, popular or not.
>
> - T
>> rg2
>>
>> On 9/3/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Rebekah wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
>>>>
>
>>>> rg2
>>&
nted on the
box, I'd expect it to be rather good, popular or not.
- T
> rg2
>
> On 9/3/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Rebekah wrote:
>>
>>> Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
>>>
>>>
>>>
;
> > rg2
> >
> > On 9/3/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Rebekah wrote:
> >>
> >>> Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> rg2
> >>>
> >>>
> >&g
Probably expired as well then...
Rebekah wrote:
> I saw some Ebay, and I didn't know what it was, so I was just curious
> if it was any good. :o) thanks mucho
>
> rg2
>
> On 9/3/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Rebekah wrote:
>>
Film is dead...
Rebekah wrote:
> Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
>
>
> rg2
>
>
--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I saw some Ebay, and I didn't know what it was, so I was just curious
if it was any good. :o) thanks mucho
rg2
On 9/3/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rebekah wrote:
> > Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
> >
> >
> > rg2
> >
> &
Rebekah wrote:
> Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
>
>
> rg2
>
>
>
Doesn't exist anymore. Or rather, Kodak isn't making it anymore.
Portra comes in 160 and 400, NC (natural color) or VC (vivid color).
There's also a Portra 800 for low light. Portra 1
Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
rg2
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
- Original Message -
From: "David Mann"
Subject: Kodak Portra 400 BW
> Hi all,
>
> This film is now in stock at my local camera shop. Has anyone out there
> tried it?
Nice film. Prints well on RA-4 paper and scans nicely.
Fine grain (VERY FINE GRAIN), but not ov
05, 2003 4:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Kodak Portra 400 BW
>
>
> Its nice enough. Bit blueish if printed on colour paper,
> but printed
> on proper B&W paper is fine. I prefer the Ilford stuff
> personally so
> have no need for it.
>
> > ---
I read some nice things about it at photo.net. Do a search. Excellent
tonality.
it, it's nice.
Cheers,
Dave
-Original Message-
From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Kodak Portra 400 BW
Hi all,
This film is now in stock at my local camera shop. Has anyone out there
tried it?
Cheers,
ECTED]
> Subject: Kodak Portra 400 BW
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This film is now in stock at my local camera shop. Has
> anyone out there
> tried it?
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Dave
>
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Hi all,
This film is now in stock at my local camera shop. Has anyone out there
tried it?
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra and T400CN (WAS: Kodak Portra)
> Perhaps this has been asked and answered before, and if it
has, I wasn't
> paying attention. There may be some need or preference for me
to shoot
> some chromogenic B&
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 04:20 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I'd suggest Agfa's Rodinal with those films.
I also would suggest Rodinal, or Ilford Perceptol (if you don't mind a
powder). I'm a fan of Perceptol with old school (as in, non-T grain)
stuff like APX, Plus-X, FP4 and the like. I
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 05:48 PM, frank theriault wrote:
> Really, the only
> thing stopping me from doing this darkroom thing is intertia, and fear
> that I'll
> screw up some otherwise nice shots (they're so few and far between, I
> can't afford
> to lose any!) by doing something wrong.
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 05:26 PM, William Robb wrote:
> It is possible to push in some of the minilab film processors by
> turning off the drive when the film is entirely into the
> developer. The FP350 won't hold an entire 36 exposure roll on
> the developer rack though. The Noritsu machine
We'll test your theory soon enough Bill
Dave
Begin Original Message
"Bill D. Casselberry" wrote:
> Yup - If I can do, so can you ;^) anyway - it's easy
>
>
Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up t
WR> Kodak gives a developing time of 3:15 for standard C-41, 3:45
WR> for a 1 stop push, and 4:15 for a two stop push, at the standard
WR> temperature of 38ºC.
WR> And it still doesn't work.
The pro labs here do "pushing" c41 in the eveneing, if i understand
it, by turning up the temp of the bath
I have done a first cut at what an order would look like from B&H. The
biggest problem for me is that I really don't have a clue what would
be good chemicals to start with - which developer, which stop, which
fixer? I figured that I would start out just shooting Agfapan 100 &
400 while I get more
I agree with everything you say, Shel, except the last paragraph. I've only used c41
b&w
twice. The first time, I bought Ilford because I was out on a walk, ran out of film,
and
the minilab that I went into (first and last time) only had c41 b&w. The next time was
when I bought the Portra a c
Frank,
You can't screw up a nice shot. If you've got the negative, then you
can always make another print, or, if you feel particularly insecure,
the neg can always be taken to a good printer for a final, exhibition
quality print.
And, by processing your own B&W, you can have absolute control o
5 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Home developing - was: Kodak Portra?
Hi, Bill,
Well, you see, that's one of the other things that gives me inertia
(causes me to be inert? whatever...). The guy who runs the lab I use,
Bob, does good work. Several times I've gone in to pick up stuff, a
Hi, Dave,
APO, at 41 Britain Street (Richmond and Sherbourne area). 416-368-3840, if
you want to call first.
