Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Kodak Gold 200 Film Test

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
25 replies to this topic

#1 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:16 PM

Well, I have finally gotten around to test Kodak Gold 200 on some Summer targets. Please follow the links for a larger view with notes.

These images were taken in less than ideal skies. High clouds dogged me, but there have not been many good nights this Summer.

http://www.flickr.co...N08/4791915204/

Attached Thumbnails

  • 3919868-June-July2010006_500.jpg


#2 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:20 PM

Here is another frame taken the same night:

http://www.flickr.co...N08/4791297339/

Attached Thumbnails

  • 3919877-June-July2010003_500.jpg


#3 Nebhunter

Nebhunter

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,926
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2003

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:27 PM

Wow - all that detail in 20 minutes. I may have to go back to 35-mm, or at least give it another go.

igor

#4 Rick Thurmond

Rick Thurmond

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 30 Oct 2006

Posted 14 July 2010 - 10:59 AM

That gives me some hope. Kodak knows how to make a film that can see 656 nm red. These are the good old days of film astrophotography!
Rick

#5 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 14 July 2010 - 12:34 PM

Rick, Now that Kodak has a red sensitive film it will be time to change it quick!

#6 tommyhawk13

tommyhawk13

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 870
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2007

Posted 14 July 2010 - 06:17 PM

That's a lot of detail!

#7 d.sireci51

d.sireci51

    Arachnoid

  • *****
  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2009

Posted 14 July 2010 - 09:26 PM

Great shots Nightfly. Kodak gold 200 is great. But you do have superior skies in Maine. Clear skies

#8 FLNightSky

FLNightSky

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2006

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:32 PM

How do you get this film developed? What special instructions do you give the lab? Also, do you skip every other frame, or flash a light down the OTA so that the developer knows where to cut?

#9 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 20 July 2010 - 08:52 PM

Thanks guys. I'm thinking that longer exposures are in order for this film. If I get a window in August, I'll try some new targets.

@ FLNightSky. No special processing, standard Walgreens with a set of 4x6's for about $9.00. The film is developed in C-41 chemistry and scanned, then printed from the digital files which can be purchased on CD for another $3.00. No optical printing anymore. But that does not affect the frames I posted since I scanned the film myself on an Epson 4490.

The roll had regular daytime snapshots in between the night shots. Once the roll is started with a few daytime shots, the machine knows the spacing and cuts the negs in strips of five frames. So I would recommend having some daytime shots to reference the beginning of the roll.

I tell the lab nothing, just hand it over and get the film in my hands an hour later. The prints come out o.k, but not as good as what I can do with my scanner and experience.

That being said, when I send my work (mostly 120 format) to a pro lab, I have all fim returned to me sleeved and uncut. I take it from there. :grin:

#10 astrobeast

astrobeast

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2009

Posted 23 July 2010 - 10:02 AM

Nightfly,

Great shots, but now I'm totally confused :confused:. The collective wisdom on this site seems to be that transparency film (E200 and Fuji Provia) are the way to go, yet your Kodak Gold 200 gives, what is to my eye, the most pleasing - shall I say natural -look of any of the images I have seen. This is what the sky used to look like to me when I vacationed in Maine as a kid. Not exaggerated in either the blue or red, and very nice neutral gray to black bacground. I would be curious to hear any more comments comparing this with the slide films you have used, and whether you see yourself continuing to use this film?

Also, a number of weeks back, I posted on why so litle discusssion on film scanners. You mentioned that the negs were scanned by Wallgreens, but you did the final scanning yourself. I'm still wrestling over what scanner to get, but just out of curisoty, what was the quality of their scans? Are they decent enough that this could be a place to start while I "agonized" some more on which scanner to buy?

Again, really cool images. From what you have shown, this is the first film I would start with.

Rick

#11 Ian Robinson

Ian Robinson

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,698
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2009

Posted 23 July 2010 - 10:53 AM

Thanks guys. I'm thinking that longer exposures are in order for this film. If I get a window in August, I'll try some new targets.

@ FLNightSky. No special processing, standard Walgreens with a set of 4x6's for about $9.00. The film is developed in C-41 chemistry and scanned, then printed from the digital files which can be purchased on CD for another $3.00. No optical printing anymore. But that does not affect the frames I posted since I scanned the film myself on an Epson 4490.

The roll had regular daytime snapshots in between the night shots. Once the roll is started with a few daytime shots, the machine knows the spacing and cuts the negs in strips of five frames. So I would recommend having some daytime shots to reference the beginning of the roll.

I tell the lab nothing, just hand it over and get the film in my hands an hour later. The prints come out o.k, but not as good as what I can do with my scanner and experience.

That being said, when I send my work (mostly 120 format) to a pro lab, I have all fim returned to me sleeved and uncut. I take it from there. :grin:


I'll also ask what scanner you use , is it a multifunction unit like a Canon Pixma ?

#12 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 23 July 2010 - 11:58 AM


@ Ian Robinson I use an Epson 4490 flatbed scanner. They are pretty cheap these days. Less than 150 clams.

@Astrobeast I like Kodak gold and I will use it for dabbling in 35mm. My primary imaging tool is the Pentax 67 medium format 120 / 220 film format. It produces beautiful 6x7 transparencies / negatives. It is a professional outfit and I now have a full compliment of lenses from 45mm to 300mm.

