At the bottom of this page,
http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/n2pua/east.html , I've posted three
photos I shot with Kodak Gold Max 800 film, processed the cheapest way
at the local drugstore. Better printmaking and scanning would yield
much better results, but even these snaps show how this film is ok for
general use.
Modern film is pretty forgiving.
Note the third photo has the obligatory autox content!
-----------------------------------------------
"Charles R. Schultz" wrote:
>
> You really don't have to go through all these gyrations, anymore. Kodak
> Gold Max film is rated at 800 ASA (or is it ISO?), but will give
> acceptable results at +/- at least 2 stops on the same roll of film
> without any special processing required, and, therefore, no extra
> expense for processing. I've shot with it at 3200 and at 100, and
> everywhere in between. That's at least a 6-stop latitude!
>
> It's a nice film for snapshots of all kinds of things, especially things
> moving across your view at high speed. It also gives you enough slack
> to work well enough when the sky won't make up its mind whether to be
> bright or dark. There's a newer, 400 speed, version of this film, too.
>
> There's a pro version of this emulsion (I don't remember the name,) as
> well as other, competing films by other manufacturers. I think maybe
> Polaroid had the idea first, with something called OneFilm(TM), or
> something like that.
>
> If I find the time, I'll scan a couple photos and post them.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Jay Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > Phil Ethier wrote:
> >
> > > > From: Judy Becker <judyb@cts.com>
> > > >
> > > > >Or you could get 100 speed film but put your camera's ASA to
>400-that'll
> > > > >open up
> > > > >camera film speed.
> > > >
> > > > Either I don't understand what you are saying here, or it's utter
>nonsense,
> > > > or its a joke.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that you are merely underexposing by two stops. Hardly
>what
> > > > I would recommend for a quality photo.
> >
> > It's called "pushing," and it's not an uncommon technique. You have to
> > tell your photo processor that you've pushed the film, and they'll
> > compensate for the underexposure. I've seen somereally nice shots done
> > this way.
> >
> > Jay
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck Schultz/ Mailto:n2pua@cybrtyme.com
> / Home page: http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/n2pua
> Eastaboga / (Under construction forever!)
> Alabama / AIM Screen Name: n2pua ICQ ID Number: 11654121
> 36260 / It's not the thing you fling, but the fling, itself!
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Schultz/ Mailto:n2pua@cybrtyme.com
/ Home page: http://www.cybrtyme.com/personal/n2pua
Eastaboga / (Under construction forever!)
Alabama / AIM Screen Name: n2pua ICQ ID Number: 11654121
36260 / It's not the thing you fling, but the fling, itself!
|