If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:27:54 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: snip After doing some research on line, I seem to run into a variety of opinions about what the aperture and shutter speed are on the old Brownies from the 50s. The consensus seems to be something like 1/45 and F22. I figure either flash or bright sunlight. I'll know for sure when the film comes back from the developer. What kind of flash did you use? It occurs to me that a Brownie might not x-sync. It might be M, F or ME. So your flash might fire a little early with the Brownie that you have... I actually have one of the old proprietary flash attachments that Kodak made for this model Brownie. I have a few dozen flash bulbs. They can still be found once in a while on e-bay, though they are getting harder and harder (and more expensive) to find. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:36:06 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: snip You may have found ... http://www.brownie-camera.com/ Various places seem to indicate an M sync - if you used an X-sync flash your shots will be after the flash fired. Yes, I have seen that web page. I am tempted to try hooking up an electronic flash to one of my other Brownies at some point. I have a couple that have sticky shutters that I might use as test projects, and if successful, I'll try it on my good Brownie. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-03-02 18:49 , wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Given the high contrasts in the southwest over a large part of the day, the Ektar would have been very nice when I was there. (It may not have existed then). Why in the world would you use a high contrast film to shoot in high contrast conditions? O.o That makes absolutely no sense at all. That would be like saying "I have this super contrasty B&W negative so I'm going to want to print it using a high contrast paper"... The tone of your post seemed someone very unfamiliar (or out of date) with film exposure that I related what I could for your possible benefit. ???? What part of my post made it sound like I am clueless about Why do you use extremes like "clueless" when all I said was "unfamiliar" or "out of date"? Clueless is no more extreme than "very unfamiliar" and you failed to point out what part of my post came across as my needing the basics of exposure explained to me. Stephanie |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
wrote:
Why in the world would you use a high contrast film to shoot in high contrast conditions? O.o That makes absolutely no sense at all. That would be like saying "I have this super contrasty B&W negative so I'm going to want to print it using a high contrast paper"... Just my point of view, but high contrast subjects SHOULD be rendered with a high contrast medium. If you use a low contrast media to render it, it becomes average in contrast, which makes it look like a one-hour-lab print. In printing terms, everything averaged out to 18% gray makes "nice" but boring prints. I used to love taking pictures in Philly during November at around 3pm with the original Ektar 25. The air was clear (unusual for Philly), the light was sharp and highly directional. Ektar rendered it perfectly. It's a shame, two moves, a marriage and 20 some years, I've lost those negatives (and prints). :-( Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
wrote: Why in the world would you use a high contrast film to shoot in high contrast conditions? O.o That makes absolutely no sense at all. That would be like saying "I have this super contrasty B&W negative so I'm going to want to print it using a high contrast paper"... Just my point of view, but high contrast subjects SHOULD be rendered with a high contrast medium. If you use a low contrast media to render it, it becomes average in contrast, which makes it look like a one-hour-lab print. If I was shooting a very high contrast scene, I'd be concerned that a high contrast film would either blow out the high lights or block up the shadows, even with "perfect" exposure. Especially if you are scanning the film like Allen does, making it "high contrast" later is easy (you have some control of what you can lose and not ruin the image). Doing the reverse is impossible. That's why it didn't make sense he would pick that film for that application.. Stephanie |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
wrote:
If I was shooting a very high contrast scene, I'd be concerned that a high contrast film would either blow out the high lights or block up the shadows, even with "perfect" exposure. Especially if you are scanning the film like Allen does, making it "high contrast" later is easy (you have some control of what you can lose and not ruin the image). Doing the reverse is impossible. That's why it didn't make sense he would pick that film for that application.. Too much digital photograhy. :-) The world is not like that, some people want to show it that way. The modern homogenized, all effects the same, done on a computer photographs are not desired by everyone. Geoff -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
wrote:
If I was shooting a very high contrast scene, I'd be concerned that a high contrast film would either blow out the high lights or block up the shadows, even with "perfect" exposure. Especially if you are scanning the film like Allen does, making it "high contrast" later is easy (you have some control of what you can lose and not ruin the image). Doing the reverse is impossible. That's why it didn't make sense he would pick that film for that application.. This to me is a lot of what is wrong with photgraphy these days. It all started with APS. Kodak figured out they could sell more pictures if the camera communicated the exposure and other details to the printing machine. The computer in the APS printing machine could use the information magneticly encoded on the film to produce more homogenous looking, i.e. "good" prints from various exposure conditions. The outcome of this research was that one could use low resolution device to determine the "best" color balance and exposure for the print by looking at the negative, and did not need the information on the film, or to record it at all. So APS died a slow death, and people got the same print quality from 35mm and eventually other formats. Digital photography lends itself well to the whole concept because everything is processed. Even RAW files are really "cooked", because except for a handful of Sigma cameras, no camera has a single sensor that records all colors. If someone reading this does not know what I am talking about, look up Bayer sensors. So people assume that in order to produce a photograph, you have to work within the limits of the medium and produce prints that look like they came from a one hour lab. To be unkind, I don't care. I know that film has limitations, I understand what they are and the limitations of printing (both digital and not). I am not looking to produce a digital print that looks good on your inkjet, or poorly adjusted monitor, web page, etc. I don't want the low contrast, high saturation of an LCD display, and so on. I want to take a photograph of a high contrast scene and have it printed on photgraphic paper in such a way that the print evokes the original scene. I don't want it to "look good". Can digital photpgraphy produce the same results. Not really. Will it be able to in the future? Probably. If you compare the quality of digital cameras and prints made 10 years ago to today, you see a large improvement. Will it continue? I hope so. Will film continue? I expect that eventually it will fade away due to the high cost of raw materials and production, and the improvment of digital photography. I'm hoping that day is far off. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM New word I coined 12/13/09, "Sub-Wikipedia" adj, describing knowledge or understanding, as in he has a sub-wikipedia understanding of the situation. i.e possessing less facts or information than can be found in the Wikipedia. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The new C-41 films..
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
I want to take a photograph of a high contrast scene and have it printed on photgraphic paper in such a way that the print evokes the original scene. I don't want it to "look good". Can digital photpgraphy produce the same results. Not really. If you read my posts, I'm returning to film for all the reasons you stated. That said, I'm just not sure using a high contrast film to record a high contrast scene would produce a "print that evokes the original scene" if the highlights AND the shadows are both blown out. YMMV Stephanie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Want to be in Films? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 20th 07 03:23 AM |
Old films | Lassi Hippeläinen | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 13 | October 28th 05 08:46 PM |
Speaking of sheet films (Tri-X /Bush thread) --Hows the J&C House brand in 4x5 thru 11x14? Efke sheet films? | jjs | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | October 25th 04 05:24 PM |
Two Odd Films | Neil Purling | Large Format Photography Equipment | 16 | August 13th 04 08:06 PM |
Films | F.C. Trevor Gale | Film & Labs | 1 | October 23rd 03 12:45 AM |