Re: Kodak Portra 100UC
UC was introduced as a Portra film (to go with NC and VC) and then quickly spun off into it's own line. I just picked up some of the 400UC in 120, since I heard UC in 120 is dead. -Adam Toralf Lund wrote: > 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 >> > Actually, if it's the 100 ISO version of the 400UC I used a couple of > years ago, which didn't strictly speaking have "Portra" printed 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> 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 100UC wasn't the most >>> popular of the Portra family when it was in production. But I've never >>> used it. If you have some, try it out and see for yourself. Can't hurt. >>> >>> -- >>> Scott Loveless >>> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak Portra 100UC
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 > Actually, if it's the 100 ISO version of the 400UC I used a couple of years ago, which didn't strictly speaking have "Portra" printed 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> 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 100UC wasn't the most >> popular of the Portra family when it was in production. But I've never >> used it. If you have some, try it out and see for yourself. Can't hurt. >> >> -- >> Scott Loveless >> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak Portra 100UC
it's not expired rg2 On 9/3/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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: > >> > >>> 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 100UC wasn't the most > >> popular of the Portra family when it was in production. But I've never > >> used it. If you have some, try it out and see for yourself. Can't hurt. > >> > >> -- > >> Scott Loveless > >> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Remember, it's pillage then burn. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak Portra 100UC
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: >> >>> 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 100UC wasn't the most >> popular of the Portra family when it was in production. But I've never >> used it. If you have some, try it out and see for yourself. Can't hurt. >> >> -- >> Scott Loveless >> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak Portra 100UC
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
Re: Kodak Portra 100UC
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 > > > > > > > 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 100UC wasn't the most > popular of the Portra family when it was in production. But I've never > used it. If you have some, try it out and see for yourself. Can't hurt. > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak Portra 100UC
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 100UC wasn't the most popular of the Portra family when it was in production. But I've never used it. If you have some, try it out and see for yourself. Can't hurt. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Kodak Portra 100UC
Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC? rg2 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak Portra 400 BW
- 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 overly sharp, nice tonal deliniation where flesh tones tend to happen, resists blowing out in the highlights and has excelleny shadow detail and shadow separation. I don't know about how permanent it is, if it's anything like T400CN, it won't be great. It is designed for colour paper (either chromogenic or regular), not real black and white. The mask works against you in the darkroom William Robb
RE: Kodak Portra 400 BW
The color cast is determined by exposure, paper choice and operator skill. Portra BW is meant to be printed on color paper - it's fine on b+w though the print times are a little longer than with T400CN, which itself has pretty long print times as compared to normal b+w. It just depends on what you'll use it for. If you're going to print them yourself via enlarger, use T400CN. If you want nicer proofs use Portra and hope your lab knows what it's doing. tv > -Original Message- > From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 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. > > > -Original Message- > > From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 05 March 2003 09:29 > > 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, > > > > - Dave > > > http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ > >
Re: Kodak Portra 400 BW
I read some nice things about it at photo.net. Do a search. Excellent tonality.
RE: Kodak Portra 400 BW
Hi Dave, I've used it many times. It, in my opinion, beats XP2 hands down. It is the finest C-41 B&W film out there but it is expensive (at least up here in Canada). Most people, I think, usually opt for XP2 or T400CN before spending the extra dough on Portra 400 BW. If you can afford 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, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
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. > -Original Message- > From: David Mann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 05 March 2003 09:29 > 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, > > - Dave > http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
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/
Re: Kodak Portra and T400CN (WAS: Kodak Portra)
- 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&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 emulsions are sensitive to processing techniques? Is, for > example, longer washing helpful, or processing at one temperature or > another? I think XP-2 is the proven one. I have XP-2 negs that are over a decade old, and still looking good. I have seen with my own eyes, T400CN film that has faded past usefulness, from a process which was "in control" with correct wash and stabilization. Select and Portra have yet to prove themselves. There are a myriad of causes of dye shifting or fading in processed negatives. Some are the fault of the processing, some of storage treatments and others are inherent or design and/ or manufacturing defects in the material. Temperature of the process on its own would have to be fairly extreme to affect dye stability. The processing temperature of the bleach, fix, wash and/or stabilizer would have to drop several degrees below the control limit before it became an issue. In a standard film processor, there would be alarms going off all over the place before a machine failure of this nature generated a dye instability problem. The most likely process errors to cause dye instability are under replenished or under oxygenated bleach, under replenished fixer, or under replenished/ carryover contaminated wash/ stabilizer. I don't know if any of the chromogenics are especially sensitive to process variations. However, my opinion is that if a machine is well maintained, in control and has clean and correct strength stabilizer, any problems with dye stability fall on the film. I realize this probably doesn't answer your question. William Robb - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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. It's inexpensive, though not as inexpensive as Rodinal. -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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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. C'mon now, even Brendan can process his own film without hurting it too badly. ;) -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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Push processing C41. was:Re: Kodak Portra?
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 machined that I have run > will. Yeah, I've done this in the past. The last lab I worked at also got around the inability to push by raising the temperature. Both of these solutions are kludges, and fantastically inexact. Not to mention useless. -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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: Home developing - was: Kodak Portra?
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 today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Push processing C41. was:Re: Kodak Portra?
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 - ? Anyway, I agree it doesn't work for C41 the way it works for E6 and BW (increasing film ISO, esp. in E6, where it decreases base fog, while in C41 push the base fog increases). The good thing is that pushed C41 negs seem better printing, at least in my experience, that just 1 stop underexposed (even if the sensitivity of the film is not incresed by the push). YMMV. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Kodak Portra?
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 comfortable with those particular films. So with that in mind do you have a recommendation on chemistry? Also how best to mix and store the chemical - how much to buy at a time, etc. Thanks to any and all answers. Bruce Sunday, May 26, 2002, 10:13:04 AM, you wrote: SB> Developing tank and reel(s) - $25.00 SB> Developer - $3.00 SB> Stop - $5.00? SB> Fix - $5.00 SB> Photoflo or LFN (Wetting Agent) - $5.00 SB> Clips to hang film to dry - free to $10.00 SB> Dark room for loading film - Free SB> A pair of scissors - I'm sure you've got a pair somewhere SB> Negative sleeves - $5.00 SB> Some of these items you probably already have. Some, like clips, can be SB> as cheap as a clothespin or an alligator clip, to nicely designed SB> stainless steel clips with a weighted bottom clip. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 couple of weeks ago, just to see what it was like, since it has gotten rave reviews from some on this list. I am a committed "real" b&w user - 90% of my shooting is b&w, the majority being either Tri-X or HP5+. I just (up to this point) don't develop it myself. But, once again, your points are well-taken by me. regards, frank Shel Belinkoff wrote: > 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 over how > the negatives turn out - with the processing keyed to your style of > shooting, and adjusted to even 1/4 stop ISO. In the long run you'll > probably end up with more good shots because you'll be able to control > the entire process. > > Plus, C41 B&W teaches you very little about proper exposure. You're > trapped into one way of exposing and processing the film, and your > creativity is limited by the emulsion, film speed, and processing > requirements. C41 B&W has its uses, but, IMO, it's a type of film with > a very limited range. > > If you want to grow as a photographer, expand your creativity, and have > photos that have your own look to them, think about leaving C41 B&W and > moving to real B&W film. -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 over how the negatives turn out - with the processing keyed to your style of shooting, and adjusted to even 1/4 stop ISO. In the long run you'll probably end up with more good shots because you'll be able to control the entire process. Plus, C41 B&W teaches you very little about proper exposure. You're trapped into one way of exposing and processing the film, and your creativity is limited by the emulsion, film speed, and processing requirements. C41 B&W has its uses, but, IMO, it's a type of film with a very limited range. If you want to grow as a photographer, expand your creativity, and have photos that have your own look to them, think about leaving C41 B&W and moving to real B&W film. frank theriault wrote: > > Hi, Shel, > > About five minutes after I posted, saying that getting the whole roll printed after > I do the developing myself, I realized that you meant only to get prints of the > "good" shots. I didn't bother re-posting, but your point is well-taken. > > As far as enlargers in my bathroom or kitchen, well, you're right. 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. > > But, you're right. It's something I should learn to do. Another part of the > process that really should be in my hands, eh? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Home developing - was: Kodak Portra?
