Ti29er
Member
Hi.
I've been shooting the Mamaiya 7 of late loaded with the Kodak Portra 160 120 film.
However, I have found that I'm using the tripod almost always with this camera and not using it as a grown-up M6/7/8/9.
Thus, I can afford to shoot a slower film. Plus Portra is albut out of stock most everywhere!
I'm looking a neg film with a good tolerence of my shooting and exposure errors, so would the Fuji Reala be a better film if shooting from the hip is irrelvence?
Looking at scanning and printing to 30 inches.
Thanks
Tim
I've been shooting the Mamaiya 7 of late loaded with the Kodak Portra 160 120 film.
However, I have found that I'm using the tripod almost always with this camera and not using it as a grown-up M6/7/8/9.
Thus, I can afford to shoot a slower film. Plus Portra is albut out of stock most everywhere!
I'm looking a neg film with a good tolerence of my shooting and exposure errors, so would the Fuji Reala be a better film if shooting from the hip is irrelvence?
Looking at scanning and printing to 30 inches.
Thanks
Tim
joeswe
Well-known
Hi Tim,
you are a bit "off topic" in the "Folders" sub forum, you might get better/more responses in the "120 RFs" sub-forum or in the "Film" sub forum. It might also be a good idea to tell us what kind of photography you are thinking about (nature, portrait, architecture...)
That being said, I do not have direct comparison between Reala 100 and Portra 160, but from what I've heard it's not worse than Portra 160.
However, I do not see the point in using such a big camera and a tripod and at the same time having a kind of half assed (sorry) attitude towards exposure. Get a good slide film (Velvia if you like saturated colors, Provia/Astia if you prefer more neutral colors), it will not only surpass any print film in terms of sharpness, resolution and color reproduction by a great margin, it will also teach you a lot about exposing correctly.
If you insist on using print film and don't shoot people/portraits you might consider Ektar 100. It is sharper and has smoother grain than Portra 160, but it is also more saturated and contrasty (= more finicky with exposure) and you need a good lab who know what they are doing in post processing (scanning).
you are a bit "off topic" in the "Folders" sub forum, you might get better/more responses in the "120 RFs" sub-forum or in the "Film" sub forum. It might also be a good idea to tell us what kind of photography you are thinking about (nature, portrait, architecture...)
That being said, I do not have direct comparison between Reala 100 and Portra 160, but from what I've heard it's not worse than Portra 160.
However, I do not see the point in using such a big camera and a tripod and at the same time having a kind of half assed (sorry) attitude towards exposure. Get a good slide film (Velvia if you like saturated colors, Provia/Astia if you prefer more neutral colors), it will not only surpass any print film in terms of sharpness, resolution and color reproduction by a great margin, it will also teach you a lot about exposing correctly.
If you insist on using print film and don't shoot people/portraits you might consider Ektar 100. It is sharper and has smoother grain than Portra 160, but it is also more saturated and contrasty (= more finicky with exposure) and you need a good lab who know what they are doing in post processing (scanning).
Tim Gray
Well-known
Personally, I like Kodak film. I'd shoot Portra 160 or Ektar 100. You can easily get away with rating Portra 160 at 100 if you wish.
Fuji makes some good film too. If you like the way it looks, go for it. I can't imagine it's better or worse in any significant manner than Ektar or Portra. It might be a bit more or less grainier, etc.
The last option is to shoot slide film. Velvia 50 is quite popular - slower and finer grained, though more saturated and contrasty than what you'll get from C41 film.
Fuji makes some good film too. If you like the way it looks, go for it. I can't imagine it's better or worse in any significant manner than Ektar or Portra. It might be a bit more or less grainier, etc.
The last option is to shoot slide film. Velvia 50 is quite popular - slower and finer grained, though more saturated and contrasty than what you'll get from C41 film.
Araakii
Well-known
I would pick Reala 100 over the new Portra any time. But they just have completely different looks. You can't just choose 1 or the other based on speed. Portra 160 is fine grain enough that you don't really need to shoot a slower film.
