What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Which is the best film for contax g

>Estoy de acuerdo con ustedes: El contraste con el 45mm planar es muy alto para ciertas escenas de sol, asi que a veces es preciso emplear peliculas de contraste moderado o (en blanco y negro) un revelador que compensa, como (d-23 o d-76 diluido a 1:1) o ambas cosas. Me parece que el 28mm y el 90 mm dan resultados mas normal.

I agree: The contrast with the 45mm is very high for high-contrast scenes, such as those in full sunlight, making it necessary at times to use films or developers that yield lower contrast. Results from the 28 and 90 seem more natural in this regard.
 
I agree that the question possed on the choice of film might have come from a beginner, however it could have come from someone who had used other equipment for many years and just wants to get the opinion of other users of the G. Being a new user, I would like to know what other users have found from their own experience. This is a forum - let's use it for sharing experience.

In my many years in photography using many different cameras and lenses, I have found that for the best possible results with color negative, transparency, or B&W films, you should run a test of at least one roll of film using 3 to 4 different films in each catagory.

Let's take B&W first. My favorite is Ilford HP5. I also use FP4 and PanF, but my best work has always been with HP5 - at ISO 500. I have blown up the center 1/3 of a 35mm negative to 16 X 20 with excellant results and many awards in competition. The camers involved were Nikon F2 w/Nikon optics, LeicaFlex with 90 mm F2.8, and Leica M4s with 35, 50 and 90 Summicrons. I hope the CZ lenses work well with Ilford as I really like the films.

Color negatives - Well, I usually use the standard Kodak amateur films with good results, however I plan to ry some of the new professional films.

Transparencies - Some of my Nikon lenses had better results with Extachromes, some with Kodachrome. I also used Agfa in some cameras (I had a Beseler TopCon Super D that got its best pictures with Agfachrome). I have not tried any slide with the G yet, but will probably run tests with at least 5 films.

So, the best thing to do is test, test and test if you want to find the best film for your camera and lenses.

Of course, you will also find that there will be films that you will use for certain subjects. I always used Extachrome for winter scenes because by controlling exposure I could make the photo give the viewer a feeling of cold. Sunsets with my Nikon 80-200 were best with Kodachrome 64; with my Leica M lenses, I had some great sunsets using Kodacolor.

I have been away from serious photography for a number of years and would like some feedback on some of the newer films on the market.

Jim Slater
 
I agree with Jim Slater. New people (& some old) would find it interesting in what film some of us use, and the results of any testing we may have done, especially with newer films. In my case I have tested most B&W films and due to excellent results, settled with Ilford Delta 400 developed in Ilford DD-X (using recommended times). This film compliments my CZ lenses really well. For color, I use the recently released Kodak SUPRA 200. This film suits film scanners and is my choice (previously I used Fujicolor X-TRA 400).
My photography is mostly street and travel, and therefore medium/high speed films were tested.
William
 
I myself am partial to the way Kodak Portra B&W along wtih T400CN comes out with my G2. The emulsions are C41 and have extreemly fine grain. The CZ lenses compliment the film with the incredible sharpness.
 
> I second that opinion on the T400CN. Virtually no grain; awesome sharpness. But I print it on Polymax B&W paper.

Dave
 
Thanks - I will try the T400CN and Portra when I begin my film tests

Jim Slater
 
> As another recent photography returnee, I wonder if it makes sense to > ask about film "systems." I'm straddling digital. For the money, I > think film is still the best means of image capture. But I want to > digitize results.

> So, are Kodak or Fuji films, for ex&le, optimized for performance > with their own brand chemicals, papers, CDs etc? One poster mentioned > PlusX 200 works well with film scanners. Are there other non-obvious > attributes that might make it worth while to pick a brand and stick > with it even though marginally better emulsions for a given speed etc > might be found with a roll produced by another manufacturer?
 
Max -
Like you, I plan to digitize my photos. I have two reasons, 1) to do digital printing, and 2) to create a database of my photos.

I have not yet purchased a scanner, but I am planning to do so by the end of this month.

You are correct asking about "film systems." I managed and cworked in a photo lab that was part of a camers shop where I worked for 15 years. We used Kodak C41 chemistry and printed on Kodak paper processed in Kodak chemistry. We processed a good amount of Fuji and a little of some other brands of color print film. Kodak Film/paper/chemistry was a system. Oour results were not as good with Fuji/Kodak. So, I ordered some Fuji paper and the prints were better. The chemistry did nit seem to make a difference.

Black & White was a different story. We started out with Kodak paper/chemistry, but could not get the results our customers wanted. We had some accounts that were of a professional nature. I switched the B&W department to Ilford paper/chemistry and made everyone happy. Kodak would occasionally bring out new products from Rochester to let us try in our lab. Three times in one year they left admitting they could not equal the results we were getting with Ilford. We were printing by hand and machine.

Film is still better than digital in my opinion, but both have a place in photography. I will use both as will most other photographers who enjoy the craft.

Yes, it is best to find a film/paper/chemistry combination that works for you and your camera, but expereiment with others as well. You might get some spectacular results you were not expecting by doing this.

Anyone out there who can reccommend a good B&W film for scanning and a good inexpensive scanner - I sure would like to hear from you.

Jim Slater
 
I'm awfully early into ownership to be issuing useful feedback, but my new Minolta Scandual III is easy to use and so far, producing good results (from color transparancies). Street price is about US$300.

The earlier Scandual II was very popular, and the III has better specs at about the same price. It's also a USB2 machine, meaning no added firewire or SCSI card to install and coax into working, as is required with a number of scanners.

Naturally, you can spend a LOT more for additional capability.

--Rick
 
> Jim,

Are you shopping for a film scanner? Despite the expense, I wonder if this isn't the best way to go for film to digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top