Best film for wild flowers

Ita been a very rainy winter here in Arizona, USA and I'm told we can

expect a spectacular crop of wildflowers this Spring. Since I want to

be ready, what is a good film (anything but Kodak) to use for this?

Fuji Reala is my normal colour print film but I'm willing to change.

David,

 

Kodachrome 64 (at E.I. 80) and Fuji Astia is what I use at the Philadelphia Flower Show. You may see some people recommend Velvia; but Astia can hold the details in highly saturated colors, i.e. it holds highlight detail in the reds, greens and blues without saturating (blowing out)... Remember, when a given color (color "channel") is saturated in a chrome film, it's the same as a B&W film blowing out...

 

In my 4x5 Speed Graphic at the Flower Show, I shoot Kodak EPP, which I will replace with E-100G.

Well as far as print films goyou might try Ultra 100 by Agfa if you are after hyper saturated colors, just be careful as it is VERY High contrast. In Slide films I have taken some wildflower pictures I like very much on RSXII50. If you are looking for photos of people in Wildflowers I'd try Optima II 100 (you may have noticed I liek the look of Agfa films). Frankly though if you ar used to Reala I'd use it. Sounds like you have a film with a pallette you like already.

Agfa ultra renders strong wildflowers as nothing but gobs of sludge with no detail. Saturation isn't that strong either. You people just think it is because the contrast is so high.

 

Reala is superb for macro/wildflow work because of it's wide color palette and resistence to color blocking. NPS is also a strong choice.

 

Fuji Astia and Provia are outstanding for wildflower studies because just like their Fuji print film cousins, they can deliver very high levels of color saturation without blocking up. The problem with shooting slides then becomes scanning them since print film is still more practical when it comes to getting, well, prints made.

" You people just think it is because the contrast is so high."

Scott if you worked at it could you be slightly more condescending?

First of all I mentioned the high contrast. Second of all you are in a minority in thinking it isn't a high saturation film. third of all who cares why it looks more saturated since the final look is all that matters?

 

Oh and fourth I agree completely about Astia which is one of the only Color Fuji Producs (along wih Reala) that I like

 

David: The bottom line is it is personal taste. What do you want from your pictures? Super intense colour, Acurate colour fidelity, low contrast high contrast, etc..? Thankfully we live in a time where there is an option ofr every taste.

David, I vote for Astia and Reala. together with Agfa RSX-II 50 & Portrait 160. Agfa render the cleanest white. But since you've already familier with the Reala, there's do not seem any reason not to use it. Its a very good film for Flora

You said not Kodak and still someone recommended Kodachrome. I don't think it's a good choice.

 

Some years ago I used to use Kodachrome 64 for this kind of thing - for example, wildflowers in the semi-arid Mallee area of SE Australia - and I had a lot of trouble with colour anomalies in both the petals and foliage. It didn't always happen, and it wasn't clear whether it was the processing or particular subjects. These days, my choice in slide for this, if EPN is ruled out, would be Astia, and I've had very good results with it on flowers.

 

Astia does pump up the blue in shadows, so take an 81B or a flash.

 

Not getting into the slide/neg argument here. I have got good results with negs but too long ago to be useful to you.

<I>Second of all you are in a minority in thinking it isn't a high saturation film</i><P>...And fifth, if you know so much more about film and wildflower work than I do, where are your examples? <P> Beg to differ, but of the people here that actually know how to shoot color film, you are in the minority in defending Ultra 100 while being a member of the elite group that tends to not find anything wrong with Max 400 either. Ultra 100 can't even deliver strong primaries without shifting (show me a deep/vivid red taken with Agfa Ultra that's not orange or pink). <P> The only thing Ultra does is jerk up the contrast in middle tones, so you think it's a high saturation film, while delivering terrible prints. It's a slick marketing trick as Agfa pawns off their film division and makes some quick cash on <b>amatuers</b> that are willing to take advertising at 100% face value even while their pictures get wreaked. I mean, Ultra 50 at least had some pictorial value to it in an extreme way, but Ultra 100 is like a bad tasting Diet version. You say it's a strong saturated film, and I'm asking for you to point me to examples of this 'strong saturation'.<P> Next, if you want me to be condescending

I'll be happy to point out again you don't have any examples of the subject at hand, but seem willing to defend this junk film.

As someone kindly put it in a recent post:

 

"I would bet Scott gets most of his information from reading reviews out of magazines rather than practical experience. Scott is like a grade school teacher. Young, inexperienced photographers look up to him because they don't know any better. But its unhealthy for these young photographers to take in "I know everything and it's my way or it's the highway" attitude that is stated from Scott everyday. I had a room-mate which was in his early twenties that always thought he knew everything because of his experiences and hardships, he would tell people that he has lived a life of a 50 year old. I would tell him to tell that to a 50 year old person, and they would laugh at him. Well, Scott....I am laughing at you".

 

That particular thread was closed off with this remark: "Scott seems to be in bed with the powers that be, so this thread will probably be deleted after he reads Shane's post."

 

And ... it was and was posted back to me. Sorry David M.

Ouchhhh-- so much infighting!

