Slide film choice for Kilimanjaro and safari

Hi, I'm off to Tanzania at the beginning of Oct to climb Kilimanjaro

and then a short safari afterwards. I am not sure what film would be

best to use on the trip and would apprciate any thoughts and comments.

I'll be shooting 35mm with a canon eos500N and their 28-80 and 75-300

lenses.

 

I normally shoot Kodachrome 200 and have always been happy with the

results. I have recently tried both Velvia 100 and 100F in medium

format, but only 1 roll of each and they are my first medium format

rolls so haven't really got the feel of them yet.

 

I can get hold of the following films

Astia 100F, Provia 100F, Sensia II (100 and 200), Velvia 100, Velvia

100F, Velva, E100G, E100GX, E200, Ektachrome Elite Chrome (100 and

200), Ektachrome Elite Chrome EBX100, Kodachrome (200 and 64)

 

a long list I know, but it is all rather confusing. I have no

oportunity to shoot to test any more film so unless I only take the

Kodachrome I will effectivly have to shoot blind as regards 35mm.

 

my main interests will be landscape and the wildlife, but as part of a

group will be taking people shots as well. I really would appreciate

some suggestions as to what films to take.

 

Thanks, Jon

 

Apologies if this would be better elsewhere, first post after sometime

watching.

I recommend you to take a look at the BBC Wildlife photographer of the year books. They should be available for order from bookstores. The books have extensive collections of wildlife photos from Africa and mostly people have been using Provia 100F and Velvia (all sorts). I think they would be good choices for Africa.

I'm going to give you an off-the-wall suggestion. Use Kodak 400UC (negative film) and send it to <a href="http://www.dalelabs.com">Dale Labs</a> to print as slides. You'll get back mounted slides as well as the original negatives.

 

<p>The main advantage is that you can use one film for everything. 400UC has to be the best and most versatile color negative film on the market. It has very fine grain, saturated but not excessive color (good for both landscapes and people shots), convenient speed for any light you're likely to encounter while traveling, and far greater exposure latitude than any slide film. That's what I used for years (with various ISO 400 color negative films before 400UC came out) before I switched to digital this year.

If you like Kodachrome 200, why not stick with it? It's certainly a unique film, that's for sure.

I have had very good results with sensia, which is supposed to be essentially the same film as provia. I would recommend one of those (sensia is cheaper, if that is of significance, it is to me). elite chrome isn't bad, but it's more grainy and the colors aren't as good as sensia. People look great on sensia, and i have found only velvia superior for landscapes.

It's been about 15 years since I climbed Kilimanjaro, but I remember that I worried about choosing either a film or filter that could handle the amount of UV at very high altitude. I learned that Agfa 200 RS had a special coating that filtered the UV, and indeed it worked well at the summit. Of course that's not on your list, but you should be aware of the problem. Maybe others in this group could comment on that issue.

Use what you know (Kodachrome 200). You would need to be sure that your system is calibrated to any other slide film, and you don't have the time for that. Nothing else will look like it, that's for sure.

 

Just be sure you buy it someplace that takes good care of it. It's not selling at all well anymore, so it's easy to get it color-shifted to magenta.

I thought the "identity" was between Sensia and Astia. Am I wrong?

The original Sensia 100 was the amateur version of Provia 100. The next version of Sensia 100 was similar to the original Astia 100. Apparently the current Sensia 100 is similar to neither Astia 100F, Provia 100F nor Velvia 100F ...

Thanks for all your responses.

 

I think I am leaning towards taking a mixture of Kodachrome 200, Velvia 100 or 100F and Provia 100F at the moment. I think using Velvia 50 would be too much of a speed shift for me to be comfortable with, despite having it easily available.

 

I'm planning to order the film over the weekend as I get my film online here in the UK. So any more suggestions welcome in the next few days.

 

Ilkka, many thanks for the suggestion of the BBC books. My local library has a copy of the '96 one and I have just got that out.

 

Ted, that is certainly an off the wall suggestion. 2 reasons why not for me. 1, its a film and process I've never used (or was aware of) before, and 2, I'm in the UK so sending film to dale is not a viable option for me (not that I'd mentioned that so you couldn't know)

 

Joe, an interesting comment. I can't see that film at my supplier, or readily identify a possible sucessor. Also I've not used Agfa before and am not prepared to take a risk on it now.

 

John, I'm fairly happy that I (hopefully) won't get any problems with Magenta shift as long as I get fresh stock rather than use what I already have. Given film pricing here in the UK I get my film online and have always had film with a good time remaining.

 

Thanks, Jon

What about Agfa Scala? I tried it 2 weeks ago and love the results. If I would have known it earlier I wouldn't have shot any 100G this summer... Forget E6!

