The new C-41 films..

[s***@yahoo.com]

The little bit of research I have done shows that both Kodak and Fuji
have some new c-41 color neg films out. I've ordered 5 rolls of both the
Ektar 100 and Fuji 160C to see which I like. I shoot mostly landscapes
and like saturated colors. The main reason I like color neg film is for
the exposure latitude, especially when using old gear with questionable
shutter speed accuracy. Plus I can think more about composing and not be
frantic about nailing the exposure perfect that slide film requires.
Plus DR prints from chromes are a headache compared to RA-4 printing.

In the past I always aimed for 1/2 to 1 stop over exposure to be safe
but not sure how these new films respond. I've read ektar is picky about
exposure and needs to be treated more like it's iso 80 slide film to get
good results? And I read that the fuji 160C is more lenient to exposure
errors, which might suit me better. I know in the past I hated the
results I got from films like 160NPS so I doubt I would care for a low
contrast "portrait" type film now any better. My favorite film was agfa
ultra 50, which of course is gone.

Anyway just thought this might stir some conversation relevant to
medium format cameras instead of the typical digital discussion..

Stephanie

[Alan Browne]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
The little bit of research I have done shows that both Kodak and Fuji
have some new c-41 color neg films out. I've ordered 5 rolls of both the
Ektar 100 and Fuji 160C to see which I like. I shoot mostly landscapes
and like saturated colors. The main reason I like color neg film is for
the exposure latitude, especially when using old gear with questionable
shutter speed accuracy. Plus I can think more about composing and not be
frantic about nailing the exposure perfect that slide film requires.
Plus DR prints from chromes are a headache compared to RA-4 printing.
In the past I always aimed for 1/2 to 1 stop over exposure to be safe
but not sure how these new films respond. I've read ektar is picky about
exposure and needs to be treated more like it's iso 80 slide film to get
good results? And I read that the fuji 160C is more lenient to exposure
errors, which might suit me better. I know in the past I hated the
results I got from films like 160NPS so I doubt I would care for a low
contrast "portrait" type film now any better. My favorite film was agfa
ultra 50, which of course is gone.

Pretty much all negative colour film can be overexposed by up to a stop
with little danger to highlight detail.

There are also saturated "portrait" films like Portra 160VC that may
appeal to you.

If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

I don't know how the Fuji 160 C responds, but most photogs using its
competitor, Kodak Portra 160 EI it at 100 (giving a nominal 2/3 over).

For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

[K W Hart]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by s***@yahoo.com
The little bit of research I have done shows that both Kodak and Fuji
have some new c-41 color neg films out. I've ordered 5 rolls of both the
Ektar 100 and Fuji 160C to see which I like. I shoot mostly landscapes
and like saturated colors. The main reason I like color neg film is for
the exposure latitude, especially when using old gear with questionable
shutter speed accuracy. Plus I can think more about composing and not be
frantic about nailing the exposure perfect that slide film requires.
Plus DR prints from chromes are a headache compared to RA-4 printing.
In the past I always aimed for 1/2 to 1 stop over exposure to be safe
but not sure how these new films respond. I've read ektar is picky about
exposure and needs to be treated more like it's iso 80 slide film to get
good results? And I read that the fuji 160C is more lenient to exposure
errors, which might suit me better. I know in the past I hated the
results I got from films like 160NPS so I doubt I would care for a low
contrast "portrait" type film now any better. My favorite film was agfa
ultra 50, which of course is gone.

Pretty much all negative colour film can be overexposed by up to a stop
with little danger to highlight detail.
There are also saturated "portrait" films like Portra 160VC that may
appeal to you.
If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and you'll
be very safe.
I don't know how the Fuji 160 C responds, but most photogs using its
competitor, Kodak Portra 160 EI it at 100 (giving a nominal 2/3 over).
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3 to
2/3 apart).

I have not used either the Fuji or the Ektar films, but Mr Browne is spot on
with his suggestion of the Portra VC films. If you want strong colors, try
the Portra VC ("Vivid Color") films in ISO 160 or 400. These films are very
forgiving for exposure. Once I had a flash failure that caused the exposure
to be two stops under- the negs weren't great, but they were printable. I
use both of these films at their rated ISO and get good results.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Alan Browne
If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

What's a light meter?

