Bought some more film today

[schrackman]

Turns out Fuji NPS 160 is now called Pro 160S. It was about $4 cheaper than what I previously paid in Redlands so I bought a roll to see if I get the same results as before when using NPS 160.

I also got a roll of Ektar 100. I guess it's a new Kodak film? Royal Gold worked over? At around $5 per roll. Anyhow, the guy at the camera shop said he hasn't tried it yet so I told him I would so he can see how well it performs.

They didn't have any PanF 50 so I'll have to try and find that online.

So, I've got 72 frames altogether that I need to shoot. Let's see how quick I can get through them.

Ray

[Xia_Ke]

Sounds good Ray. I've been seeing some great results from the the 160S an have been tempted to pick up a roll so I will be looking forward to your thoughts on it. I also be interested to hear your thoughts on the Ektar. Too bad they don't make it in 120, I just don't seem to ever have the drive to shoot 35mm anymore.

[schrackman]

Hi Aaron,

Well, I'll be shooting the Ektar 100 first. Figured I'd get that out of the way and then do some portraiture with the Pro 160S. I'll try to complete the first roll relatively quick, as I'm kinda curious about how that film turns out too.

Ray

[photophorous]

I've read a lot of good things about the new Ektar. There's a flickr group here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/885232@N23/ Looks like slide film to me, and supposedly it scans really well. I've read that the dynamic range is not as good as your average negative film, but still better than slides. I told myself I can't buy anymore film until I use up the stockpile I have so it may be a while before I try it. Until then, I will live vicariously through you, Ray. Don't let me down.

On the topic of shooting those 72 frames...isn't it strange how much harder it is to shoot 72 frames of film than 72 frames of digital?

Paul