Cheap film-experiences

[andym911]

On a recent vacation I decided to take only color film and one camera.

A IIf with Elmar 3,5/50 and Kodak film, some cheap Kodak Gold 200 and a bit of Portra 400.

After getting the prints back from a high street shop I must say that the kodak Gold gave very pleasing results.Normally I shoot mostly Black and White but I wanted to see what I could get with color film and then if desired convert to monochrome after scanning.

Bottom line is that I am surprised at just how well the results are coming out.Added to the fact that I can dump all my films into the same shop and then post process how I like.

Is anybody else doing this or do you separate color for color and B&W for B&W?

Also what are the potential downsides of this workflow in your opinion....am genuinely interested to hear peoples point of view.

Bear in mind that I only do digital printing from scans and not wet printing anymore.

thoughts anyone?

regards

Andy

p.s here a shot from the Kodak Gold, scanned from the print and toned in LR.

[andym911]

Here the color shot for reference

[like-a-leica]

I actually quite like the washed-out colours in the second picture. Was this Gold or Portra?

IMHO almost anything goes for on-line purposes. It's as easy as falling off a log to convert a colour slide or negative into a presentable b&w picture. I suppose the question is how printable the results are.

Andrew

[andym911]

Andrew

the color shot was Kodak Gold...I agree with web images, almost anything goes....am doing some prints later today to see what the results are like...

cheers

andy

[earleygallery]

I use colour neg most of the time now. Before it used to be slides. A recent interview with a pro photographer (sorry, can't recall who) said much the same, he uses colour neg almost exclusively.

If I know I want B&W shots then I'll use a traditional film like FP4 or Neopan, which offers a different look especially if wet printing.

[dfbldwn]

Originally Posted by andym911

A IIf with Elmar 3,5/50 and Kodak film, some cheap Kodak Gold 200 and a bit of Portra 400.

After getting the prints back from a high street shop I must say that the kodak Gold gave very pleasing results.Normally I shoot mostly Black and White but I wanted to see what I could get with color film and then if desired convert to monochrome after scanning.

Bottom line is that I am surprised at just how well the results are coming out.Added to the fact that I can dump all my films into the same shop and then post process how I like.

Is anybody else doing this or do you separate color for color and B&W for B&W?

Damn! You would go and tell everyone.

Yes, I love converting Kodak Gold 200 to monochrome. I find it far superior to any B/W C41 process film.

For low light work, try Kodak's "Ultra Max 800", which I call the GT 800-5 since that's what's on the film edge. I happily underexpose it up to 1 stop, then compensate with Photoshop, then convert to monochrome. Its curve is the closest to Kodachrome 200's I've found yet. I can still get detail from my HP scanner in exposures ranging from = -2.5 stops underexposed to +3.0 stops overexposed. All other films give me a exposure range of -1.0 to +2.5 (or +3.0) stops, at best, before total loss of detail.

I have a nontrivial preference for Kodak's Gold 100 when I really want color.

[andym911]

dfbldwn (sorry don't see your name)

thanks for the info and experience....(sorry for letting the cat out of the bag )

Here for reference the straight scan from the neg..no correction whatsoever.I think it is quite good....any comments welcome of course.

regards

andy

[dfbldwn]

I like this'n much more. The dresses pop, yet there is more detail. The skin tones are outstanding. Your subjects are not smiling, but in this last one they're definitely not grim.

I'm very attracted how the plant & pot in lower right corner are out of focus, but still quite easy to see. The first two images made it too easy for me to perceive them as shapeless (oh, go ahead and say it) blobs.

Conclusion: Do you give scanning lessons? I've only been scanning since 1997 and, looking at this 3rd image, I think I could use your help.