Frank, What lab is this ? It's always good to have or know about another lab around just in case one starts to "suck" :) Cheers, Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of frank theriault Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 6:25 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, and he's told me that he's re-doing several prints, because the first ones were to dark or whatever. Then he gives me the "good" ones and the dark ones. Never an extra charge. Unfortunately, times aren't too good for him right now. He says that digital is really killing his business, and (half jokingly) pleads with me not to go digital. He really doesn't have the money to invest in the latest high-zoot digital printing stuff, given what he could charge for the prints. And, I really like him. We always chat about cameras, film, stereos, whatever. I really do like supporting a small businessman like him. I'd really hate to see someone like him go out of business, but unfortunately, in Toronto, there are so many big pro labs that do b&w, I'm afraid he doesn't have too long left. OTOH, maybe that's a good reason to at least ~learn~ to do it myself, have the equipment, so that when he does go under... Oh well... -frank - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Home developing - was: Kodak Portra?
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 is this ? > It's always good to have or know about another lab around just in case one > starts to "suck" :) > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra and T400CN (WAS: Kodak Portra)
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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra and T400CN (WAS: Kodak Portra)
Hi David.I was just at Accent in Markham dropping off the weekend film and they have 2-3 bricks in the fridge.I'm going to pick up some from them when i pick up my colour proofs Friday. Thanks for the offer Dave Maybe I've been too harsh on T400CN - FWIW, Dave Brooks, I know that Downtown Camera still has a whack of T400CN in stock at my last check (last week) - Next TOPDML hangin out thing I should pick some up for you if you like . CHeers, Dave Original Message: - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:21:47 -0400 To: [EMAIL 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 the fridge. Dave mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/index.html http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 push/pull. Rather, you need a dip and dunk or rotary machine. -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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
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&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 emulsions are sensitive to processing techniques? Is, for example, longer washing helpful, or processing at one temperature or another? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ William Robb wrote: > > Maybe I've been too harsh on T400CN - > > Not really, it still has a dye fading problem, and should not be > used for images that require a permanent negative record. other > than that, it is a nice enough film. It does print very nicely > on real B&W paper. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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-existent. Printing via a good enlarger on real b&w paper, of course. I happen to have about 16 rolls of 36 in my freezer (along w/ 10 RG25) from when the local stores were blowing out their remainders before having to stock the B&W Select+ type. If you can stock up on some 120/220 for your 645 you will not regret it. Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Kodak Portra?
> -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 and more density. He also thinks you can get a stop or stop and a 1/2 out of the fujipress films because the orange mask is designed a bit differently. Somehow it's not as dependent on development as with other c-41 films...IOW, the mask doesn't block up as fast. Kodak says T400CN is pushable, while the Portra B+W isn't. 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. On a side note, the allure of chromogenic has caught me...I shot my first roll at a wedding yesterday tv - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 was just pointing out that the original question was about how to get around colour shifting with minilab prints from C-41 b&w films, to which you responded "why not process the negs yourself?" -- I just wanted to avoid the potential future post of "okay, I processed the negs myself, but I'm still getting these colour shifts in the minilab prints." :) -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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
- 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 wet sink in the room > off the kitchen. > > In most cases, where the desire exists, a solution can be found. > My first "darkroom" was set up on the deep freeze in the basement. They don't want to be terribly elaborate. Something to think about: If you shoot large format, especially 8x10 or larger, all you need is a lightbulb hanging from a wire, and a few trays. William Robb - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Re: Kodak Portra?