The scans at Walgreens and the prints themselves were very good. You experience may vary. The prints and scans tend to be oversharpened, but they looked decent.

Grab a roll of Gold 200. Shoot some day and night photos, enjoy yourself and then drop off the roll. The waiting is part of the process, it gets you in the gut. I wouldn't want it any other way.

#13 astrobeast

astrobeast

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2009

Posted 23 July 2010 - 12:13 PM

Nightfly,

Any particular post processing in Photoshop (or the like)? Again, I am really taken by the very natural appearence of the images. And last question, what does the Wallgreen's image look like? Could you do a simple scan (post process only if necessary to make it look like the print) and post it for comparsion?

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Rick

Rick

#14 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 23 July 2010 - 08:09 PM

Rick,

I do a preview scan of the negative and adjust the histogram for the three primary colors, RGB. With Gold 200 this is pretty easy as the film has excellent color balance in long exposures. I then scan at the highest native resolution my scanner will do, 2400dpi. I turn off all the extra stuff like Digital ICE, grain reduction, and unsharp mask. Sharpening can be, and should be done in PS later.

In Photoshop, I again, set my levels using the "Levels" setting. I set the black points and then perform a noise reduction or Smart Blur to reduce the scanner noise and film grain. If the exposure was not ideal, I will stretch the image some, but not much. This can be done in levels or in Color Curves. If I am posting, I then resize to 1200dpi and save. I like to crop most of my work, especially my 67 stuff to a standard 1280x1024 to match my monitor. I highly recommend this as the image will look sharper and clearer when resized to your monitors native resolution. 6x7 (actually 55mmx70mm) is by nature a 4:5 ratio like 1280x1024, but 35mm will need to be cropped somewhat. I then sharpen at the end using PS.

I may tool around with the image using a multitude of features, but those are the highlights.

If I get a chance this weekend, I will scan the prints so you may see the outcome.

Jim

#15 astrobeast

astrobeast

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2009

Posted 24 July 2010 - 10:12 AM

Nightfly,

Thanks for the information. Would be interested in seeing a scan of the Wallgreen picture. But maybe more useful, what is the quality of their scans? Are they usable as a starting point while I sort out which scanner to buy, or can one do a better job even with an inexpensive scanner?

Rick

#16 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 24 July 2010 - 11:13 AM

Rick,

I would say the scans should be better than mine as they actually have a Noritsu film scanner, but I see a big discrepancy between the print they provide and the scanned image they provide on disk. I don't like the scanned image they provide. I prefer my scans on the el cheapo scanner.

The prints look pretty decent. Not sure why the scans look so different. My monitor can't be off that much.

According to this link, it will do 120 format!

I am not sure I want to experiment with that as my MF work can't be gambled with.

http://www.noritsu.c...ucts/qss32.html


Jim

#17 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 24 July 2010 - 07:20 PM

Here is a scan of the print Walgreens provided.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 3942190-Gold004.jpg


#18 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 24 July 2010 - 07:24 PM

Here is the other

Attached Thumbnails

  • 3942199-Gold005.jpg


#19 astrobeast

astrobeast

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 210
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2009

Posted 25 July 2010 - 03:40 PM

Nightfly,

Thanks for the efforts. I followed the link on the Noritsu film scanner and given its costs, as you say, one would expect it to do a much better job than your "el cheapo" unit. One can only suspect that they may have a number of settings turned on that are tuned to the characteristics of standard photos. But your results show me that I don't need to spend a fortune on a scanner to get great results.

Thanks again,

Rick

#20 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 30 July 2010 - 06:02 PM

There is a rumor at APUG that Kodak Gold 200 is either being replaced, or is being reformulated. It may be nothing, but just in case anyone was looking to try this film, now might be the time to pick up a 4-pack and stow it in the fridge.

Reformulated films usually lack the red response of the originals. That's just a historical perspective.

#21 highfnum

highfnum

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,902
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006

Posted 31 July 2010 - 08:49 AM

do u frig or put in freezer for long term storage

#22 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 01 August 2010 - 05:12 AM

For long term storage, I freeze my film. I put the original sealed container in zip lock bags, evacuate as much air as I can and put in the freezer. I try not to put the packaged film near the walls of the freezer as modern frost free freezers warm the walls to eliminate frost. It may or may not be a problem, but I take no chances.

For short term storage, a year or so, I just keep in the fridge.

I shot some E100S that expired in 2002 recently and it came out great, frozen since purchased. High speed film, 800 ISO or higher may fog over time even if frozen. I am hoping my stock of E200 preserves well.

#23 highfnum

highfnum

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,902
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2006

Posted 01 August 2010 - 05:18 AM

thx for reply- is fog from chemical or radiation change?

#24 Nightfly

Nightfly

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,307
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2007

Posted 01 August 2010 - 05:31 AM

Radiation. High speed films, especially 1600 and 3200 ISO films are susceptable to cosmic ray and low level background radiation.

A nice review of film artifacts due to various forms of radiation:

http://www.kodak.com...b/tib5201.shtml

#25 nwinston

nwinston

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2010

Posted 21 August 2010 - 01:39 PM

That's really cool, it's nice to see really good results with the film you can pick up and get developed at your local drugstore. I'm about to go and try some myself.


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics