I used to shoot Superia all the time and found that one way to utilize the full
potential of the film is to overexpose slightly. It reduces granularity
appearance and also improves the color balance especially in the shadows.
I have shot maybe five or six slide films in my entire life and remember liking
the Sensia.
Never developed taste for Kodak films, except for their BW film....nice, very
nice.
Boris
Subject:
[OM] I was wrong
From:
Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:
Wed, 13 May 2009 22:01:21 -0500
Mark the date down. The Schnozz admits error! (also note, that Moose
indicated his absence, so maybe I can get away with this without too much
grief)
Lately, I've been promoting film like it's going out of style. Oh, wait, it
is. Anyway, I've worked hard this past year on settling in on a selection
of decent color print films. For the record, here are my favorites and why I
like them.
1. Fuji 160S - Extremely fine grain, and nearly identical to the Olympus
E-1--enough so that the files are interchangeable. Probably the most
"usable" film I've ever used.
2. Kodak 160NC - Skintones that can't be beat. Extremely fine grain.
3. Fuji Reala - Similar to 160S, but with a touch more punch.
4. Kodak 400VC - Punchy, fine-grain, and high speed. What's not to like?
5. Fuji Superia 400. A bit grainy in the scans, but highly usable, neutral
with no bad habits. Oh, did I say cheep?
6. Fuji 400H - 160S at a higher speed and tight grain. Colors aren't quite
a perfect match as 400H is kinda a cross between 160S and 160C. I like the
shadows.
I could live life very nicely shooting Fuji 160S as my mainline film. All of
these films scan well enough and are so well behaved with no weird
characteristics that I can recommend any of them without hesitation. So
where am I wrong? Why the error of my ways? For all of my normal paying
work (event, portrait, wedding, etc)., having a film and digital camera that
matches each other is necessary and my selection of Fuji 160S is a perfect
choice. I have no intentions of changing any time soon.
But for the rest of my photography? Is it still the perfect choice? I have
learned that it isn't. Not for me and my own specific filing methods and
post-processing procedures. Let me explain how things have worked for me for
years:
1. Shoot slide film of various subjects. A roll may last minutes, hours,
days or weeks.
2. Have film processed and get the little box back.
3. Open box and quickly run through the stack on my portable light-table.
Toss the obvious flubs so I never see them again.
4. File the individual slides in archival slide sheets. When the roll
contains multiple subjects, place the slides in new sheets or add to
existing sheets in the file-folders containing those subjects. Only toss
out the "this will NEVER be used and I'll be embarrassed if anybody saw
these shots after I'm dead".
5. Immediately scan a few images of interest, but otherwise let the slides
rest.
6. Occasionally surf through the file-folders looking for gold, scan, print,
etc., return slide to sheet/folder.
7. When searching for something else, find gem, scan, print etc., return
slide to sheet/folder.
8. When a request for a photo of a certain subject comes along, I grab the
appropriate file folder(s) and quickly find any and all appropriate images.
Scan, print, etc., return slide to sheet/folder.
The point is, my filing system and method of working is based on slides. I'm
good with B&W negs, as those are easily "readable" but I've never been able
to successfully ready a color negative. Nor, am I good with digging through
on-screen thumbnails. Looking at a thumbnail is not the same as looking at
a sheet of slides with a loupe standing by for critical analysis.
I'm about to declare the mid-to-late '90s the "lost years". I've been
losing my images not due to physical misplacement or hard-drive failure
(although, I've lost some due to technology failures), but through shear
organizational mismatchment to my way of operating.
Is my filing system a problem? Obviously. But over the years I developed a
system that works for me and my usual choice in film. It is actually very
similar to how stock agencies files trannies for years. Am I hopelessly
stuck in my ways? Possible, but the problem is my system if highly tuned to
one specific type of "raw" image. Color negs don't mingle well for me. The
digital files are organized in the same manner as the slides.
Why not just scan the negs and place them in the same folders as the rest of
the digital images? Time, effort and storage costs. Only a fraction of my
non-event/portrait/wedding images ever get used. Why invest further time on
something that may never be touched again? With my slides, they just take up
space in the sheets, but every once in a while I'll come across one which in
the digital world or in a scanned world, would have never made it--it would
have been deleted or skipped. These images are lost forever. Either lost
through deletion or lost through the fact that I'll never closely look at
them in the archival sheets again. If they were "great" they would have been
scanned immediately, right? Again, B&W negs aren't that much of a problem
since I can "read" them.
So, I was wrong. I thought I could convert entirely over to C41 for color
film work. I can't. For event/portrait/wedding, there is no question that
C41 rules, but for that my process-flow is entirely different than it is for
speculation, stock and art photography.
As a result of this soul-searching, I cancelled my film order in
progress--nearly $400 worth for the remainder of 2009 and have been
reevaluating things. I absolutely love Fuji Velvia. It sees the world the
way I like to see the world. Why do I want to "match" digital with film?
If I want the standard "look", I'll shoot digital or 160S. But I like the
way Velvia renders my world. Is it more expensive than 160S? Yes, the cost
per shot is about 75% more. But what is the final result worth to me? If I
can be happy with the results and not think "I can fix this in post", it's
worth some of that.
But most importantly, the cost savings of C41 films isn't worth the altered
filing system and time spent evaluating negs. Time is money and the
additional cost of Velvia more than pays for itself.
So, to wrap this treatise up, my new film order at B&H is for a ton of the
new Velvia 100 (my new favorite, based on previous tests), mailers and
enough 160S to get me through the year. (I will forever avoid Provia 100F
like the plague as it has very poor resolution in comparison--only ignorant
fools...oh, never mind)
I was wrong, so very wrong to write off E-6 films. Cost per shot is always a
concern, but I really don't shoot that much and I'm even more picky and
"pre-edit" the sludge out before pressing the shutter-release.
Will you forgive me for this transgression?
AG-Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|