Matus
Well-known
I would say - try the Ektar. If you like it, you will get less grain than Portra 160. Otherwise I am not sure that you are going to find significant differences between Portra 160 or say the Reala.
You cam always take the Provia of course
You cam always take the Provia of course
thegman
Veteran
I like Portra, and if you're after tolerance of exposure errors, slide film is likely not for you. You could try the Fujifilm alternative slow negative films though. Ektar 100 is good too, but it's not as tolerant of error as Portra.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Notice a trend here? I should have said this earlier, but if you can spare the cash, but 3-4 rolls of different types of film, shoot the SAME thing with all of them, and get them developed. See which one you like more. What you like will probably be different from what we like.
I should have said this earlier, but if you can spare the cash, but 3-4 rolls of different types of film, shoot the SAME thing with all of them, and get them developed. See which one you like more. What you like will probably be different from what we like.Ti29er
Member
I've bought some 100 Reala as it's going to be the best of most all worlds by the sound of things. As you say, Ektar seems more aking to tranny than neg in it's mannerisms.
I used to shoot Kodachrome for years, so slides are less interesting to me plus the convenience as regards the d&p and scanning being easier through the local lab' and costs - all relevent considerations.
Cheers
I used to shoot Kodachrome for years, so slides are less interesting to me plus the convenience as regards the d&p and scanning being easier through the local lab' and costs - all relevent considerations.
Cheers
HHPhoto
Well-known
Hi,
I've used all the films mentioned so far intensively.
So from my tests and experience:
Reala 100 is a good choice. Grain is quite comparable to Portra 160, but Reala has a bit higher resolution. But to exploit its resolution advantage you have to use optical enlarging with APO enlarging lenses (the drum scanners only scan MF film in the 3000 - 4000 ppi range, and that is not enough to get the full resolution out of Reala).
With flatbed scanners you waste the potential of film completely because of their extremely low resolution and grain increase by scanner noise.
Fuji Pro 160NS has even a bit finer grain than Reala (it is a more recent, modern emulsion).
By far the best detail rendition (finest grain, highest resolution, best sharpness) you will achieve by using color reversal (slide) film.
Provia 100F, Astia 100F, E100G, Velvia 100F, Velvia 100 all have significantly better detail rendition than Portra 160, Ektar, Reala, Pro 160NS.
And in hybrid workflow you have the advantages that
- you always have an exact color reference with your original slide; therefore you know how to get the right colors with your scan
- because of the much finer grain it is easier with sharpening.
As you are working with an Mamiya 7, right exposure with slide film is not a problem at all. The M7 light meter is very accurate, you don't have to be afraid of using slides.
And using an external light meter is always possible, too.
Medium format slides, especially those exposed with the outstanding Mamiya 7 optics, are absolutely breath taking. It is impossible to get that brillance and 'impact' with prints.
Watch them with the outstanding Schneider 3x medium format loupe ( http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/foto_e/zubehoer_lupen.htm ).
Then you have their fulll power, without the quality loss by scanning.
And, even better, project them with a slide projector.
Projected medium format slides deliver by far the best, most brillant and sharpest, and of course biggest pictures.
Once you've seen projected medium format slides, you will be absolutely hooked!
Then you know that god really exists :angel:.
Using slides, and viewing them with a very good slide loupe and projecting it, is furthermore not only the best quality option, it is by far the most cheapest option:
- no need to pay for scans
- no need to pay for prints
- a projected slide costs less than a buck (and you can go as big as you want without paying extra); but a 30" or 40" print cost you dozens of bucks, with good quality mostly more than 100 bucks.
With slide film I can have each of my pictures big and impressive.
With negative film that is completely impossible to afford (unless you are a millionaire; I'm not).
Cheers, Jan
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I wish this was written in a magazine article or something so more people realize what film can actually deliver.
Jan, I always learn new things reading your posts.
