Thank you very much.  I'm honored to have one of my photographs along side all these other beautiful pics.

Thank you for including one of mine but I cant really take credit for the shot. I merely re-photographed it.

Oh yeah, one more point. Keep your professional films in the refrigerator till about 1/2 hour before use. after you expose the film, put it back in the fridge till your ready to develope. that will minimize any colour shifts. professional films werent designed to keep long and do not react well with higher temps.

as for constraining shutter speed versus aperature, depends on what you want out of your picture. just remember the faster film will be more susesptible to bleeding from longer exposures. I'd treat each film separately and go for what would give you a proper exposure. then compare the negs and the prints afterwards. Regardless of keeping the dof fixed, you are going to see noticeable differences in the final results from the film speeds. Most film manufacturers will claim that the technology has advanced so that 400 speed is very sharp, and it has, but they continue to make the slower speeds for a reason. especially in the professional series. Most macro shots look best when the image is sharp, especially on enlargement. Having spent 22 years in the field and doing a lot of experiments, I'd always opt for the slowest film i can get my hands on.

Hmmm well, sounds like your getting all the advice you need. Reciprocity also occurs during extemely short exposures as well. Shooting outside for long exposures can create a colour shift regardless of the film your using. This can be corrected in the printing stage with filtration and a colour anyliser. i realize not everyone has access to one but if you have a custom lab nearby, you can let them know about the exposures and they will compensate. batch processing at most labs doesnt give proper results when deviating from the "norm". I'm a little luckier than most being able to access my lab at work and through the custom lab we use on other projects. the 160 film should be more then adaquate to do the job you want and i find its colour shift to be minimal. the more sensitive faster films tend to be more unstable in regards to colour shifts over long exposures and can cause bleeding. hope that helps.

I use mostly 160 nc at work in the 135 format. i am upset that they discontinued the vps series. excellent colour renditions, but the nc is very good. Fuji professional 160 is also very good. has great mid tones and i like the contrast in it. it has a deeper magenta tint to the film base. Konica has made some ground on their proffessional series but I still find the colours have a high separation. sometimes that can be good, but it makes for an image that can seem harsh at times. Give the NC and the Fuji a try. I prefer those two. shoot similar images with both films so you can see for yourself, which film suites the different subjects. I always prefer to do my own comparisons rather than rely on the companies PR. Kodak used to send a lot of their trial films to my lab for testing in the field so I'm used to dealing with their product more than others. Hope my ramblings helped

my best advice to you is if your going digital, make it a digital slr. the coolpix series are okay, but i use one (correct, used one) at work and its not the same. Your used to looking through the lens at your subject and composing your image that way. Dont get too hung up on pixels either. Its the lens that makes the image. packing more sensors onto the same size chip doesnt really do much. But if you have top notch lenses, then the image hitting the sensors is that much better. I'm a traditionalist photographer, and I now have a canon slr digital, and I'm a lot happier with it then the coolpix. The digital slr's are more expensive, but you can change lenses to suit what you want.

Hmmm, still not sure what secret to reveal here..... what to do,,, what to do,,,,,,. great shot cyn. great thumb Tedz.

Ah the scent of a woman. So where are all the photographs? I am having quite the time trying to figure out what to post for this challenge. I have so many secrets, so little time, so little film... I personally use Mennon which contrasts with the lingerie,,,, did I say that outloud??? D'oh... Dang, one less secret.... Cynlee, here I thought we'd see something a little more revealing, like you purchase your deoderant at a dollar store or something like that.

LMAO. Good one. had me going there. you're such a tease! Love it.

An after thougth Michelle. Have you ever tried colour IR film? You would be blown away by what you got in the mossy stair shot.

I agree. the first one is good either or, but some filtration would have enhanced the phosphorescence of the moss and giving the green a striking look. the dock scene was printed as it should have been. black and white. One thing to remember for those shooting only negative film. You can print colour negs to black and white print paper easy enough, however, the dyes involved usually tend to flatten the image requiring a higher contrast filter. Also, the image might not seem as "tight" in the final print. Best if you want B&W as the end result, then use B&W film. Great shots both Michelle. I am a big fan of Tri X in the 120 and 4x5 formats. It has excellent range and good grain. I have a tendancy to go to more "obtuse" B&W film when in the 35mm format.

So crisp and clean that you think you can touch them. Fantastic wildlife shots. Think I'll head up to my farm and drop some seeds around.

Which ever one you buy Michelle, make sure it has a boom. Makes life a lot easier. Manfrotto Benbo 1, with a pistol grip lock and bubble level. 36" Boom extension. Good luck in your search.

I once did that with a bat. Much easier to compose the bones. You'll have fun with this one. Now where is me scalpel?????? The stew sounds yummy.