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 Dave Begin Original Message From: frank theriault 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 (yeah, you Dave C-C in TO). regards, frank Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/index.html http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 items you probably already have. Some, like clips, can be as cheap as a clothespin or an alligator clip, to nicely designed stainless steel clips with a weighted bottom clip. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ Bruce Dayton wrote: > > 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? - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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're coming > back purple from the C-41 b&w, they're DEFINITELY going to come back > some godawful colour shift from real b&w. > > Unless you also want to put in a darkroom for printing, or go for the > higher priced prints right off the bat (which would also eliminate the > colour shifts from the C-41 b&w). > > Not to disparage the suggestion -- everyone can benefit from processing > their own film, and it's easy and cheap and fun, and the amount of > control is just phenomenal -- it's just that it doesn't really address > the problem being discussed. :) -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re[2]: Kodak Portra?
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 SB> a reel or two, get some chemicals, and start processing your own B&W - SB> the real stuff? You don't need a darkroom, you don't need any expensive SB> equipment, you don't even need running water or a sink. All you need is SB> a place that you can make absolutely dark for a few minutes while you SB> load your film. Of course, if you can't find such a space, for a few SB> extra $ you can purchase a changing bag or small photo tent, and then SB> you can load film in daylight, or while watching TV, etc. SB> Give up this ersatz B&W film, and trips to the lab. Let dissatisfaction SB> with poor results be a thing of the past. Save time, money, and SB> effort. Experience the joy of your own creativity and skill. SB> CBWaters wrote: >> So lets hope the Portra is good! >> >> Cory >> Who knows he should just throw one of the kids out of her room and take it >> over for a darkroom so he can forget all this petty crap about paying to >> have films processed. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Lab printing time. Was: Kodak Portra?
- 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 corrections, and redos, count on 3/4 of an hour, minimum. William Robb - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 back purple from the C-41 b&w, they're DEFINITELY going to come back some godawful colour shift from real b&w. Unless you also want to put in a darkroom for printing, or go for the higher priced prints right off the bat (which would also eliminate the colour shifts from the C-41 b&w). Not to disparage the suggestion -- everyone can benefit from processing their own film, and it's easy and cheap and fun, and the amount of control is just phenomenal -- it's just that it doesn't really address the problem being discussed. :) -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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 like saying "at my lab Gold Max looks great and Portra 160 NC comes out all blue/purple" -- it's not the film, it's the lab. -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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Kodak Portra?
> -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 are > pretty derogatory. Just out of curiousity, how long does it take you to print a roll of 36 4x6's? tv - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 the color casts. The Portra I referred to that went through the Save-On Drugs machine was processed in approximately 30 minutes as I watched and chatted with the operator. Any balance applied to the prints was entirely automatic and under machine control. Again, if there is a color cast in the prints, it will take sensitive equipment to find and measure it. This does not necessarily mean that your experience will be the same, but it does mean that you don't have to put up with color casts, at least from this film. That said, Portra B&W prints best on B&W paper for my taste. I still prefer T-MAX 400, but the Portra is quite good when you consider the cost and convenience. Regards, Bob... From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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, one magenta and one orange print. They > didn't charge me for any of them, but I obviously can't use them to > develop that type of film. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
- 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 prints. > > Exactly! What do you people want for $5 ??!! 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 are pretty derogatory. William Robb - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
- 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 (can't remember which > brand) and they couldn't get the tone right. They kept trying and I > ended up with one sepia toned, one magenta and one orange print. They > didn't charge me for any of them, but I obviously can't use them to > develop that type of film. They need to learn how to colour balance their printer. Once the stuff is dialed in, it works fine. Most minilab operators seem to fall into the semi trained monkey category, with no desire to learn the nuts and bolts of quality control and printer set up. William Robb - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Kodak Portra?
