, I got it new for £140 in 1959 it is still as good as new.
Click here to comment on this image.
|
chrisbet
|
Yes - my plan is to load one with B&W and the other with colour and use them for street photography and portraits. They are less intrusive than the bigger DSLRs
|
jk
|
I believe the old film stocks of Kodak Tri-X and Pan-F as still made but for colour thr Fujifilm products are fine.
For slides Kodachrome seems to have died but Fuji still make their range.
That said I have my old F2 cameras and and F3 just for the love of handling them.
I find film to be less useful for my photography and all prints will need to be made from digital images unless you want to invest in a full wet darkroom.
Digital is environmentally and practically so much easier/better.
|
chrisbet
|
Well, after reading a lot of reviews I find the whole situation confusing! So, as a starter for 10 I have gone for a roll of Ilford HP5+ (400 asa) and a roll of Kodak Gold (200 asa) I'll shoot them both through the FE which has been fully serviced and then maybe a roll of Fuji film colour & B&W and see which I prefer......
|
Eric
| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
chrisbet wrote:
Well, after reading a lot of reviews I find the whole situation confusing! So, as a starter for 10 I have gone for a roll of Ilford HP5+ (400 asa) and a roll of Kodak Gold (200 asa) I'll shoot them both through the FE which has been fully serviced and then maybe a roll of Fuji film colour & B&W and see which I prefer......
You may find the HP5 a bit grainier than 400 ISO on your DSLR. But I used it for action and got some nice results.
You could also try XP2 ….which is a BW film using C41 colour chemistry…..I found that gave less grain than XP5.
Fuji Velvia was the saturated 50asa beast but tended to be greenish. I used Provia 100asa in preference.
Whatever happened to Konica ? That was a nice 100asa colour film with a slight blue shift.
|
Iain
|
Eric wrote:
You may find the HP5 a bit grainier than 400 ISO on your DSLR. But I used it for action and got some nice results.
You could also try XP2 ….which is a BW film using C41 colour chemistry…..I found that gave less grain than XP5.
Fuji Velvia was the saturated 50asa beast but tended to be greenish. I used Provia 100asa in preference.
Whatever happened to Konica ? That was a nice 100asa colour film with a slight blue shift.
Konica was a nice film. It was Fuji print film I was using for the sport, 400 and 800asa and the 800 was pushed to 3200 when I did a night time game at the Newcastle Falcons rugby ground as they had 6 candles for flood light or so it seemed.
|
Eric
| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Iain wrote:
Konica was a nice film. It was Fuji print film I was using for the sport, 400 and 800asa and the 800 was pushed to 3200 when I did a night time game at the Newcastle Falcons rugby ground as they had 6 candles for flood light or so it seemed.
Spot the ball competitions were difficult in those days....you had so much grain the size of the football, you were spoilt where t put the X
|
Iain
|
Eric wrote:
Spot the ball competitions were difficult in those days....you had so much grain the size of the football, you were spoilt where t put the X
That was the case at the rugby but it was either that or no pictures.
|
jk
|
XP2 will yield you some good b&w images if a little flatter in contrast to TriX or HP5.
|
Eric
| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
jk wrote:
XP2 will yield you some good b&w images if a little flatter in contrast to TriX or HP5.
I suspect that’s down to typical laboratory C41 ‘average’ processing. I tended to do my own FP4 and HP5 developing and yes they were more contrasty ….but I used to boost contrast when printing my XP2 lab negs.
|
novicius
|
B&W was for me a mixed bag of sorts..I was always looking for the perfect developer...Aucutol..Acufine..Tetenal was the best chemical company of course..color was invariably shot on slides with GAF Anscochrome 500 being the Fastest of them all ...AGFA CT18 for snowscapes,...ah yes, the days of film, may they never return.
|
chrisbet
|
But they ARE returning - there is a growing following for film photography.
Maybe driven by a distrust of AI manipulation and maybe because it demands more of the photographer versus the happy Iphone snappper and Instagram.
|
novicius
|
chrisbet wrote:
But they ARE returning - there is a growing following for film photography.
Maybe driven by a distrust of AI manipulation and maybe because it demands more of the photographer versus the happy Iphone snappper and Instagram.
Surely that is for LOMO-graphers only..to be used in camera`s made of Bakelite.
...what`s next, Collodium plates and poisonous vapor, that would be one way to get rid of them pesky photogs.,....
|
Eric
| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
chrisbet wrote:
But they ARE returning - there is a growing following for film photography.
Maybe driven by a distrust of AI manipulation and maybe because it demands more of the photographer versus the happy Iphone snappper and Instagram.
How much digital photograph demands of you, depends on where you want to go with it. It may well take photography away from its roots in basic image capture and faithful reproduction but it opens up a whole host of artistic opportunities ....if the person is interested in doing that.