$6.50 to develop 35mm or 120. $8 for a contact sheet (with processing). 65
cents each for 4x6 proofs (with processing).
regards,
frank
David Chang-Sang wrote:
> Frank,
>
> What lab
I haven't had any trouble getting more stock of T400CN. If the channel
starts drying up, I'll sound the alarm, but for now I wouldn't panic
about it.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget t
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Kodak Portra?
My local film supplier cannot get the 400CN nor
Royal Gold 1000 any more.He can only get the
Select +.May be because he's a small store,but some
other labs still have 400CN in th
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 11:07 AM, tom wrote:
> Unfortunately my lab has slightly elderly machines and they don't even
> have the option of pushing...supposedly they're getting a frontier
> this year.
Frontier won't let 'em push. As far as I know, no automated mini-lab
style machines can p
Perhaps this has been asked and answered before, and if it has, I wasn't
paying attention. There may be some need or preference for me to shoot
some chromogenic B&W in a few months and I was wondering if any version
of the stuff has better archival properties than another, and if the
various emuls
BigDay Tom wrote:
> On a side note, the allure of chromogenic has caught me
> ...I shot my first roll at a wedding yesterday
The discontinued (but still in the pipeline) TMaxCN is
(IMHO) a marvelous "people film". The tonality is very
smooth and grain effect non-exist
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If yer talking C-41, push processing doesn't do anything usefull
> anyway.
I was talking to my lab guy the other day about this too. He thinks
the average c-41 emulsion can get a 1/2 stop. After that you just
start getting color crossover
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 01:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting using a minilab for printing real B&W. If you can't
> print the negs yourself, then find a real lab that can do the printing
> for you. I'd never suggest a minilab for making a decent B&W print.
I know, Shel, I
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
> Heck, when I had a little place back in 1972, I couldn't even
use the
> bathroom, but I figured out a way to use an Omega D2V-XL in my
kitchen,
> which I could make light tight, and I built a small w
Frank Cory et all.I have used some 400CN andthe
replacement the Black and White Select + and
have it printed on colour paper as 'proofs'then
pick the ones i think would look good in B&W
and have them print out on the proper
paper.Some times the 'sepia' effect makes a
better picture IMHO
Dav
Developing tank and reel(s) - $25.00
Developer - $3.00
Stop - $5.00?
Fix - $5.00
Photoflo or LFN (Wetting Agent) - $5.00
Clips to hang film to dry - free to $10.00
Dark room for loading film - Free
A pair of scissors - I'm sure you've got a pair somewhere
Negative sleeves - $5.00
Some of these i
I wasn't suggesting using a minilab for printing real B&W. If you can't
print the negs yourself, then find a real lab that can do the printing
for you. I'd never suggest a minilab for making a decent B&W print.
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
> Only problem is, if you're getting minilab prints, and they
Shel,
Is there a list somewhere of what would be minimal to process your own
black and white? Something like a shopping list of supplies?
Bruce
Sunday, May 26, 2002, 3:49:38 AM, you wrote:
SB> Hi Cory, Frank ...
SB> Why don't you guys just spent $25.00 or so and buy a developing tank and
- Original Message -
From: tom <
Subject: RE: Kodak Portra?
>
> Just out of curiousity, how long does it take you to print a
roll of
> 36 4x6's?
Dry to dry, with no redos, we can get a roll through the lab in
just under 20 minutes.
If the roll requires more colour
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 06:49 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Why don't you guys just spent $25.00 or so and buy a developing tank and
> a reel or two, get some chemicals, and start processing your own B&W -
> the real stuff?
Only problem is, if you're getting minilab prints, and they're coming
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 11:17 AM, David Chang-Sang wrote:
> It does not have
> the strange blue/purple cast that Ilford XP2 has.
This is because those particular labs do have a channel for Portra B&W
and do not have a channel for XP2. It is not inherently the nature of
the film. Just li
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Robb
>
> What I have found is, the less they pay, the higher their
> expectaions seem to be. I don't understand it myself. Well,
> actually, I do understand it, but my thoughts on the subject ar
I am concerned that though the topic is specifically about Portra B&W, all
the chatter coming back appears to be mostly about other C41 B&W films and
the color casts experienced with them. This is not the same film. I've used
the other films, "Kodak Black and White +400 Film" for example, and seen
- Original Message -
From: tom
Subject: RE: Kodak Portra?
> >
> > It is really dificult to get perfectly neutral results with
the
> > pseudo B&W films on colour paper. For 5 bucks a roll, they
have
> > to accept they are not getting custom colour balanced
- Original Message -
From: Amita Guha
Subject: RE: Kodak Portra?
> > Does this stuff look any better when printed at minilabs
> > than the films more
> > easily available (like at Target & Wal-Mart)?
>
> I recently took some C-41 b&w film to Target (c
Hey Hey..
One of my FAVOURITE films to use !! :) (or "favorite" for you American
folk - Happy Memorial Day Weekend!!)