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 wonderful job with this film. It does not have the strange blue/purple cast that Ilford XP2 has. Mind you, if memory serves me correctly, XP2 was the first C-41 "B&W" film on the market. Kodak also makes T400CN which is similar to XP2 in terms of its formula (as far as I know - if there's a Kodak expert in the crowd feel free to correct moi). After processing - printing on B&W paper in a darkroom produces excellent contrast and you can probably get away without using any filters in your enlarger. The results on B&W paper are great and I have been able to go up to 11x14 without any problems. I would like to see if I can tackle a 16x20 but I don't have a subject that would be decent yet. The images of the last TOPDML get together (http://www.chang-sang.com/pdml/) are all shot on Kodak Portra400 BW and scanned in via Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II. Using VueScan I simply use the "Ilford XP2" setting in the "Color" tab and it adjusts accordingly. As for MiniLabs (i.e. Target/WalMart/Walgreens/Shoppers Drug Mart/etc.) - I've already had a bad experience when I dropped off XP2 at one (WalMart). The stunned look - the "what's this?" asked of the "manager" - the eventual return of prints and unsleeved/rolled negatives - turned me off taking anything near "professional" film to a MiniLab. Just my experience - YMMV. As Shel says... if you wanna take the chance and play a bit (only cost me $60 CDN - I bought a few "extra" goodies) go for it and develop your own B&W film. You'd no longer be limited to 400 ASA (a la Portra) but you could push/hold back the film and get an opportunity to see what you and your camera and film can do under interesting lighting conditions :) Nowadays I use Portra only when I know I HAVE to have prints of EVERYTHING (i.e. Party Snaps/Family Gatherings etc.). I stick to using B&W of all flavours instead and develop my own; scan the negs; and print what I want to via Epson. If there's something I really like - I'll rent darkroom space and print there for $10/hour :) Cheers, Dave "Call Me Nuts For Buying Yet Another Camera" Chang-Sang -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of frank theriault Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 8:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Kodak Portra? Hi, Cory, I'm the same as you. 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. But, yesterday, I finished off my first roll of Portra 400 B&W, having heard so many good things about it. I should get it back in a few days, so I'll let you know what I think. 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 (yeah, you Dave C-C in TO). regards, frank CBWaters wrote: > Reading the Kodak site I came across this Portra B&W C41 film. > > I think the one I tried before was Kodak Black And White +. There was a > funky sepia-like tone to the prints that I disliked. > Anyway, I'm just wondering if I should believe the hype here... > -- "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Kodak Portra?
> -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 balanced prints. Exactly! What do you people want for $5 ??!! tv - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Kodak Portra?
> -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 (can't remember which > brand) and they couldn't get the tone right. They kept trying and I > ended up with one sepia toned, one magenta and one orange > print. They > didn't charge me for any of them, but I obviously can't use them to > develop that type of film. It's not the film developing that's the problem, it's the printing. They don't know how to work their machine, or the machine isn't set up correctly. If you can look at these 4x6's as proofs, they may serve for that purpose. tv - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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've used them all and am pressed to see any difference. The Portra seems to have somewhat finer grain, whereas the B&W+ has a reputation of being a "cheapo". >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? The cast is 100% the fault of the minilab. My regular shop use color paper (Agfa Prestige Digital) and I've hardly ever noticed a cast on any of my copies. Mind you, they cost twice as much as the cheapest come-back-next-week alternatives. However, note that all the Kodak films use a brown/yellow base whereas Ilford XP2 looks purplish grey like other b&w film. This is supposedly to make it easier for minilabs to process (which may account for your experiences). The down side is that if you intend to make enlargements in a darkroom on vario-contrast paper, the brown base effectively acts as a Grade 2 filter which prevents you from making low-contrast prints. I use b&w with bounce flash a lot for party pix and outdoors at night. Minilabs invariably print these as white faces on black backgrounds. The grey tones are there, but fiddling with vario-contrast prints in the darkroom is the only way to bring them out. __ Geir Aalberg http://www.aalberg.com/ http://www.fandom.no/ - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
