Tin
Well-known
Stephanie Brim said:A little?
Since I'm going in October I'm guessing that the leaves will be almost done changing. However, I have 8 rolls of Velvia 50 just in case.
Stephanie,
I'd suggest that you also bring your Velvia. The fall color should be fantastic in Colorado in October. The leaves should be gone pretty much by the American Thanksiving, but before that you should have good chances. The main variable is the weather---if it suddenly turns cold and windy, leaves will drop off fast. Usually there is a window of about two weeks of peak colors in October.
I went to university in Colorado years ago and had watched those variations for several years as a resident.
Tin
Filmnut
Member
Stephanie;
I have used most of the films mentioned here, and liked APX 100 alot, but as it seems to destined for oblivion, I have started shooting Acros 100. Usually developing it in XTOL, but I have used Rodinal for it also. What I really like is the small tight grain, and the very high sharpness that it has, with nice tonality, although its' tonality is slightly different from the other (older) films, I have got very nice prints from these negs, and do like it alot.
I do tend to expose it at about 80, as I like the slightly punchier negs this gives me, although this is personal preference, and is also determined by how you wish to make your prints. Rated and processed at 100, I found the negs looked slightly undersposed. Plus, the speed of a film is calcualted by the MINIMUM amount of exposure required to acheive a certain density, so I often like to overexpose a bit with most neg films.
Biggest downside I think is the price, at least here in Toronto it is the pricest B&W film I can buy.
Try testing some and see how you like it.
Have nice trip, I wish I was going out West again soon!
Keith
I have used most of the films mentioned here, and liked APX 100 alot, but as it seems to destined for oblivion, I have started shooting Acros 100. Usually developing it in XTOL, but I have used Rodinal for it also. What I really like is the small tight grain, and the very high sharpness that it has, with nice tonality, although its' tonality is slightly different from the other (older) films, I have got very nice prints from these negs, and do like it alot.
I do tend to expose it at about 80, as I like the slightly punchier negs this gives me, although this is personal preference, and is also determined by how you wish to make your prints. Rated and processed at 100, I found the negs looked slightly undersposed. Plus, the speed of a film is calcualted by the MINIMUM amount of exposure required to acheive a certain density, so I often like to overexpose a bit with most neg films.
Biggest downside I think is the price, at least here in Toronto it is the pricest B&W film I can buy.
Try testing some and see how you like it.
Have nice trip, I wish I was going out West again soon!
Keith
kaiyen
local man of mystery
filmnut,
_not_ picking on you at all, just making a general comment.
overexposing does not increase contrast or make anything punchier. reducing EI actually _decreases contrast as it provides detail in areas that would not have it.
HOWEVER, if you are not compensating in development (slight pull), then you have basiclaly overexposed your neg and that would, indeed, be punchier. But perhaps in the wrong way.
Sometimes I feel that I am way to hardcore about terminology with development, exposure, etc. I feel that others don't really care that overexposure decreases contrast, technically, as long as you compensate correctly in development. Actually, even if you don't compensate you've still probably decreased contrast, as your absolute highlights are still absolute, but your blacks are now greyer.
Maybe I just need to stop trying. whatever works for whomever - go for it.
hm. (again, not picking on you, just thinking aloud).
allan
_not_ picking on you at all, just making a general comment.
overexposing does not increase contrast or make anything punchier. reducing EI actually _decreases contrast as it provides detail in areas that would not have it.
HOWEVER, if you are not compensating in development (slight pull), then you have basiclaly overexposed your neg and that would, indeed, be punchier. But perhaps in the wrong way.
Sometimes I feel that I am way to hardcore about terminology with development, exposure, etc. I feel that others don't really care that overexposure decreases contrast, technically, as long as you compensate correctly in development. Actually, even if you don't compensate you've still probably decreased contrast, as your absolute highlights are still absolute, but your blacks are now greyer.
Maybe I just need to stop trying. whatever works for whomever - go for it.
hm. (again, not picking on you, just thinking aloud).
allan
peterc
Heretic
Check out Vistek. They have Acros at a brick (20 rolls of 36) price of about $90. Not too bad compared to regular per roll price of $6.50.Filmnut said:
Peter
kmack
do your job, then let go
kaiyen said:
Don't worry about it allan. Someone needs to keep us grounded. Exposure and development is where the craft of photography lies. A good craftsman who is not an artist is still a good craftsman. An artist who is not a good craftsman is a bad artist.
S
Socke
Guest
Kaiyen, keep it up! I have to look up some of your terminology but this makes me learn it!
Filmnut
Member
Kaiyen;
You are of course correct, that overexposure will lead to less contrast, not more.
You are right to care about the way we communicate and treat the technical aspects of our craft.
My comment should be perhaps amended by saying that I prefer a SLIGHTLY denser neg, and so that I get sufficient shadow density in the neg to print well, without blowing out the highlights, and depending on lighting conditions, I will push and pull as required.
With Acros, I found that it almost seems that the film speed is a bit underrated, (I have spoken with other people that have had the same experience) which may or not be true. But none the less, I'm talking about a 1/4 stop or so of exposure, which could also be due to shutter or light meter inaccuracies.
Also, we all need to do our own testing to find the best results for the type of work that we are doing.
As a final note, I'd like to say that no is offense taken, and none given!
You are of course correct, that overexposure will lead to less contrast, not more.
You are right to care about the way we communicate and treat the technical aspects of our craft.
My comment should be perhaps amended by saying that I prefer a SLIGHTLY denser neg, and so that I get sufficient shadow density in the neg to print well, without blowing out the highlights, and depending on lighting conditions, I will push and pull as required.
With Acros, I found that it almost seems that the film speed is a bit underrated, (I have spoken with other people that have had the same experience) which may or not be true. But none the less, I'm talking about a 1/4 stop or so of exposure, which could also be due to shutter or light meter inaccuracies.
Also, we all need to do our own testing to find the best results for the type of work that we are doing.
As a final note, I'd like to say that no is offense taken, and none given!
ARCHIVIST
Well-known
Acros 100 Is Brilliant!
Acros 100 Is Brilliant!
I can highly recommend Fuji's Acros 100. FP4 Plus is a great film but the Acros gives that little bit more..................
Processed in ID-!! straight it has a very fine grain and an excellent tonal range.
Have a good trip!
Regards
Peter
Acros 100 Is Brilliant!
I can highly recommend Fuji's Acros 100. FP4 Plus is a great film but the Acros gives that little bit more..................
Processed in ID-!! straight it has a very fine grain and an excellent tonal range.
Have a good trip!
Regards
Peter
x-ray
Veteran
I shot APX exclusively in 120 untill I did a trade trial test for Ilford on both delta 400 and 100. A couple of my accounts were retail fashion chains and we shot both B&W and color E6 120 depending on what kind of ad tab it was. I shot as many as 75 rolls a day or so. I guess I shot more than five or six thousand rolls of apx over a couple of years and like it very well but felt it suffered a little in red sensativity.The Reds and male skin tones were rendered a little darker than I liked. When I did the delta test i fell in love with it. I now guess I've shot five or more thousand rolls in all formats and thousands of sheets and like it better than anything I've used to date in 100 iso. I process in Ilford HC or Hc110 1:32 or now I really like 1:48 for 7.5 min at 68 degrees. I'm experimenting with other films at the meoment just to see what's out there but yet to see anything I like as well.
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
For B&W 100, I go with Plus-X. With Diafine, I can go to 400 with it if conditions change and it's already in the camera.
Whatever you go with, get used to it before go, if you can.
Whatever you go with, get used to it before go, if you can.