haagen_dazs
Well-known
i am familiar with the basic 35mm film that most ppl would buy
24 or 36 exposures ...
1
Is Fuji or Kodak better?
(or has this topic been beaten to death before?)
2
Now i was wondering, Are Velvia 50, 100F & 100 normal film too?
3
What is the difference (in PRACTICAL terms) between the Professional Velvia and the consumer Superia?
4
What is RMS 8 or RMS 9? Higher number means??
5
What is push/pull characteristics
6
what is 120/220??
24 or 36 exposures ...
1
Is Fuji or Kodak better?
(or has this topic been beaten to death before?)
2
Now i was wondering, Are Velvia 50, 100F & 100 normal film too?
3
What is the difference (in PRACTICAL terms) between the Professional Velvia and the consumer Superia?
4
What is RMS 8 or RMS 9? Higher number means??
5
What is push/pull characteristics
6
what is 120/220??
Finder
Veteran
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. What Kaiyen said.
4. RMS (root mean square). The higher the number, the more the granularity.
5. Push is to underexpose and over develop the film to increase the exposure index (ISO). Pull is to overexpose and underdevelop to decrease the exposure index.
6. 220 film is twice as long as 120 film. Since the paper backing does not cover the length of the 220 film, different backs are required to use it.
2. Yes.
3. What Kaiyen said.
4. RMS (root mean square). The higher the number, the more the granularity.
5. Push is to underexpose and over develop the film to increase the exposure index (ISO). Pull is to overexpose and underdevelop to decrease the exposure index.
6. 220 film is twice as long as 120 film. Since the paper backing does not cover the length of the 220 film, different backs are required to use it.
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
It has been beaten to death, but the answer is not surprising - both are good. Try them, see what you like. If you do have some very specific things you like, then perhaps we can make recommendations.
Those are all slide filims. Also known as E6, chromes, or positives. But yes, they are "normal."
Velvia is slide film, Superia is negative film.
RMS signifies grain. The higher the number, the more the grain.
Pushing a film means to underexpose it (shoot a 100 speed film at 200 or 400) and then overdevelop in order to get usable results. For instance, some people need to shoot at 1600 or even 3200, so we'll push film to get there. Some films push better than others.
Pulling a film is to overexpose (shoot 100 speed at 50) then reduce development. This reduces contrast and can affect the tonal range a bit.
They are medium format roll film sizes. 120 has a paper backing, 220 does not and is therefore twice as long. As a result, you can fit twice as many frames onto 220 as you can on 120. Not all medium format cameras can use 220.
allan
haagen_dazs
Well-known
kaiyen said:
oh i didnt know Velvia is slide firm.
huh.. opppz
When i meant normal, i guess i meant negative (the ones i am used to seeing)
in that case, which negative fujifilm is for professional use?
(Fujiwebsite.... Prophoto > Film)
Or does fuji's only negative film (Superia) falls under the Consumer category?
haagen_dazs
Well-known
kaiyen said:
Usually a low ISO would mean finer grain righto?
now
According to fuji website, the Velvia 50 has RMS 9 while the Velvia 100 has RMS 8
??????????
tetrisattack
Maximum Creativity!
Fuji reformulated Velvia recently, claiming to have reduced the size of the grain while increasing the speed, all the while retaining the beautifully vivid color saturation that it's known for. That last point, about the color, is up for debate.
You're right: lower ISO generally means smaller and tighter grain, but often newer technology disrupts that rule of thumb. Fuji's NPH400, for example, supposedly had smaller grain than its slower cousin NPC160.
And for what that's worth, every film has different grain characteristics, even in the same speed class. For example, Fuji Acros 100 has very tiny and subdued grain, while Agfa APX100 has grain that's almost as pronounced as Kodak's Tri-X, a classic 400-speed film.
In other words, it's very fun to play with different films. You'll probably find one you like after awhile.
I tend to learn toward fuji's color stuff over kodak's, but that's because I have experience printing it the old fashioned way in the color darkroom.
You're right: lower ISO generally means smaller and tighter grain, but often newer technology disrupts that rule of thumb. Fuji's NPH400, for example, supposedly had smaller grain than its slower cousin NPC160.
And for what that's worth, every film has different grain characteristics, even in the same speed class. For example, Fuji Acros 100 has very tiny and subdued grain, while Agfa APX100 has grain that's almost as pronounced as Kodak's Tri-X, a classic 400-speed film.
In other words, it's very fun to play with different films. You'll probably find one you like after awhile.
I tend to learn toward fuji's color stuff over kodak's, but that's because I have experience printing it the old fashioned way in the color darkroom.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Usually slower films have finer grain, yes. However, in the case of Velvia 100, the fact that it's a much newer film means that advancements in technology have produced a faster film with less grain. Astia 100 has an RMS of 7, by the way - the finest grain film out there, I believe.
Superia is Fuji's consumer line. They have a couple of others - their "Pro" films (Pro400H, 160S, etc), their "Press" line (I think they still have that) is kind of in between. Also, Reala is technically Superia Reala, but it's also in between a consumer film and a pro one.
allan
Superia is Fuji's consumer line. They have a couple of others - their "Pro" films (Pro400H, 160S, etc), their "Press" line (I think they still have that) is kind of in between. Also, Reala is technically Superia Reala, but it's also in between a consumer film and a pro one.
allan
wyk_penguin
Well-known
Which Fuji/Kodak film are you talking about? In general, people say Fuji is more sataurated, Kodak has nice pastel colours. (Don't talk aout Kodakchrome, it doesn't exist.) Asking this is like asking whether a Summicron is better than a Diastagon. :bang: :bang:
What do you mean by normal? What I can say is that they are definitely not IR films (if that is what you meant by abnormal
).Velvia is a colur slide film. But to me the difference is that I can get Velvia much more cheaper in bulk while I can't do the same with Superia.