Stephanie

[Noons]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

What's a light meter?
Stephanie

LOL! That'll hurt...

I'm using now mostly Ektar100 and Portra400 for colour negatives.
Stopped using 160NPS and NPC essentially because they are not very
scanner friendly. Or rather: they show horrible scan aliasing
"grain", whereas the Kodak film doesn't. I guess that is one film area
where Fuji has dropped the ball compared to Kodak.
Of course: nothing is absolute with film, so keep an ear out for
improvements on the Fuji side.

As for exposure: I use spot-on rather than the usual "overexpose
colour negative".
Most of those recommendations come from decades ago, when indeed they
were useful.
I wouldn't bother with modern film like Portra and Ektar: expose it
spot-on the makers claim and only change if you really need an
improvement in shadow detail.
Of course, YMMV and all that. Use whatever works for you and produces
the results you like: there are no absolutes.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Noons

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

What's a light meter?
Stephanie

LOL! That'll hurt...

I got to where I usually didn't need a light meter shooting outdoors
with print film, most of it seems to be pretty lax about exposure or I'm
good at guessing.. I sure wouldn't be using print film if it requires a
spot meter!! For that matter I never had a need for a spot meter
shooting slide film, a basic incidence meter and knowing how to use it
should work..

Post by Noons
I'm using now mostly Ektar100 and Portra400 for colour negatives.
Stopped using 160NPS and NPC essentially because they are not very
scanner friendly. Or rather: they show horrible scan aliasing
"grain", whereas the Kodak film doesn't. I guess that is one film area
where Fuji has dropped the ball compared to Kodak.
Of course: nothing is absolute with film, so keep an ear out for
improvements on the Fuji side.

This new fuji 160's are supposed to be more scanner friendly?

Post by Noons
As for exposure: I use spot-on rather than the usual "overexpose
colour negative".
Most of those recommendations come from decades ago, when indeed they
were useful.

I found I got snappier looking colors, more contrast and less visible
grain on the over exposure side of things when optically printing. Maybe
with scanning film it's a problem? I'm not sure yet if I am going to
ditch optically printing film, I got fairly good at RA4 printing and I
know it's archival..

Post by Noons
I wouldn't bother with modern film like Portra and Ektar: expose it
spot-on the makers claim and only change if you really need an
improvement in shadow detail.

OK I'll try that as a starting point...

[Noons]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I got to where I usually didn't need a light meter shooting outdoors
with print film, most of it seems to be pretty lax about exposure or I'm
good at guessing.. I sure wouldn't be using print film if it requires a
spot meter!! For that matter I never had a need for a spot meter
shooting slide film, a basic incidence meter and knowing how to use it
should work..

Print film would require spot metering in extreme lighting situations, where one
needs the full density range the emulsion can give - and a little more if
possible.
A basic incident light meter will cover 99% of the remaining, quite frankly.

I use the spot meter in my 35mm cameras and a Pentax Digital for MF, for one
simple reason: light in Australia is usually of a very high contrast and I have
to avoid blocked out areas at both extremes in just about any shot under sunny
conditions. In some instances I am actually using specific areas of the density
range of b&w film, for which I need very accurate control.

But apart from those extremes, a simple CW meter or my trusty old Lunasix F in
incident mode are all that's needed.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
This new fuji 160's are supposed to be more scanner friendly?

They were supposed to, but I've found there is much better now.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I found I got snappier looking colors, more contrast and less visible
grain on the over exposure side of things when optically printing. Maybe
with scanning film it's a problem? I'm not sure yet if I am going to
ditch optically printing film, I got fairly good at RA4 printing and I
know it's archival..

If you enjoy the optical printing process and are setup to do it, then the
slight overexposure may indeed be of advantage. It helps to increase the
density of the negative: a slightly denser negative is usually easier to control
in optical printing. Easy does it, but it is indeed at the origin of the
"overexpose print film" adage.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
OK I'll try that as a starting point...

Exactly. Please don't take anything I say as an absolute. It's nothing more
than a reference or starting point, after that it's all your own input. That's
indeed the whole fun of it!

[Alan Browne]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

What's a light meter?

Easier to carry around than a heavy meter.

I take your point, in the southwest US I exposed about 20 rolls of 120
and I used my meter on less than a dozen shots.

You can also use
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light%20Intensity%20Chart and
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#EXPOSURE%20FACTOR%20RELATIONSHIP%20CHART%20B

in the absence of a meter with remarkably accurate results.

However, critical placement of highlights on slide film does require a
spot meter for consistently usable results.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

What's a light meter?

However, critical placement of highlights on slide film does require a
spot meter for consistently usable results.

Thanks for a confusing response. :-) You say to meter the shadows in one
post, then talk about how critical metering the highlights are in the
next.. Then talk about how you don't use a meter. Guess that covers all
the bases..

Have you actually shot any of these films in my original post? It's not
like I have never shot film before and was asking for a basic primer on
how to use film here. I was asking for responses from someone who has
actually shot with either of these themselves, if what I have read about
the new ektar film is true etc.

Stephanie

[Alan Browne]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
If you have a spot meter, meter the shadow detail for about -3 and
you'll be very safe.

What's a light meter?

However, critical placement of highlights on slide film does require a
spot meter for consistently usable results.

Thanks for a confusing response. :-) You say to meter the shadows in one
post, then talk about how critical metering the highlights are in the
next.. Then talk about how you don't use a meter. Guess that covers all
the bases..

I didn't say "I don't use a meter." I said there are conditions where a
meter is not required. (3. below).

Clarifying the highlight v. shadow metering:

1. Slide film: meter the highlight detail areas @ +2.

2. Negative color film: meter the shadow detail areas at -3.

(You can also meter negatives in the highlights @ +3. But the practice
is to meter for the shadows (-3 ish) in order to assure detail for
printing.)

3. In broad daylight with sun drenched subjects, one generally does not
need a meter if they remember one rule (I'll let you remember or
research that). Even under varying levels of cloudiness, one should
with experience know where the exposure should be and should be able to
work out reciprocal settings. That is where those links are
interesting, Fred takes it on beyond the basics. I don't use his charts
generally, but for night shooting they are excellent starting points
(the first of those 2 links).

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Have you actually shot any of these films in my original post? It's not
like I have never shot film before and was asking for a basic primer on
how to use film here. I was asking for responses from someone who has
actually shot with either of these themselves, if what I have read about
the new ektar film is true etc.

Of the films you mentioned, I've recently shot the Ektar 100 on 120 with
fine results - leaning 2/3 stop over as I would with Portra. (EI 64 for
100). This film also scans very cleanly, just as well as Portra 160NC.

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.

The main point being that for just about any colour negative film you
can lean towards over exposure from nominal with little danger of detail
loss. This is why "portrait" and "wedding" film is typically indexed
2/3 of a stop low (eg: rate 160 at 100). (For clothing, this also helps
with detail in dark clothes without losing detail in the white clothes).

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Have you actually shot any of these films in my original post? It's not
like I have never shot film before and was asking for a basic primer on
how to use film here. I was asking for responses from someone who has
actually shot with either of these themselves, if what I have read about
the new ektar film is true etc.

Of the films you mentioned, I've recently shot the Ektar 100 on 120 with
fine results - leaning 2/3 stop over as I would with Portra. (EI 64 for
100). This film also scans very cleanly, just as well as Portra 160NC.

If you reread my original post, THIS is all I asked for. Why you wait
till now to post this seems odd, makes me question if you actually have
used this film or are just trying to "save face".. And the fact you post
nothing other than "fine results" to describe a film seems strange too.

Post by Alan Browne
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
exposure? If you reread my original post, you just repeated what I
posted. O.o Oh wait, that's right, a woman couldn't possibly be able to
grasp something as complex as exposing film and retain it...

Stephanie

[Alan Browne]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Have you actually shot any of these films in my original post? It's not
like I have never shot film before and was asking for a basic primer on
how to use film here. I was asking for responses from someone who has
actually shot with either of these themselves, if what I have read about
the new ektar film is true etc.

Of the films you mentioned, I've recently shot the Ektar 100 on 120
with fine results - leaning 2/3 stop over as I would with Portra. (EI
64 for 100). This film also scans very cleanly, just as well as Portra
160NC.

If you reread my original post, THIS is all I asked for. Why you wait
till now to post this seems odd, makes me question if you actually have
used this film or are just trying to "save face".. And the fact you post
nothing other than "fine results" to describe a film seems strange too.

