Re: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: little experiment. These shots were shot handheld (and leaning against poles/church pews etc in place of a tripod) using only available light, in a dark church with a 135mm prime lens, and T400cn film. Not what I would refer to as my best work, but an interesting experiment nonetheless... http://www.tanyamayer.com/themarriage/churchbellsaringin/churchbellsaringin.html Great compositions and plenty of light. I shot a wedding with TMAX400 (old-style, not chromogenic) hand-held, mainly with the 75-150/4 at f8 or f11 and flash and the pictures came out much darker. I would dare say that you overexposed and perhaps lost detail, but the feeling is much airier. As for the diagonal shots... yummy. Thanks for sharing, Kostas
Re: Q: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
Hi Boris. I cannot answer in respect to the Fuji,as i have never used it,but,on the Tmax 3200 i can offer an opinion as i have use this several times. I have used both the Tmax and the Ilford 3200 and i find the Kodak just a bit less harsh with the grain,especially if you have some diffused light to work with.Both seem to give similar grain under arena type lights(ie hockey arena etc).If i want a lot of grain for pub type band shots i'll go with the Ilford.I think the Tmax 3200 at 4x6 prints will be fine. Dave Oh i quess i should add i usually wind up shooting it at 6400 and this may add to the grain,but for band shots grain is good:-) Hi! So, finally here is the question g: what is better: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600 scanned and turned b/w digitally? One last detail, the resulting shots are going to be 4x6 unless I manage to produce something they'd ask me to enlarge. Thanks in advance. Boris
Re: Q: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
On 31 Dec 2003 at 10:34, Boris Liberman wrote: So, finally here is the question g: what is better: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600 scanned and turned b/w digitally? I'd go with the TMZ or Delta 3200, shoot it at 1600 (one stop push) and it will provide a pretty usable contrast range. One last detail, the resulting shots are going to be 4x6 unless I manage to produce something they'd ask me to enlarge. I just printed a set of prints at 11x14 off D3200 shot at 1600 and developed in T-MAX (band shot under crap parra-floods), the grain is visible but it's far from objectionable. At a suitable viewing distance the grain disappears. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
Boris, I recently did exactly what you are planning and experimented at a friends wedding, knowing that they had already hired another photographer for their formal shots. I decided to have a play and used Fuji Press Pro 800. The resulting grain was a pain in the butt. It wasn't significant enough to look artsy but was too much to look good. Also, the skin tones were TERRIBLE. My bride looked blotchy and even as though she had a fake tan in places, whereas shots I had just taken on a different camera with the same light and equivalent exposure with Fuji NPH 400 (my fav. wedding film), looked gorgeous. I have never used the TMAX film, but I wouldn't recommend shooting anything for a wedding with film faster than 400 unless you are going for a REALLY artsy look and using the grain for its creative/artistic merits. And don't even think about group or family photos, as you can just about guarantee that people will want enlargements of these, which will of course look shocking with the grain. My preference would be to take a tripod and shoot with a 400 speed film. If you look here, I did exactly this for this wedding, which was another friends and at which I also let myself do a little experiment. These shots were shot handheld (and leaning against poles/church pews etc in place of a tripod) using only available light, in a dark church with a 135mm prime lens, and T400cn film. Not what I would refer to as my best work, but an interesting experiment nonetheless... http://www.tanyamayer.com/themarriage/churchbellsaringin/churchbellsaringin.html Good-luck! tan.
