on 1/24/04 8:26 PM, Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx at
Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> So, my question (and I'm sorry if I'm covering ground already covered
> before
> I joined the list ........)
>
> 1. Assuming my objective is mainly landscape and 20x30 prints ....
> (color)
> 2. And assuming I hadn't been happy about Cibachrome et al prints before
> 1985 ....
> (too garish for my tastes)
> 3. What film would be your preference?
>
> Thanks !
>
> Bob Benson
Hi Bob - Well, its been a while... I always loved the look of Kodachrome II,
but that's been gone a while also.
Before you can start to consider film, you need to decide what your 'work
flow' is going to be. If you were long ago printing slides onto Cibachrome,
you have many more choices now.
The first great divide is 'chemical' or digital? However, this is not always
a clear binary choice as there are many places along the way where you can
branch from one to the other.
Once you go into the digital realm, the constraints you used to face (using
slide film and then making Cibachromes from the slides) are greatly eased.
Where color negative film once offered the only way to adjust colors
post-exposure, you can now digitize slides and then adjust them the same way
you would once 'dial in' the filtration on a color print.
I have a nice film scanner, so my workflow is to shoot the film, then scan
the images (slides or negatives) into the computer where I hope, someday, to
learn how to get them tweaked to perfection, then output on nice quality
paper with a high-resolution inkjet printer.
You could choose to shoot film and have large-format prints made from your
negatives, but in many cases now the printed images are being made from
scans which are 'laser-imaged' onto regular color photo paper then developed
in chemicals... I think this is what the 'Crystal Archive' process outputs.
Many have reported that this produces even better images than a traditional
'all analog' chemical process would.
For film choices, some are 'warmer' or 'cooler' and some have greater or
lesser latitude. To my eye there is a 'Fuji' look and a 'Kodak' look... I
don't have much experience with Agfa or Konica color films. But since you
can adjust the colors so much and also the contrast and shadow/highlights
can be tuned in the computer, the choice is much more flexible.
So in my usual fashion I write a lot but haven't really answered your
question...
I shoot a lot of Fuji Sensia 100 (because its cheap) and some Fuji 200 and
400 (Realia? Super HQ? something like that...). Also some Kodak 200 and
Kodak 400. Processing by Costco, just for negatives and 4x6 proof prints. If
I ever take an image that's worth it I'll scan the negative and go from
there... still learning that end. I have worked a bit with Kodak Elite
Chrome 200... I do have some E100VS which I'm going to try mainly because I
got 5 free rolls with a coupon/rebate...
Way back when I shot mostly Kodachrome II, then when that went away
Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64, but getting Kodachrome processed is a
hassle anymore (you pretty much have to mail it away) so I haven't used it
in several years. I still like those Kodachrome colors though...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-'s of all sorts, and no OM-oney...
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|