Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Minolta in Malta
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:23 pm    Post subject: Minolta in Malta Reply with quote

I think I'm turning into a proper film photographer. For this year's family holidays I took with me all sorts of gear but only ended shooting with the film camera. Not one single photo with the digital and just a few snaps on the phone! Anyway, I shot three films with my Minolta XD7 and almost exclusively the excellent MD 35/2.8. The films were one roll of Ektar, one of Agfa Vista and one of Agfa CT Precisa. Here are a few select frames from the negative films. Ektar is very nice, and Vista is horrible. Extremely grainy and often weird colours. Goodbye and good riddance.

Kodak Ektar 100:

1.


2.


3. Ektar is quite good for scanning but I still struggle a lot with the colours with some frames. No idea why. Maybe exposure was off too much in this one?


4.


5.


6. this one is with MD 135/3.5


Agfa Vista 200:

7.


8. see what I mean when I say Vista is/was horrible:


9.


10.


11.


12.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like 1 Like 1 Like 1

very well done! Seems we have been in the same places...


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:21 am    Post subject: Re: Minolta in Malta Reply with quote

[quote="miran"]

8. see what I mean when I say Vista is/was horrible:


/quote]



The photographer John Hinde would go to extraordinary lengths to render an image like that. It just shows you it's all in the eye of the beholder.


I don't think it too much of a leap to imagine that one day enthusiasts might use a combination of their phone and film to record their holidays. Perhaps on the same machine. Who knows! You may be ahead of your time sir Smile.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad you enjoyed using a film camera...as for Vista (Fuji c200) or Kodak colorplus i.e. cheap films, you'll see more grain but on the right subjects they are very good.
Vista seem to like Magentas, reds etc and if you bought it for £1 for 36 or 24exp a roll (price ended in the UK last year) it was a bargain. Also the results converting your shot into B\W, using Photoshop, works quite well.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Vista (ie C200) does have a certain charm to it with its colours but it's difficult to work with in my particular workflow (digitizing with a mirrorless and a macro lens and invert in post), skin tones especially are a problem more often than not and grain is huge. Maybe if that was all I ever shot and let the lab do the scanning, I would think it's ok, but when you compare it side by side with something like Ektar you immediately see where the extra euros went. On the other hand Ektar too works really well only in certain conditions and the extra euros... well, you need quite a few of them these days.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Well, Vista (ie C200) does have a certain charm to it with its colours but it's difficult to work with in my particular workflow (digitizing with a mirrorless and a macro lens and invert in post), skin tones especially are a problem more often than not and grain is huge. Maybe if that was all I ever shot and let the lab do the scanning, I would think it's ok, but when you compare it side by side with something like Ektar you immediately see where the extra euros went. On the other hand Ektar too works really well only in certain conditions and the extra euros... well, you need quite a few of them these days.



Ah! No fun if it's difficult to work with. The grain does seem abnormally large, but then I've not used it in such a long time I can't actually remember what it's meant to look like.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:
Ah! No fun if it's difficult to work with. The grain does seem abnormally large, but then I've not used it in such a long time I can't actually remember what it's meant to look like.

Next time if I ever shoot cheap colour film again I think I'll just order scans and prints. I'm scanning/digitizing by myself to save money and frankly it's not worth the hassle. The grain looks bad on screen but printed small it's quite ok actually.

Here are also a few frames from that third roll I shot. I hope it's ok to post here. It's Agfafoto CT Precisa 100 which is supposed to be some rebranded Fuji slide film. I accidentally underexposed it by 1EV but that's probably not a bad thing. Photos turned out nice. The film is much easier to scan, colours are good, grain is fine. I think it's just a little bit less sharp than negative film, especially compared with Ektar. Also it's now ridiculously expensive (I bought a couple of rolls some time ago for cheap, but now it's 8.99!), and it's difficult to get it developed. I think this roll had to travel across at least two borders and back for development and the whole trip took almost a month. Rolling Eyes

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


Shot with the MD 35mm/2.8 and MD 135mm/3.5 but I don't remember the details.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Super results ! Like 1


PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovely pics, Miran!
Like 1 Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
… It's Agfafoto CT Precisa 100...



miran Like 1 small . I love the rendering being produced in this last group.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sciolist wrote:

miran Like 1 small . I love the rendering being produced in this last group.