You ought to consider writing a column in a magazine or a book on film types.
ssmc
Well-known
I'm new to MF but I used Ektar 100 very successfully hand-held for the first test roll in a Fuji GW690III (90mm f/3.5 lens). Since the M7 also has a virtually vibration-free leaf shutter I can't see why you shouldn't be able to get very sharp results with it in decent light; even with the 150mm lens if you keep the shutter speed up you ought to be fine. The first 2 shots on this page are from that roll (the remainder are from a GA645)
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/medium_format
They were processed and scanned by NCPS and I reduced them by 50% for uploading. Even though they're not quite as sharp as the originals, there's no evidence of camera shake (you're just starting to see the dye clouds at full-res).
Ektar colors do seem a bit "lairy" in 120 which is not something I noticed when shooting it in 135.
Regards,
Scott
http://www.pbase.com/smcleod965/medium_format
They were processed and scanned by NCPS and I reduced them by 50% for uploading. Even though they're not quite as sharp as the originals, there's no evidence of camera shake (you're just starting to see the dye clouds at full-res).
Ektar colors do seem a bit "lairy" in 120 which is not something I noticed when shooting it in 135.
Regards,
Scott
HHPhoto
Well-known
Dear Will,
thanks for your kind words.
Well, I love photography. And I always want to learn more.
And I love to experiment and to test (maybe that is why I am an engineer as profession
).I am in regular contact with some other very experienced photographers and film experts from The USA, UK and Germany.
I am also permanently learning from them.
Currently I am indeed involved in a little project concerning an online publication. Lots of experts contribute to it and I was asked to participate, too.
Cheers, Jan
Last edited:
graywolf
Well-known
Somewhat misleading. There are drum scanners and then there are drum scanners. A Heidelberg Linotype Hell Tango will go a lot farther than 4000ppi. But drum scanners are generally considered obsolete it this era of digital cameras. When most of the work is coming in as .jpg not many shops are willing to spend a quarter million bucks on a scanner.
There also are flatbed scanners and then there are flatbed scanners. An Epson V700 or V750 is considered a pretty decent proofing scanner in the industry at the $800-1000 range, if you are willing to go $5K you can get something that will blow away most digital cameras. $15K or so puts you into the low end pre-press range.
Me? I use an old Epson 2400, it does a great job on web images and small not too critical prints, and I have less than $100 into it and the 4x5 adapter. A 2400ppi 4x5 scan comes out to 32x40 inches at 300ppi by the way, although I tend to limit my scans to 1200ppi, and I only shoot B&W film.
The problem with the web is anyone can pass out BS, even me, worse they tend to quote other BS'ers on the web to prove their expertise. Before you plunk out real money it pays to do some serious research. In a big city you can probably even get demo scans done if they think you may become a frequent customer.
Anyway there are two things that determine the quality of a scan, the quality of the scanner, and the ability of the operator. An excellent operator on a run of the mill scanner will get better scans than a run of the mill operator on a excellent scanner.
The same thing applies to optical prints. Back in my serious days, the early 1980's, I paid a guy $25 each for 8x10 color prints for my portfolio. His prints were that much better than the best custom prints I could get from a commercial printer in a metro area of 5+ million people. He was the best color printer that I have personally met.
There also are flatbed scanners and then there are flatbed scanners. An Epson V700 or V750 is considered a pretty decent proofing scanner in the industry at the $800-1000 range, if you are willing to go $5K you can get something that will blow away most digital cameras. $15K or so puts you into the low end pre-press range.
Me? I use an old Epson 2400, it does a great job on web images and small not too critical prints, and I have less than $100 into it and the 4x5 adapter. A 2400ppi 4x5 scan comes out to 32x40 inches at 300ppi by the way, although I tend to limit my scans to 1200ppi, and I only shoot B&W film.
The problem with the web is anyone can pass out BS, even me, worse they tend to quote other BS'ers on the web to prove their expertise. Before you plunk out real money it pays to do some serious research. In a big city you can probably even get demo scans done if they think you may become a frequent customer.