- 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" 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) because it costs > the same at the lab I use. Ask them if they are using black and white paper or Ektamax RA. If the latter, they are using a chromogenic colour paper with bad image life. > > A couple of my friends have shot the Kodak and had it processed at a > grocery store mini-lab (Konica chemistry and paper). Unfortunately, the > pics have a rather noticeable purple color cast; however, they seem > satisfied with the results. They like paying $5.00 for their pics. Funny, > they liked my pics better the only problem being they cost $14.00. So, it > seems the problem is the paper. 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 prints. If I was charging 14.00 a roll, I would be giving perfect proofs every time. The films also are really unstable and prone to rapid dye shifts and fading. Don't expect images shot on Kodak chromogenics to last more than about 5 years > > As far as the color cast of C41 B&W on color paper, I've read that the > Portra version is "designed" to print best on color paper. I have a roll to > try out. Don't know if the color cast will go away. I will report back. Portra prints quite easily on colour paper, but any colour casts show up very quickly in monotone. For ease of printing: 1) Portra B&W 2) Kodak Select. 3) T400CN (discontinued, I think) 4) Konica B&W chromogenic (I don't recall what they call it) 5) Ilford XP-2 (which is a really ugly film for us to print, as it has a soft emulsion and no mask). William Robb - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
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 (can't remember which brand) and they couldn't get the tone right. They kept trying and I ended up with one sepia toned, one magenta and one orange print. They didn't charge me for any of them, but I obviously can't use them to develop that type of film. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 better quality lab, even by mail order. Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] CBWaters wrote: > > WEll, I guess it's because my mother-in-law doesn't like looking at > negatives. I was THIS close to doing just what you suggested a couple > months ago but decided that without the ability to print the stuff, there > was no sense in developing it myself. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 filter if you have a lot of greenery in (the background) of your photos to "lighten" it. It's somewhat contrasty. From: "CBWaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reading the Kodak site I came across this Portra B&W C41 film. > > They say "Labs can get excellent black-and-white output with no changes in > workflow." "Outstanding black-and-white images for a versatile portfolio." > "Highest quality black-and-white prints on color paper." "Excellent quality > and detail in enlargements. > Neutral, predictable results with a variety of printing devices." > "Neutral-toned black-and-white prints from color processes." "Simplified > way to make and sell high-quality black-and-white prints." > > Sounds pretty good, eh? > But, > Does this stuff look any better when printed at minilabs than the films more > easily available (like at Target & Wal-Mart)? > I think the one I tried before was Kodak Black And White +. There was a > funky sepia-like tone to the prints that I disliked. > Anyway, I'm just wondering if I should believe the hype here... - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
WEll, I guess it's because my mother-in-law doesn't like looking at negatives. I was THIS close to doing just what you suggested a couple months ago but decided that without the ability to print the stuff, there was no sense in developing it myself. Cory - Original Message - From: "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 chemicals, and start processing your own B&W - > the real stuff? You don't need a darkroom, you don't need any expensive > equipment, you don't even need running water or a sink. All you need is > a place that you can make absolutely dark for a few minutes while you > load your film. Of course, if you can't find such a space, for a few > extra $ you can purchase a changing bag or small photo tent, and then > you can load film in daylight, or while watching TV, etc. > > Give up this ersatz B&W film, and trips to the lab. Let dissatisfaction > with poor results be a thing of the past. Save time, money, and > effort. Experience the joy of your own creativity and skill. > > CBWaters wrote: > > > So lets hope the Portra is good! > > > > Cory > > Who knows he should just throw one of the kids out of her room and take it > > over for a darkroom so he can forget all this petty crap about paying to > > have films processed. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
WEll, I guess it's because my mother-in-law doesn't like looking at negatives. I was THIS close to doing just what you suggested a couple months ago but decided that without the ability to print the stuff, there was no sense in developing it myself. Cory - Original Message - From: "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 chemicals, and start processing your own B&W - > the real stuff? You don't need a darkroom, you don't need any expensive > equipment, you don't even need running water or a sink. All you need is > a place that you can make absolutely dark for a few minutes while you > load your film. Of course, if you can't find such a space, for a few > extra $ you can purchase a changing bag or small photo tent, and then > you can load film in daylight, or while watching TV, etc. > > Give up this ersatz B&W film, and trips to the lab. Let dissatisfaction > with poor results be a thing of the past. Save time, money, and > effort. Experience the joy of your own creativity and skill. > > CBWaters wrote: > > > So lets hope the Portra is good! > > > > Cory > > Who knows he should just throw one of the kids out of her room and take it > > over for a darkroom so he can forget all this petty crap about paying to > > have films processed. > > -- > Shel Belinkoff > 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
