CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Which is the best film for contax g

G

Guest

that you like film but for the objective g of contax? which use? and because.
greetings

pardon for my English is a translator

que pelicula os gusta mas para los objetivos g de contax?, cual utilizais? y porque
saludos

perdon por mi ingles es un traductor
 
G

Guest

David,
I have tried various film brands and speeds in my G2, and the Kodak Supra 400 seems to work the best w/the 35-70 zoom lens. I now have a 45mm lens and will try Kodak Supra 100.
Thank you,
Geo
 
G

Guest

I simply do not understand the point of such a question. Other than having an appropriate film speed for a given lens, why would you expect certain films to be more suitable for one camera system than another? The camera is merely a tool for getting images onto film (or a digital sensor.) The choice of film should be based on one's photographic objective, not the camera.
 
G

Guest

>The question about film choice may have come from one who's purchased a G camera without prior knowledge of photography, and thus it should be admissable in this forum by reason of the fact that these cameras function as high-quality point-and-shoots, and if one can afford a G as such, one's justified in posing the question to those who'd care to help him or her. Simple non-response would be sufficient to discourage questions of this nature if it turns out that folks don't want to be bothered with beginner questions. Moreover, there are possible helpful answers to the question: some may feel that a higher-speed film is better to compensate for possible G auto-focus error (high-speed film allowing smaller apertures), while others may feel that the premium CZ lens quality and low camera vibration indicates slow, fine grain film, to take advantage of the high image quality facilitated by these factors. Different lens coatings can affect color balance and some color emulsions may seem a better match for particular systems under given lighting conditions. Basically, all I'm proposing (admitting I'm not the moderator of this forum) is that rather than pooh-pooh the question, the participants (a) ignore questions they consider unworthy, (b) offer a helpful answer or (c) refer the questioner to a book or web page on beginning photography. Perhaps the creator of the forum could have a link list for sources of such basic information (There might be one already; I'm not always that observant.) No point in discouraging people who are trying to get started.
 
G

Guest

From where I come from, the only stupid question is the one that is not asked.

I was always under the impression that the glass played a part in the film selection. The CZ glass on the G lenses appears to have a warm coating. Therefore, I would be aware if I'm using warm films in order to achieve the look I want.
 
G

Guest

hello: I sit down that you have not understood each other, I referred to the following thing:

THE CONTRAST OF THE LENSES CARL ZEISS IS TOWERING, I REFERRED IF THERE IS A FILM THAT REDUCES THAT HIGH CONTRAST SMOOTHLY AND THAT HE/SHE GOES BETTER FOR THIS TYPE OF EYEGLASSES, SINGLE ERA THIS THE QUESTION.

it is not the same thing the contrast with a fuji 160 nps that with a fuji reala

pardon for my English but it is translating and thank you for the answers although they have not been worth me for anything.

greetings


hola: siento que no me hayais entendido ,yo me referia a lo siguiente:

EL CONTRASTE DE LAS LENTES CARL ZEISS ES ALTISIMO , YO ME REFERIA SI HAY UN FILM QUE REDUZCA SUAVEMENTE ESE ALTO CONTRASTE Y QUE VAYA MEJOR PARA ESTE TIPO DE LENTES, SOLO ERA ESTA LA PREGUNTA.

no es lo mismo el contraste con una fuji 160 nps que con una fuji reala

perdon por mi ingles pero es traductor y muchas gracias por las respuestas aunque no me hayan valido para nada.

saludos
 
G

Guest

Hola David,

Soy Ingl=E9s, viviendo en Espa=F1a. Disculpe me mi Castillano, pero=20= al=20 menos no es como su traductor, lo que es una estafa ! No es de extra=F1ar q= ue=20 no recibes respuestas l=F3gicales para ayudarte.

Para reducir contraste, no uses peliculas con mucho contraste, por=20 ejemplo Velvia. Las pel=EDculas mas rapido por ISO tienen menos contraste,=20 pues ser=EDa mejor a usar ISO 400 c=F3mo normal. Por otr=E1 parte, con luz=20 apagado, Velvia combinado con los objet=EDvos Carl Zeiss puede levantar los=20 niveles de la luz hasta parecen un poco mas que normal. =20

Al menos, este es un punto de partida.

Le saluda,

Robin
 
G

Guest

> In my experience, the combination of CZ lenses and Fuji film gives results which are perhaps "too" spectacular - certainly very sharp with jewel like colour and very high contrast but a little "larger than life". The use of AGFA film on the other hand offers results which on first > glance are less impressive but objectively are probably more natural. I sense that the Zeiss lenses are likely designed for use with European film rather than Japanese chemistry. I cannot comment on Kodak emulsions since I have yet to use them.
 
G

Guest

I will try sending this again without the accents, which the server does not seem to like !

Hola David,

Soy Ingles, viviendo en Espana. Disculpe me mi Castillano, pero al menos no es como su traductor, lo que es una estafa ! No es de extranar que no recibes respuestas logicales para ayudarte.

Para reducir contraste, no uses peliculas con mucho contraste, por ejemplo Velvia. Las películas mas rapido por ISO tienen menos contraste, pues sería mejor a usar ISO 400 como normal. Por otra parte, con luz apagado, Velvia combinado con los objetívos Carl Zeiss puede levantar los niveles de la luz hasta parecen un poco mas que normal.

Al menos, este es un punto de partida.

Le saluda,

Robin
 
G

Guest

I get the consistently best results with Kodachrome. It seems to render difficult colors more accurately, and resists the effects of high altitude photography better than E-6 films.

I mostly shoot chromes, and have never shot B&W with my G.

Regards,

--Rick
 
G

Guest

>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.
 
G

Guest

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
 
G

Guest

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
 
G

Guest

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.
 
G

Guest

> I second that opinion on the T400CN. Virtually no grain; awesome sharpness. But I print it on Polymax B&W paper.

Dave
 
G

Guest

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

Jim Slater
 
G

Guest

> 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?
 
G

Guest

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
 
G

Guest

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
 
G

Guest

> 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.
 
Top