"I think I am leaning towards taking a mixture of Kodachrome 200, Velvia 100 or 100F and Provia 100F at the moment."

 

I wouldn't do that. You know how K200 works. On the other hand, you don't know when Provia 100F turns blue and you don't know how easily Velvia 100F blows the highlights and you don't know what kind of super colours you will get with Velvia 100. And all these films are very different to Kodachrome 200. The chance of ruining lots of photos is rather high.

"What about Agfa Scala? I tried it 2 weeks ago and love the results. If I would have known it earlier I wouldn't have shot any 100G this summer..."

 

There is always the small detail of one being a black & white film and the other a colour film...

Jon - Often best to stick with what you know but I have had some good results with Sensia 200.

 

A couple of sideways thoughts ;-

 

1.Why stick with slides only - there will be times when you will get some great shots late in the day ( or even very early in the morning ) when a bit more speed would be beneficial e.g. a good 400 print film.

 

2. You may find a lens with a maximum of 300mm a bit limiting at times especially with the smaller species and birds. May I suggest that you think about a longer lens ( hire if you have to ) or at least a 1.4 TC. This could be a once in a lifetime opportunity and you could regret the lack of scope.

 

Enjoy your trip.

You might find Provia 400F particularly useful when shooting at the long end of your 75-300, especially since you may not want to bring a tripod with you. It's a very good film, and has about the same grain as Kodachrome 64.

If you like Kodachrome 200, you'll love E100GX. It has the same warm look. I'm afraid Provia 100F would be way too blue at that elevation. I used to shoot a lot of K200, and now wish I hadn't. It's hard to scan and about the grainiest slide film out there.

Thanks for the futher inputs.

 

It sounds as though using the Fuji films I'm thinking about for the kili part of the trip is out. Velvia due to the fact that this will have most of any people shots, and Provia due to it going blue at altitude.

Surely these would both be ok for safari however? From what I can find, most safari shots in print are from Velvia or Provia (even if not the latest emulsions)

 

So how does this sound? K200 and perhaps some E100GX and some Velvia 100(F?) and Provia 100F and use the Fuji only on safari? and perhaps a couple of faster films for low(er) light conditions.

 

As far as 'knowing' k200, I only know it in the conditions that I normal shoot in here in the UK. Shooting in Africa will be new territory regardless of what film I take.

 

I'd love to take more/longer lenses. It is really not an option however. Whilst it is true that it may be a once in a lifetime oportunity to go on safari, climbing kili with the people I'm going with really is so that is where all the spending has gone.

 

Jon

<i>

Use Kodak 400UC (negative film) and send it to Dale Labs

</i>

<p>

I would avoid this option unless what you want are wall prints and slides used for proofing the negatives. If you want a slide as the highest quality, archival form of the image in your workflow, you need to expose E-6 film in the camera. What Dale Labs does is produce a contact print of the negatives on a large format (presumably 8x10) piece of reversal film that lacks the orangish mask of conventional negatives, rather than on conventional paper. This limits them to a single color balance correction for the entire sheet, and a single exposure for the entire sheet. This is fine if you want the slides as proofs of the negatives instead of contact sheets or small prints, but that's about all the slides will be good for.

<p>

If you have images with different lighting and requiring different color balance correction, some of all of them will not be color balanced correctly and if you have an image of a contrasty scene that utilizes the long tonal scale of the negative, the slide contact exposure will be like printing on a high contrast grade of paper and you will lose detail. Of course had you exposed the original scene on a slide in the camera you would lose detail, but you would be able to pick the exposure that retained detail in a 5-stop range of your choosing, instead of dictated by the single contact sheet exposure of all the slides.

<p>

It is possible to use the clear base reversal film to produce a good image of a slide from a negative, but you would have to do each image as a separate exposure, with its own custom color balance and exposure level, and this could not be offered by dale labs or anyone else at a price comparable to Dale Labs's pricing.

In defense of Ted, most people who want slides for projection

leave them in a carousel, where they get covered with dust during

storage. Better to have sleeve-archived negatives protected from

dust. Kodak 400UC is two stops faster than good slide film and

has better skin tones. Dark storage is probably about 80-100 years.

Kodachrome 200 is excessively grainy for its speed, and too red for me.

Carousels are very rare in Europe, where people generally use projectors with straight trays (e.g. Leica). Slides collect dust in the projector but not in storage, as you cover the trays with a plastic protective cover.

 

Slide film is much more suited to the application here, at least the nature part. Negative film is extremely rare in nature photography. Just take a look at any published nature photographs - they are 99% slide or digital.

I'd consider Kodak 400UC to be a stop to stop and a half faster than good slide film since I'd never expose an ISO 400 color negative film at ISO 400, but would rate it at 280 or even 200 for improved shadow detail, especially a contrasty one like kodak 400UC that probably has a short toe.