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" 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) because it costs the same at the lab I use. A couple of my friends have shot the Kodak and had it processed at a grocery store mini-lab (Konica chemistry and paper). Unfortunately, the pics have a rather noticeable purple color cast; however, they seem satisfied with the results. They like paying $5.00 for their pics. Funny, they liked my pics better the only problem being they cost $14.00. So, it seems the problem is the paper. As far as the color cast of C41 B&W on color paper, I've read that the Portra version is "designed" to print best on color paper. I have a roll to try out. Don't know if the color cast will go away. I will report back. Regards, Robert P.S. Still dreaming about my own darkroom. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Kodak Portra?
> -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 KNOW I'm not going to be happy > with how they > look. > So lets hope the Portra is good! You're looking at this the wrong way. The 4x6's you get back from c-41 b+w are just *proofs*. You should just use them to decide which ones you want reprints of. The fact is, there are few option for b+w proofing that either don't suck or aren't expensive. Have one of your original crappy prints printed on b+w paper and then see what you think. > > Cory > Who knows he should just throw one of the kids out of her > room and take it > over for a darkroom so he can forget all this petty crap > about paying to > have films processed. You don't need a room to process film. tv - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra?
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 and white for most people, but true black and white (or printing the stuff on B&W paper) looks much nicer, IMO. Otherwise, it comes out with a tint when printed on colour paper. It doesn't have to be sepia... your lab can tint the photos practically any shade, which makes it a fun film for me. I've had rolls tinted blue, green, and sepia so far. You can get some nice effects, and if you're into toning, this can provide a cheap way of seeing which tones you prefer for certain images. Bring a neg into your lab and ask them to print it for you with a dozen or so different colour casts, and you'll see the wide range of tones they can do. It's fun. :) As for printing it to look like B&W on colour paper, I wouldn't do it if I could spare the time to have it printed on B&W paper. It's a matter of convenience versus quality... sure it doesn't look as good on colour paper, but you can get your B&W prints back in an hour or less from most minilabs, which might be essential sometimes. chris - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra 400 B&W Images
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 photos. Bokeh on the 50mm Summicron that I have is a little harsh by Pentax standards, but the lenses do have a nice overall quality. And no, I'm not thinking of giving up my Pentax gear -- Sheldon Belinkoff CREATURE'S COMFORT mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra 400 B&W Images
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 unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra 400 B&W Images
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 from David Kieltykas web site see: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dkieltyka/ Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 Fax +61-2-9554-9259 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra 400 B&W Images
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 the way: nice photos. Thanks again. Best, Eduardo. - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Kodak Portra 400 B&W Images
- 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 tm Geeze Shel, that Leica lens looks pretty darned good in internet applications. I hope you aren't planning to sell it. Wheatfield Willie - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Kodak Portra 400 B&W Images
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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: anybody seen the new kodak Portra B & W Film?
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 - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: anybody seen the new kodak Portra B & W Film?
Howdy...I was talking to the local Kodak rep about it. It is a -41 film and his description was amazing, soft tones yet sharp like T400CN! I can't wait to try it! Darren S. -Original Message- From: Sid Barras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. They didn't mention if it would be a C41 >film, though I suspect in might. >Anyone heard any follow ups, or seen the product for sale? >Sid > >- >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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
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. They didn't mention if it would be a C41 film, though I suspect in might. Anyone heard any follow ups, or seen the product for sale? Sid - 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' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