For me is means grain size. Higher the number, larger the grain. Has nothing to do with ISO though, fine grained high speed film had existed for quite some time. Just compare Fuji 400NPH to "consumer" Kodak Gold 200.
That is a funny way of saying what happens when you push or pull the film.
Film format, medium format to be precise.
The simple way: 120/220 is a film that is wrapped in paper and not in a metal can; and it is not rewinded.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Honestly, you will not see very much difference between the "pro" and "consumer" films of the same category. The main idfference is saids to be, that the "pro" films are more consistent in quality, like, if you buy 100 rolls they will all look the same.
Very much depends on the processing and on how you stored the film. Old Pro400 H (formerly NPH400) film will look like crap compared to simple but gfresh superia 400.
If you use same processing same fresh film, you can see differences though, the question is if it's worth it for the price difference you will pay.
I personally like from Fuji negs, reala100 in 35mm for its sharpness and clear colours, npc160(pro160c) and nph400 for shots where people are important, colours of skin are very well reproduced, and my all-time favourite is nph400 (pro400H) in medium format. The consumer superias are good for general use.
Kodak iso100 consumer films are okay but far from fuji reala, gold200 is terrible (shadows get grainy greenish, whatever i do), 400 i did not try or don't remember. Kodak portra400 is the only kodak neg i used from their pro category, i liked it (in medium format, 6x6).
Slides, i like kodak's e100sw (saturated warm), i think today it is discontinued and the new version is the e100gx. Velvia is a bit aggressive for my taste, only in certain situations is useable.
Just my experience.
Very much depends on the processing and on how you stored the film. Old Pro400 H (formerly NPH400) film will look like crap compared to simple but gfresh superia 400.
If you use same processing same fresh film, you can see differences though, the question is if it's worth it for the price difference you will pay.
I personally like from Fuji negs, reala100 in 35mm for its sharpness and clear colours, npc160(pro160c) and nph400 for shots where people are important, colours of skin are very well reproduced, and my all-time favourite is nph400 (pro400H) in medium format. The consumer superias are good for general use.
Kodak iso100 consumer films are okay but far from fuji reala, gold200 is terrible (shadows get grainy greenish, whatever i do), 400 i did not try or don't remember. Kodak portra400 is the only kodak neg i used from their pro category, i liked it (in medium format, 6x6).
Slides, i like kodak's e100sw (saturated warm), i think today it is discontinued and the new version is the e100gx. Velvia is a bit aggressive for my taste, only in certain situations is useable.
Just my experience.
wyk_penguin
Well-known
Velvia tends to look too sataurated sometimes. I agree.
And you really have to go to a reputable dealer to get your NPH400 (sorry, I am used to calling it that way) because sometimes they give you the old stock. However, I did not notice the grain 'grows' if you stocked NPH400 for too long. Just store your film in cool dry places (such as the fridge). And get a pro-lab to process it. Leave it to Wal-mart and you're done.
Believe me you don't want the Kodak consumer negs. You think 200 is horrible, try gold 400. You start getting multicoloured shadows (which really looks like noise from a digital shot. hmm... maybe I can fake a digital shot as I think of it now...)!!!!
And you really have to go to a reputable dealer to get your NPH400 (sorry, I am used to calling it that way) because sometimes they give you the old stock. However, I did not notice the grain 'grows' if you stocked NPH400 for too long. Just store your film in cool dry places (such as the fridge). And get a pro-lab to process it. Leave it to Wal-mart and you're done.
Believe me you don't want the Kodak consumer negs. You think 200 is horrible, try gold 400. You start getting multicoloured shadows (which really looks like noise from a digital shot. hmm... maybe I can fake a digital shot as I think of it now...)!!!!
haagen_dazs
Well-known
wyk_penguin said:
what are some of the pro labs around that have reasonable pricing?
is adorma a pro lab?
do pro labs allow me to mail them my film for development?
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I disagree with the _blanket_ comment that going to wal-mart or some other 1-hour lab for c41 processing is a bad idea. C-41 is a standard process - every C-41 machine develops film exactly the same way. The question is whether the machine is calibrated, clean, and if the tech running the machine is concerned about keeping it that way.
It is absolutely true that you will find a higher percentage of techs that don't care at the random 1-hour labs at wal-mart or the local pharmacy. But sometimes you get a good place. Don't discount those places right off the bat. Try to get to know the guy at your nearby pharmacy or target or whatever. See if they have someone who is in charge of keeping the system clean on a regular basis.
You might be surprised. And you can't beat the prices.
allan
It is absolutely true that you will find a higher percentage of techs that don't care at the random 1-hour labs at wal-mart or the local pharmacy. But sometimes you get a good place. Don't discount those places right off the bat. Try to get to know the guy at your nearby pharmacy or target or whatever. See if they have someone who is in charge of keeping the system clean on a regular basis.
You might be surprised. And you can't beat the prices.
allan