A question for 35mm film users...

03/07/2004 04:37:57 PM · #1

I know I know this is a digital photography site but I know that many of you continue to use film cameras alongside your digital ones...

I'm about to order 35mm film to take with me to Africa (for a short trip to Kenya on 1 April and a long 2 month trip in May/June).

I know I want to take a mix of 200 and 400 ASA. Although I know that 100 ASA would give me higher quality results for high light situations I also recall that on my last trip, I didn't get through films quickly enough to be able to always put in a new film when the light changed. So I think 200 and 400 will work best for me.

I usually use Fuji Superia but have noticed that 7dayshop are also selling a film I haven't used before called Kodak Royal Supra and was curious as to what anyone's experience of this film has been?

Any input?

THANKS

03/07/2004 04:45:50 PM · #2

I'm a big kodak user!
I have done alot of lookin at alot of kodak film and my
favorite continues to be the porta 400 UC (has to be UC)
you can get the RMS grain value of the ISO 160 with this
400 speed film! this will give you the versitility that you
are looking for and the quality that you demand!
Kodak just changed the name from porta to pro ultra color film 400UC!
I highly recommend this film!

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/07/2004 04:48:14 PM · #3

I'll be taking mostly landscapes and wildlife photos with minimal people pics - it's my understanding that Portra is mainly for portraits - is that correct? Or am I just confusing it with another film because of it's name?

Count

Canon EOS-30D

03/07/2004 04:48:47 PM · #4

Hi Kavey

I used to use Kodak Supra 400 with my OM-1 and was always really happy with it. I think its disconued now though. I think the Supra lines were replaced with the Porta Line instead.

03/07/2004 04:54:04 PM · #5

NC = natural color ideal for portraiture
VC = Vivid color little more punch in the photo but still excellent skin tones
UC = Still gives good skin tones but gives the greatest color saturation! Ideal for many other applications.

Message edited by author 2004-03-07 16:54:18.

03/07/2004 04:57:07 PM · #6

hmmmm,..., I should be paid for pushing kodak like this!:D

03/07/2004 04:58:36 PM · #7

OK I'm thinking I'll take SOME portra, perhaps the VC, for the Masai village visit (part of the Kenya trip).

Still not sure for the main trip which includes a lot of scenery and safari.

Analysis Paralysis!!!

Thanks Dave!

03/07/2004 04:59:41 PM · #8

PS This is the Kenya trip:

//www.wildlifeworldwide.com/page?tag=festivalofwildlife

I'm down for classes with Mark Carwardine, Angela Scott, an additional lecturer called Nina Bailey (I think), and some other lectures by Jonathan and Angela Scott and others. I can't wait!

03/07/2004 05:12:33 PM · #9

That sounds like a ton of fun!
You must show some pics when you get back:D
one last thing! Becareful of the X-ray machines in airports they can cause fogging. I have traveled and have not had this problem but I know that some people have had problems with fogging in any kind of film!

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/07/2004 05:17:31 PM · #10

Will do thanks!

Flash

Nikon D700

03/07/2004 06:10:41 PM · #11

Kavey,

Have shot print film for well over 30 years (seriously the last 10). Personally I prefer Kodak. Was a die hard Royal Gold fan (not Gold, not Gold Max, but Royal Gold) until its discontinuance. Now I shoot HD (High Definition). Have tried Fuji several times and I know that the colors are quite good, but I like Kodak Royal Gold/High Definition. I also shoot primarily 400 as it gives me tremendous lattitude in f stop/shutter speed/and thusly dof (depth of field). Rarely do I enlarge past 8.5x11, so grain is not an issue.

For travel landscapes, animals, candids, etc. this film has served me well. It also appears to manage airport x-ray machines for carry on luggage. Have tried unsuccessfully several times to have film "hand checked" and ultimately somewhere it gets scanned. Heathrow was very unaccomodating.

Portra tends to be temperature sensitive (that is why it is kept refridgerated at pro labs, and most of the wedding fotogs I know, even keep it in coolers during shoots). This is too much care for my style of shooting. Effective in preserving the highest quality, but not within my wanted range of controllables.

If I come accross a good example of a RG/HD 400 shot that I think replicates what you may see in Africa, I'll post for your review.

Flash

Choosen specifically for the browns in this photo
Giant's Causeway, Northern Ireland

Message edited by author 2004-03-07 18:23:08.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/07/2004 06:15:20 PM · #12

Thank you so much - very very useful.

Niten

Canon EOS-20D

03/07/2004 07:19:07 PM · #13

I wouldn't go faster than 100 provia. Maybe push it to 200 if I had to.

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/07/2004 08:24:45 PM · #14

You already have the digital, why take film? Check out this site photo.net/learn/wilderness/ for a good discussion on this.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/07/2004 08:35:01 PM · #15

I agree with flash. The Kodak HD 400 speed would be my choice for the entire trip probably. Film grain doesn't correlate to ISO grain on digital cameras. The average iso 400 grain that I see from digital cameras is far far far worse than any film equivalent. I would guess that today's ISO 400 film would have to be blown up to 12x18 or larger to replicate the average grain you would see from iso 400 on a digital camera. What we see on digital cameras is not really 'grain' like film produces. Fast films have come a LONG way in the last 15 or 20 years.

sfalice

Canon PowerShot SX60 HS

03/07/2004 08:46:25 PM · #16

I've done a fair amount of traveling and rarely go above 200ISO with my usual preference Fuji 100 provia. But you seem to be happy with 200 - 400 and unless you are going to do really big blowups, you'll probably be happy with that choice. BUT, be sure to carry all your film with you. The carryon scan (except for Russia) has been "no problem." I have heard horror stories of folks who packed film in luggage (and sometimes in leadlined bags!). That film is quite likely to be fogged by the time xray personnel identify it and decide the contents are harmless to national security.

Colorado_Jim

Canon EOS-10D

03/07/2004 10:40:34 PM · #17

test:sorry, been having problems posting

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/07/2004 10:51:35 PM · #18

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

...What we see on digital cameras is not really 'grain' like film produces. Fast films have come a LONG way in the last 15 or 20 years.

Going back to this guy again, but...Russel Brown Film Grain Movie
shows how to use film grain (scanning a real piece of film to achieve it).

03/08/2004 04:53:23 AM · #19

I'll need to go above 100 ISO because I don't get through enough film to change the roll when light conditions change and I'll be taking photos from sunrise through to sunset.

I'm taking film camera because our digital is not as high a resolution as I'd be happy using for this trip, nor is it an SLR. I'm not prepared to invest in a digital SLR at this time. I am comfortable with film and know my film camera well.

I have found both 200-400 film absolutely fine for large blowups - I have one enlargement of an African Bee-eater framed in my living room - no grain or loss of detail and it's not even a full frame enlargement.

And these days, with more and more advances in film technology, a 400 ISO film doesn't have as much grain as a 400 ISO of days gone by used to have.

So I'm happy taking my film camera and I'm happy with taking 200 and 400 speed films.

My difficulty is which film type to take - Fuji, Kodak etc.

:o)

THANKS FOR THE ADVICE...

03/08/2004 08:50:51 AM · #20

PS Flash thanks for posting that sample photo for me. The trouble is it's so hard to really tell from a digital representation which owes so much to the scanner and scanner software, any post-processing and even the monitor calibration.

Given that the films I am considering are both likely to be good I guess the only way to really tell would be to buy one of each and test them with two identical cameras taking the same photos - and I haven't time for that!

That said, the comments in this thread have helped me greatly. THANKS AGAIN.