Thanks. Smile Like I said, I underexposed (not on purpose!) and had to brighten most frames a little bit after scanning but no other adjustments were necessary. The colours absolutely shine on the lightbox! It's easy to see why people get excited about slide film.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 02, 2018 4:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. 8 above is just lovely. And really like the images with the 135mm.


PostPosted: Wed May 08, 2019 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Well, Vista (ie C200) does have a certain charm to it with its colours but it's difficult to work with in my particular workflow (digitizing with a mirrorless and a macro lens and invert in post), skin tones especially are a problem more often than not and grain is huge. Maybe if that was all I ever shot and let the lab do the scanning, I would think it's ok, but when you compare it side by side with something like Ektar you immediately see where the extra euros went. On the other hand Ektar too works really well only in certain conditions and the extra euros... well, you need quite a few of them these days.


You actually nailed it Smile.
Agfa Vista Plus 200 is well... cheap and behaves like cheap negative.
Kodak Ektar 100 is 6 times price of Agfa Vista Plus 200, at least where I live and that's significant difference (actually Portra 160 is the same price as Ektar here).

That said I actually didn't shoot a lot of Ektar, although those rolls I shoot turned out quite nice, but still I prefer Fuji Superia 200 Very Happy.
Agfa Vista Plus 200, however, was in my cameras number of times and I cannot agree completely with you that it's rubbish. It's a bit on the grainy side, granted, but when I'm scanning at home grain doesn't seem to be big in size. There's noticeable amount, but of quite small grains Wink. Also in my workflow Agfa Vista Plus 200 doesn't end up all that contrasty, I need to bump up contrast in last step in LR quite significant actually. However after Lab scans - well all the negatives were turning out with immense contrast and lacking a lot of detail (on both Noritsu and Frontier). I'm sure it's probably just the settings they use, as they're way more sophisticated machines than my humble Plustek 7600i, but still... In terms of scanning - for my workflow I found out that Agfa Vista Plus 200 scans better when underexposed a bit. Weird, but it just works better that way.
One thing I need to agree with you, that skintones aren't Vista's best side. I don't know why, but there are times when they turned out perfect, but most of the times I need to struggle a bit with LR to get them right.
All in all I think Vista is a lot of fun and cheap to just shoot, would love to see Portra or even Superia for that price, but nobody can stop me from dreaming.

This underexposed Precisa has some fantastic charm to it. Maybe the colours, maybe those slightly muted shadows, I'm not sure, but all of it creates wonderful mood. I've never used slide film because of the cost and hassle to develop them, but I see I'm missing a lot. One question... will you underexpose, on purpose this time, second roll or will you shoot it on proper ISO? Very Happy

I honestly really enjoy to see your posts in Colour Film Gallery as it's always quality work and plenty of photos to watch and come back to watch again Miran.


PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that Agfa Vista 400 is much much better than 200, at least I like it's colours. I think they are much better than for example ones you get from Superia Xtra400.



PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:

Here are also a few frames from that third roll I shot. I hope it's ok to post here. It's Agfafoto CT Precisa 100 which is supposed to be some rebranded Fuji slide film. I accidentally underexposed it by 1EV but that's probably not a bad thing. Photos turned out nice. The film is much easier to scan, colours are good, grain is fine. I think it's just a little bit less sharp than negative film, especially compared with Ektar. Also it's now ridiculously expensive (I bought a couple of rolls some time ago for cheap, but now it's 8.99!), and it's difficult to get it developed. I think this roll had to travel across at least two borders and back for development and the whole trip took almost a month. Rolling Eyes

2.


3.


4.


Shot with the MD 35mm/2.8 and MD 135mm/3.5 but I don't remember the details.


Wonderful results Miran! I usually deliberately underexpose a bit to enhance the colors and it shows how great that works here, too.