Re: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't recommend shooting anything for a wedding with film faster than 400 unless you are going for a REALLY artsy look ...or unless you're shooting medium format. ;-) It recently occurred to me that this is probably the real reason digital is replacing medium format in wedding photography: A lot of wedding photographers were shooting medium format not for its inherently higher resolution, but for its finer grain (relative to print size) with high speed films. The low noise of DSLRs at ISO 800 pretty much takes care of this issue. TV, do you think this is the case? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
-Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tanya Mayer Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't recommend shooting anything for a wedding with film faster than 400 unless you are going for a REALLY artsy look ...or unless you're shooting medium format. ;-) It recently occurred to me that this is probably the real reason digital is replacing medium format in wedding photography: A lot of wedding photographers were shooting medium format not for its inherently higher resolution, but for its finer grain (relative to print size) with high speed films. The low noise of DSLRs at ISO 800 pretty much takes care of this issue. TV, do you think this is the case? I don't know that most people understand this issue until they actually own a DSLR. I think people who have no experience with a good dslr don't buy the lack of grain makes up for lack of resolution argument. But, it's probably one reason among several, and it's one of the bigger reason's I actually starting using digital for work. (I hadn't planned to use it for weddings when I bought it.) The fact that any of your shots can be color or b/w is a big one, as is the control you have over your proof sets, the ability to shoot as much as you want, reduced lab fees, easy online proofing tv
Re: Q: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
Boris Liberman asked: My idea was to take the following kit: ZX-L, FA 50, F 85 soft, and AF 220 flash. I wanted to load it with some very fast film so that preferrably flash would not have to be used. And I wanted to do purely BW shooting. In my local store I can buy either Kodak TMAX 3200 (proper B/W film) or Fuji Press Pro 1600 (color C-41). I used Fuji to shoot basketball and was satisfied. However it is color. So, finally here is the question g: what is better: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600 scanned and turned b/w digitally? I shoot Fuji 1600, but even with the improvements (when they replaced Super HQ with Press 1600), I've been gradually drifting away from it, using Press 800 whenever I can get away with one stop slower. I haven't tried scanning it and re-rendering it as black-and-white, so I can't do a direct comparison for you. But I can say that, at least the way the lab I use processes and prints it, I really love TMZ (TMax p3200) and Ilford Delta 3200. Thinking about the way a Press 1600 print looks and trying to imagine removing the colour, I have trouble believing I'd like that better than a good TMZ print. But one caveat: I _despise_ the look of TMZ when used with flash. Since your intent is to use it to avoid needing flash, that probably won't be an issue. I don't know where the wedding will be, but I know many churches are dim enough to want a film speed of 3200 or faster anyhow, at least with longish lenses. For 4x6 prints you'll get away with pushing TMZ to 12500 ASA if you have to, as long as you're careful to expose it properly at that speed. (For larger prints it's a matter of taste and composition. The grain will be pretty significant at 12500 in an 8x10. But I've quite been happy with 8x10 prints from TMZ at 6400 or 3200.) I don't know how difficult it is to get such good results from TMZ -- my lab said they use different developers for different speeds, and prefer to be able to take the lighting into account if the customer can tell them that, but TV developed some of my TMZ and he didn't make it sound like it was all that difficult with the rolls I gave him (but ask in case I've misremembered). When it comes to printing, you'll notice -- one lab I use does fine work with C41 and Tri-X, and I'd be happy with the prints they make off my TMZ negs if I didn't know that the other lab I use works _magic_ with the TMZ (and HIE) that I hand them. Oooh, thinking of HIE ... if there'll be outdoor (daytime) shots between the ceremony and the reception, plan to shoot some HIE! Even if you go so far as to shoot over the hired pro's shoulder, you won't be merely duplicating his effort, 'cause you'll get a completely different (and nifty) look. When I've shot weddings as a guest, folks have appreciated my catching the kinds of shots the hired photographer missed ... and most of those were missed because the hired photographer was getting shots on the Absolutely Must Get list at the time (only once was it because the hired fellow made poor choices). Since they've already got someone to get the Must Get shots, look for the it would be a shame to leave this out even though another shot is more important ones. -- Glenn
Re: Q: Kodak TMAX 3200 or Fuji Press Pro 1600
Hi! In my experience, TMAX 3200 is liable to show grain aliasing when scanned even at 2900dpi. If you use it, I would recommend scanning it at significantly higher dpi. Grain aliasing is when the size spacing of film grain is close to the size spacing of the CCD sensor, which causes moire-like interference patterns. This makes the film's already large grain look even larger than it really is. RS The really interesting thing here is that scanning TMZ (virtually any speed) at RS 2000dpi or under yields an image which contains grayscale data however beyond RS 4000dpi you are virtually recording a lithographic image so scanning set up RS becomes critical as gamma and contrast become difficult (near impossible) to RS manipulate after the fact at the full resolution. Pieter, Rob, my aim is much lower, so to say. I want to come to the wedding with camera and two lenses, and may be a flash that probably will stay in the bag. Then I want to have my fun. Then I am either going to ask my friend to process the film for me or ask the local lab to do so. Then I am going to submit the film to the lab for 4x6 printing. Then I will just give away the good prints to my friend. This film probably will never be scanned except perhaps scanning strips at 600 dpi for indexing purposes... But I hear what you're saying and probably I am going to choose TMAX 3200 just because it does not seem too bad and because I probably am never going to have an excuse to use such film anyway g. You're been of great help. Happy New Year. Boris
