From: bjs@uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Large format color negative questions
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:16:50 GMT
Reply-To: bjs@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Barry Sherman)
Followup-To: rec.p[hoto
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

I've been printing Cibachrome off and on for a couple of years total and have
been doing so at home for a few months now.  While I really like the color
saturation possible (even using the pearl finish which I prefer) I am starting
to get tired of the expense of the materials and the long processing time.
(And of being embarrassed by the number of incorrectly exposed original
transparancies I'm getting now that I'm doing large format and can't afford
to bracket my exposures regularly.  Although I *am* getting better and
better quite quickly. ;-)

So I'm thinking of giving color negs and RA4 a try.  (Now, donl, kindly
stop applauding.  This disruption is unseemly.  :-)  Questions:

* I'm soon leaving for a vacation on the Olympic Peninsula and, while I'm 
  taking primarily b/w and color transparency material, I thought I'd take
  a little color negative material as well.  Now I'm dealing with 4x5
  format here so choices are somewhat limited.  I went to a local store and 
  talked with the sales person a little.  He recommended that I take Vericolor 
  HC (VHC) rather than Vericolor S (VHS).  He thought that for landscapes I'd 
  find the higher contrast of the VHC more to my liking.  Being the reasonable 
  person that I am I bought one 10-sheet box of each.  But I'm curious as to 
  what other large format landscape photographers who use color negatives 
  think.  
  
  Do *you* use VHS?  VHC?  Something else?  Because of my background
  doing Cibachromes I'm more than a little leary of any color film that 
  promises *more* contrast.  I really hate it when the shadows drop off the
  scale and turn into black holes.

* I notice that what little literature I can find recommends what I 
  consider to be rather abbreviated exposures as the longest that are 
  recommended for use with these films.  Somewhere in the 1/10 second range or 
  so, if my memory is functioning reasonably well.  This worries me since I 
  rarely get to use an exposure that short with my view camera.  Times of 1/4" 
  or longer seem to be more the norm. Has anyone had any experience with the 
  reciprocity characteristics of these materials?  Color shifts as well as 
  exposure non-linearity?

  Naturally I put this off until the last minute and it's too late to have
  Kodak send me data sheets on these films.  I was surprised that there were
  no data sheets in the boxes.

* I notice that the film VPL is designed for long exposures under tungsten
  light.  Naturally, that makes me wonder about avoiding reciprocity problems
  by using this film along with the appropriate filtration.  But I have 
  this hunch that its speed might be prohibitively slow or that there
  might be some other problem.  Any thoughts?

* I often hear it recommended that VHS be exposed at 120 or so rather than
  160.  Opinions?  Also, I believe that VHC is rated by Kodak at 100.  (I
  can't believe that they don't print the speed on the boxes of this 
  stuff.)  Any suggestions on an EI to use for VHC?  Once again, I don't think 
  that I have time to test for my own EIs before leaving.  My natural
  inclination would be to use an EI of 64 or 80 for the VHC, based on Kodak's
  rating it at 100.
  
  However, in case I do, does anyone have a recommendation on technique?  In
  doing b/w tests I usually just do a bunch of gray card exposures from -5 
  stops to +5 stops in 1/2 stop increments, find that which produced a 
  density of .1 over b+f and calculate the EI based on that being a Zone I 
  exposure.  But with color negatives I have no idea of what density 
  to look for or how many stops below meter reading should produce
  that density.  I guess that what I'm really asking for is a rough 
  correlation between f-stops and Zones for color negative materials.  
  It should be easy enough to work out on my own with a little experimentation
  but, as I said, time is limited.

* So when are they going to make 4x5 Ektar 100? (Not to echo donl. :-)  Based 
  on my 35mm experiences, I think that Ektar 25 is a little short on exposure 
  scale for my tastes for general use and the speed seems a little low for 
  general view camera use.  But the 100 seems like it would be a real winner.

Thanks for any advice,

Barry




-- 


|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Barry Sherman, Amdahl Corp.       | "Any fool can face a crisis - it's     | 
| bjs@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com           |  this day-to-day living that wears you |
|                                   |  out." - Anton Chekhov                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Amdahl, being a corporation, is a legal fiction.  Therefore it is incapable|
| of holding, let alone expressing, opinions.  Unfortunately, this has been  |
| said of me as well.                                                        |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|