I really don't want to go back to darkroom work again. I had years developing autoradiographs for UKAEA and then bizarrely continued in photographic darkrooms as a hobby!! As soon as I was able to subcontract film processing and print production I seized the opportunity.
|
novicius
|
Kidding aside,..Film, Chemistry,Darkroom etc. has an attraction of it own, and if I was half a century younger then I would be interested in that , just as I was then in the Collodium process.
Now that way of photography does have challenges and virtues of its own,and providing the Mfgrs. continue supporting by offering the goodies required, then it will probably be around for a long time to come.
I mean to remember that photography was Not accepted as an artform until early 1930´s in the USA, and not until the 1950`s in EUROPE ,I still meet those who consider Digital as Not being art, but accept Film photography as so, Indeed , a true photog is someone who uses film.
Due to it being a complicated medium of different demands ,it does force the photog. to be more attentive to workflow,which in turn will offer rewards in satisfaction of self,and a deeper understanding of what makes a good picture.
|
Eric
| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4402 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
novicius wrote:
Kidding aside,..Film, Chemistry,Darkroom etc. has an attraction of it own, and if I was half a century younger then I would be interested in that , just as I was then in the Collodium process.
Now that way of photography does have challenges and virtues of its own,and providing the Mfgrs. continue supporting by offering the goodies required, then it will probably be around for a long time to come.
I mean to remember that photography was Not accepted as an artform until early 1930´s in the USA, and not until the 1950`s in EUROPE ,I still meet those who consider Digital as Not being art, but accept Film photography as so, Indeed , a true photog is someone who uses film.
Due to it being a complicated medium of different demands ,it does force the photog. to be more attentive to workflow,which in turn will offer rewards in satisfaction of self,and a deeper understanding of what makes a good picture.
In real terms, its a very small step from film photography to digital photography. I personally think anyone who draws a line between the two in terms of art, is missing the whole meaning of art.
|
Peter_LO
|
chrisbet wrote:
Well, after reading a lot of reviews I find the whole situation confusing! So, as a starter for 10 I have gone for a roll of Ilford HP5+ (400 asa) and a roll of Kodak Gold (200 asa) I'll shoot them both through the FE which has been fully serviced and then maybe a roll of Fuji film colour & B&W and see which I prefer......
I had some not bad experience with HP5+ (dichroic fog even with D23, a non-solvent developer and fresh fixer) so I'd recommend Kodak products instead.
BTW where did you have the camera serviced?
|
chrisbet
|
The camera was serviced by Rob at Vintage Cameras Galore - he does work for the London Camera Exchange and came recommended.
|
Peter_LO
|
chrisbet wrote:
The camera was serviced by Rob at Vintage Cameras Galore - he does work for the London Camera Exchange and came recommended.
Thank you Chris. I'll ask him to see if he can fix the ADR of my FM2 - I'm still puzzled how a very minor drop of the camera could break this feature.
|
chrisbet
|
Here is his email address - sales@vintagecamerasgalore.com
|
jk
|
Back in the 70/80/90s I had a colour darkroom but I found that it meant that I was spending a day or half a day locked away in the dark which was pretty antisocial. That said the Cibachrome prints I made then still look great.
There was another Agfa paper that was similar to Cibachrome but used less toxic chemicals but I cant remember its product name. I will try to search for it.
|
jk
|
The Agfa paper for making prints from slides was Agfachrome PE CU 310/312.
More info here....
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Colour_Darkroom/Early_Agfa.html#anchorAgfaCUinDrums
Agfachrome PE CU 310 and CU 312 Papers
Agfa-Gevaert introduced Agfachrome paper in 1979 as a reversal colour printing paper for making colour prints directly from colour transparencies. The paper was similar in structure to the negative colour printing paper MCN Type 5 and the emulsions were coated onto a polyethylene coated paper base (PE). Two finishes were available, glossy 310 and smooth semi-matt 312. In the darkroom the paper had to be handled in total darkness.
It was recommended that a first trial print was made without any correction filters in the enlarger filter draw, or the dials of the colour head set to zero, and a trial exposure made at a lens aperture of F8.
Whatever the colour cast of the test print, the opposite colour filter to the cast was used to arrive at a correctly balanced print. A yellow cast was corrected by inserting magenta and cyan (blue) filters in the filter draw or by dialling up magenta and cyan filters in a colour head. The method of colour correction was exactly the opposite to printing a colour negative.
In 1980, Agfachrome paper was obtainable in sizes from 5 x 7 inches to 20 x 24 inches in 10, 25 and 100 sheet packings. Pictures of the packaging are shown below.
|
Peter_LO
|
Same here JK. My colour darkroom in Hong Kong could double as a sauna as it was so tiny (around 30 sq feet) but I had to keep the heater on when printing colour.
In fact I brought this - and most of my darkroom equipment to the UK, but I'm not sure whether I'd like to use them again. 
Click here to comment on this image.
|