As I explained (and you quote below) to me it sounded as if you were not
too sure.

I've used it in studio instead of 160VC as I had heard so many great
things about it. In the end 160VC or Ektar would not have made very
much difference for that particular shoot.

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).

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
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"?

Post by s***@yahoo.com
exposure? If you reread my original post, you just repeated what I
posted. O.o Oh wait, that's right, a woman couldn't possibly be able to
grasp something as complex as exposing film and retain it...

Oh boo hoo.

I was just relating it from my POV and experience. That it reflects
your experience you should see as a positive. I've learned a lot of
technical and artistic points in photography (and much more elsewhere)
from women. It's really not an issue.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Alan Browne
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"...

Post by Alan Browne

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
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

[Alan Browne]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
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.

High saturation (the film's main suit) fits the southwest colours.
That's why.

Indexing the film low reduces contrast.
That's why.

Further, compared to slide film (that I normally use in MF) it is not as
high contrast.
That's why.

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
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.

Clueless means 0 knowledge.

I don't have to "point out" anything to you about how I replied. I
simply gave the info your post inspired me to give. As I said in the
prior post, if that overlaps with what you already know and posted, then
no harm, no foul.

Now Stephe, why don't you stop obsessing over what I say and start
saying something original yourself? What are your projects for your
renewed interest in MF film shooting? You say you do landscapes. What
sort? Where? What's the goal?

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
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.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by s***@yahoo.com
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

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
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]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
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.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson
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

[rwalker]

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by rwalker
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

I've had fun shooting B&W film in old box cameras, you never know if you
might luck into good exposures with that brownie :-)

Stephanie

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I've had fun shooting B&W film in old box cameras, you never know if you
might luck into good exposures with that brownie :-)

Assuming the person operating the printing machine has any idea of what they
are doing, you should be able to get an exposure latitude of +4,-2 stops
out of a C-41 film. -2 stops will give you a lower quality picture,
-1 will be almost the same as correct, and over exposure will give you
more saturated colors.

Depending upon the film, bad things will start to happen at about 3 stops
over (2 with some films), but there will be a useable picture.

The new higher contrast films probably have a narrower range.

Black and white film was stuck at ASA 80 for a long time, a Brownie will
probably do ok with ISO 100 film. Before WWII and the advent of gold doping
Black and White film was just under ASA 40 (though there were faster ones).

I remember taking good shots with Verichrome Pan (ASA 125) in a Brownie
in the 1960's. I expect that regular ISO 100 C-41 film will do as well.

Geoff.

[rwalker]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by rwalker
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

I've had fun shooting B&W film in old box cameras, you never know if you
might luck into good exposures with that brownie :-)
Stephanie

I've got my fingers crossed. Everything on this particular Brownie
seems to be working smoothly.

[Alan Browne]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by rwalker
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection.
(1/3 to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

I've had fun shooting B&W film in old box cameras, you never know if you
might luck into good exposures with that brownie :-)

I still have a few prints from one ... including a double headed dog.
(Double exp by error).

When I was at Bodie, CA, there was a lady with an old pinhole box camera
shooting 120 (she didn't need a meter either...).

[Alan Browne]

Post by rwalker
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).

[rwalker]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:25:18 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by rwalker
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).

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.

[Alan Browne]

Post by rwalker
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:25:18 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by rwalker
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).

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...

[rwalker]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:27:54 -0500, Alan Browne
<***@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

snip

Post by Alan Browne

Post by rwalker
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.

[Alan Browne]

Post by rwalker
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:25:18 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by rwalker
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:11:35 -0500, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
For slide film one can bracket - not for safety, but for use. As such
thinner (higher exposure) for scanning and thicker for projection. (1/3
to 2/3 apart).

I just ran a roll of Fuji Velvia 100 through an old Kodak Brownie
flash model, including a few flash shots. I'm anxious to see the
results, considering how little control you have with a Brownie.

With the brownie one would have better success with flash as you can
control the exposure more precisely than ambient light (as long as you
know the aperture, at least).

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.

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.

[rwalker]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:36:06 -0500, Alan Browne
<***@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

snip

Post by Alan Browne
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.