 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Excalibur wrote:
| Bob van Sikorski wrote: |
well, gold200 used as 160 gives better results, at least for me. you can say lot of things about "why to do that", but it doenst change anything about my point of view. by "limitations" i mean mostly the grain, which is very limiting details in photos compare to pro films like Ektar100. this thread is not about "how gold200 is shitty", its abou "look, gives great result, but with some limits, dont expect too much from it".
btw your sample is too small, i was putting here BIG scans for a reason  . but nice horse. |
erm well sorry to disagree again:- but using gold at 160asa on any camera? and using the cameras in built exposure meter? or do you use a Kodak grey card with a spot on calibrated exposure meter before each shot? Do you use fresh film everytime because Kodak gold is designed to "mature" for best results after a certain time...also scanning can introduce more errrors and would also say that the C41 process should be the same anywhere in theory but results on negs can vary from whom is doing the processing.
As for grain, I had no idea what Gold was like so scanned a Gold neg at 3200:-
Scanner V750 as it comes just colour correction using Epson scan program, Kodak Gold with Helios 58mm lens:-
Blow up which would be a picture of 6' across, measured across a computer screen:-
_________________
Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