Here's my experience with Kodak Portra BW:
I've only had it processed at camera stores. In the Toronto area, Downtown
Camera and Japan Camera do a wonderfu
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Robb
>
>
> It is really dificult to get perfectly neutral results with the
> pseudo B&W films on colour paper. For 5 bucks a roll, they have
> to accept they are not getting custom colour bala
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Amita Guha
>
>
> > Does this stuff look any better when printed at minilabs
> > than the films more
> > easily available (like at Target & Wal-Mart)?
>
> I recently took some C-41 b&w film to Target (ca
At 08:25 5/26/2002 -0400, frank theriault wrote:
>I've only used C41 b&w once (it was Ilford, I can't remember the exact
>type), and I hated the blue/purple cast from the minilab. Said I'd never
>use the crap again.
Must be XP2, all the others are from Kodak (T400 CN, B&W+, Portra 400 B&W).
I
- Original Message -
From: Robert Woerner
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
> Hi,
>
> I've shot the Kodak 400 C-41 B&W( the kind you buy at Target,
WalMart, etc.)
> and had it printed on B&W paper. It looks great. Only problem
is I lose the
> "savings"
> Does this stuff look any better when printed at minilabs
> than the films more
> easily available (like at Target & Wal-Mart)?
I recently took some C-41 b&w film to Target (can't remember which
brand) and they couldn't get the tone right. They kept trying and I
ended up with one sepia toned, on
Sure there is ... you'll get to learn a new skill, have greater control
over your work and the quality of your work, save a little time as
compared to running to the lab, and, once you've got the negatives done,
and have learned to read them, you can then have specific negatives
printed at a bette
Prints from Save On Drugs (one 5 pack) appear identical in quality to those
I get from Pro Photo Connection (four 5 packs). Black & White with no
discernable color cast, YMMV. Color sensitivity seems very flat across the
spectrum, much flatter than most regular B&W films. Consider using a green
fi
rom: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
> Hi Cory, Frank ...
>
> Why don't you guys just spent $25.00 or so and buy a developing tank and
> a reel or two, get some chemical
rom: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
> Hi Cory, Frank ...
>
> Why don't you guys just spent $25.00 or so and buy a developing tank and
> a reel or two, get some chemical
Hi,
I've shot the Kodak 400 C-41 B&W( the kind you buy at Target, WalMart, etc.)
and had it printed on B&W paper. It looks great. Only problem is I lose the
"savings" and "convenience" of C-41 due to the cost of having it printed on
B&W paper. I may as well shoot HP5 or TriX Pan(and do) becaus
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of CBWaters
>
>
> I've been told you can have the C41 stuff re-printed on B&W
> paper and get
> good results. I'm not inclined, however, to pay to have my
> pictures (such
> as they are) printed when I KN
On Sun, 26 May 2002, frank theriault wrote:
> I'm wondering if the cast is inevitable from minilabs, but if you get
> it printed on B&W paper maybe it works? Anyone else out there know
It's possible for minilabs to print the chromogenic stuff on colour paper
so that it looks very close to black
Hi Bill ...
As has been noted, the photos aren't mine. I just thought some list
members might have been interested in seeing the results that could
be obtained by the new film.
That said, I'm not interested in selling my Leica lenses. I now
have three and they all produce some nice looking pho
I just want to be clear that the photos made with the new film are
not mine. I just posted the URL so those interested could see some
results the film can produce.
--
Sheldon Belinkoff
CREATURE'S COMFORT
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscrib
On 20 Apr 2001, at 21:34, William Robb wrote:
> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dkieltyka/Portra400BW.h
> tm
>
> Geeze Shel, that Leica lens looks pretty darned good in internet
> applications. I hope you aren't planning to sell it.
> Wheatfield Willie
The page and images are actually
Thanks,
I was really anxious to see some comments about this film. I'll give it a
try as soon as it becomes available to the poor side of the world.
Perhaps it's a bit earlier or inappropriate to ask you such question, but
would you consider it capable of substituting a true B&W print film?
By t
- Original Message -
From: "Creature's Comfort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: April 20, 2001 7:55 PM
Subject: Kodak Portra 400 B&W Images
>
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dkieltyka/Portra400BW.h
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dkieltyka/Portra400BW.htm
--
Sheldon Belinkoff
CREATURE'S COMFORT
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Ga
Sid Barras wrote:
> Anyone heard any follow ups, or seen the product for sale?
It just showed up on the Kodak Summer Wedding Film Sale promo
sheet...it's a C-41 film, other than that, no details.
How can Kodak have THREE C-41 b&w films? I'll ask my rep what the
difference is.
-Aaron
-
Thi
gt;
Date: April 3, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: OT: anybody seen the new kodak Portra B & W Film?
>Hi,
>A couple of issues ago, there was a brief mention in Pop photography (or
>it could have been Peterson's) that said Kodak was about to release a
>Portra film in black and white. Th
Hi,
A couple of issues ago, there was a brief mention in Pop photography (or
it could have been Peterson's) that said Kodak was about to release a
Portra film in black and white. They didn't mention if it would be a C41
film, though I suspect in might.
Anyone heard any follow ups, or seen the pro
66 matches
Mail list logo