Anyway there are two things that determine the quality of a scan, the quality of the scanner, and the ability of the operator. An excellent operator on a run of the mill scanner will get better scans than a run of the mill operator on a excellent scanner.
The same thing applies to optical prints. Back in my serious days, the early 1980's, I paid a guy $25 each for 8x10 color prints for my portfolio. His prints were that much better than the best custom prints I could get from a commercial printer in a metro area of 5+ million people. He was the best color printer that I have personally met.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Well yes, there are drum scanmners with more than 4000 ppi resolution. But that is mostly only usable for 35mm film, not for medium format we are talking about here.
With some scanners it is possible to scan a medium format slide or neg. in several parts as 35mm and than stitch the 35mm scans together.
We've been there, done that. And used the most modern Imacon X5 and ICG 370 drum scanners.
And compared them to optical printing with APO enlarging lenses and slide projection with excellent projection lenses.
The drum scanners could not match the resolution we've achieved with APO lenses and slide projection.
The optical, not hybrid way delivered the best quality. Highest resolution and best sharpness. And finest grain, because no grain increasing effect by Scanner Noise.
And the optical way with enlarging and especially slide projection is by far cheaper than drum scans. Therefore also the price-performance ratio is much better with the classic optical, not hybrid way.
Cheers, Jan
graywolf
Well-known
A Tango will scan an 11x14 at 11000ppi, as far as I know.
PS: However, you probably would not want to as that would show each grain very clearly. Too much resolution can sometimes be worse than too little. I remember wanting a copy of a photo out of a book. If I scanned it at more than 100ppi, I got a great picture of halftone dots. 100ppi did not give me a very large photo, but I only wanted it for reference anyway. One of the things we run of the mill photographers run into is that we do not have a clue what the real big time pros use. Did you know you can drop $12,000 on a tripod, I didn't until the other day.
PS: However, you probably would not want to as that would show each grain very clearly. Too much resolution can sometimes be worse than too little. I remember wanting a copy of a photo out of a book. If I scanned it at more than 100ppi, I got a great picture of halftone dots. 100ppi did not give me a very large photo, but I only wanted it for reference anyway. One of the things we run of the mill photographers run into is that we do not have a clue what the real big time pros use. Did you know you can drop $12,000 on a tripod, I didn't until the other day.
venchka
Veteran
Meanwhile, back in the real world.....
I have shot virtually every MF color film from Agfachrome 50 in a Mamiya TLR in 1969 to Ektar 25 in a Pentax 6x7 in recent memory. I think the Ektar 25 was 10 years old at the time. Old & new Ektar, Fuji NGH II & Portra 800 in a Hasselblad in the rain. Also recently. All handheld 90%-95% of the time. Velvia 50 & 100 and all flavors of Portra in both the Hasselblad and Pentax 6x7. Again, mostly hand held. Do I have favorites? Sure. Are they all good? You bet. Never shot Kodachrome in 120. Darn.
What was the original question? Buy film you can get. Use it. Carry a variety of speeds for changing light.
All the best. Have fun. Without the tripod even.
Not that it matters, but Reala was my least favorite. Maybe I was having an off day. The 800 speed films rock when nothing else wiil work.
Cheers!
Wayne
I have shot virtually every MF color film from Agfachrome 50 in a Mamiya TLR in 1969 to Ektar 25 in a Pentax 6x7 in recent memory. I think the Ektar 25 was 10 years old at the time. Old & new Ektar, Fuji NGH II & Portra 800 in a Hasselblad in the rain. Also recently. All handheld 90%-95% of the time. Velvia 50 & 100 and all flavors of Portra in both the Hasselblad and Pentax 6x7. Again, mostly hand held. Do I have favorites? Sure. Are they all good? You bet. Never shot Kodachrome in 120. Darn.
What was the original question? Buy film you can get. Use it. Carry a variety of speeds for changing light.
All the best. Have fun. Without the tripod even.
Not that it matters, but Reala was my least favorite. Maybe I was having an off day. The 800 speed films rock when nothing else wiil work.
Cheers!
Wayne