 

IMHO-- the Astia is a good and perhaps the best color transparency choice for most situations so long as you are looking for natural contrast and color under a variety of conditions. However, remember that color film is very dependent on light qualitiy-- that's QUALITY, not quantity, and is much more so than B&W.

 

Lighting in the spring will be mixed as storms roll through, with some days overcast or deeply cloudy, while others will be pure sunshine and thus very contrasty. I suggest picking a few different films for different effects, and include Velvia as well as a good CN film for really contrasty situations. Also be careful to pick the time of day you shoot, and filter the lens when the light is cool or a polarizer is needed to saturate the colors.

 

Since you didn't include the actual format being used, I'm not sure if any of the films already mentioned would be not be appropriate (many are not available in my favorite sheet film formats, especially 5x7).

 

By the way, I've not "heard" many good things about NPS but have "heard" that the Vericolor 160 series is a good CN option. I was happy with the 35mm Fuji films when last used (not NPS), but generally have used chrome films for most of my small format color work, including the KR64 that I loved for two decades until the E-6 films got better and also much easier to get processed. I'm sure the limited Agfa options would be fine as well. I also "hear" a new Fuji CN is about to be released, but have seen no evidence to confirm that.

 

I haven't shot much of the CN in recent years, and never used NPS, but given the loss of most chrome films in 5x7 and the expected loss of others in all sheet film formats plus the use of digital scanning for printing, CN is looking better and better. I suspect it is the best choice for contrasty lighting if you carefully expose for the most essential shadows and can safely suffer any resulting highlight compression.

<H2>Ultra 100 can produce red</H2>

This sample shows one point where I agree with Scott, and one point

where I don't. Ultra 100 reds block up. But I get good reds from

scans or on Agfa paper. Maybe Frontier prints are orange, I dunno.

Reala is a finer-grained film with far better skin tones, but Ultra

produces better blues and purples than Reala.<div></div>

Scott.

First of all of you look at my posts you will find I have never defended max 400, so lt us at least strive for acuracy. My main point was that you present your opinions as fact. You don't say "I don't find the colours of film type X to be pleasing" or even "it's not a film I like" You say it is a bad film. Youimply anyone who chooses films you don't like is wrong. Not that they have different tastes, but that they are wrong. Also I notice you had to add a point rather than actually respond to any of the points I made. And believe me Scot you don't have to try to be condescending you seem to do it by nature.

You wil even note I specified that Ultra was VERY high contrast.

You seem to have much of the approach of the late unlamented Mike/Hans. "The films I like are the right films, all other films are wrong, and if you prefer a different look than I do you are an idiot."

 

And I havent taken a lot of pictures of wildflowers with Ultra. I have seen many excellent ones taken by friends, I do have a few I've taken, but you will forgive me if my highest priority isn't going through files scanning negatives, and posting examples of wildflower pictures so that Scott won't be upset I recomended a film he doesn't like.

 

Not that I think it would make the slightest difference.

 

Again The prolem isn't your views, it is the condeescending manner of your statements as in "you people just think" as if you are somhow above the rest of us. Well this person will admit that Agfa Ultra is high contrast. I also find the saturation quite high. I think it as interesting looking film worth trying for certain situations. It was one of several films I suggested he MIGHT want to try. I suggested it as part of a list of possible films. Just because you don't like a film doesn't mean anyone who does is an idiot.

Thanks for all the great input! The last time I did any amount of wildflower photography was years ago when there was no film available that could photograph blue flowers without them turning purple. Hopefully, that problem has been solved by now. I'll be using 35mm for close-ups and MF for landscape type views of carpets of flowers.

If the ageratum effect is your principal concern, stick to Reala.

Quote: "The last time I did any amount of wildflower photography was years ago when there was no film available that could photograph blue flowers without them turning purple"

 

 

That sounds suspiciously like Kodachrome II, which makes you part of the same geriatric community as me! I loved Kodachrome 25 and 64 because they both fixed the substantial flaws of their immediate predecessors (K-X was horrible), and for nearly two decades they were unrivaled in 35mm. IF you want truely honest color, they still remain worthy contenders but I am uncertain about their current much less their long-term availability and know that processing options are fading fast. Color negative film will always be more forgiving but still lack the overall quality of the chromes. Of course, most modern films tend towards full if not over-saturation, and contrast range issues are addressed below

 

My most important advice is to understand the quality of lighting on your scene as that is the single most important determinate of your exposure AND composition choices (most everything else can be corrected in exposure or later during processing and printing). I believe it was Norman Kerr that wrote the definative book on photographic lighting that all photographers should read. Light quality in the scene will be exceptionally important to the contrast range of the film used, and vice-versa.

 

Good luck-- wish I could be in the SW this year for the awesome flower show!

Kodachrome was/is a great film. I have slides from the 1960s that are still perfect or nerly so. All of my other slides Agfa, Perutz, GAF have turned purple or orange. However, I have been boycotting Kodak products for the past 20 years because of a past experience I had with Kodak customer service.

Okay,

I have to ask, what was the experience? Any experience that can cause a 20 year boycott must be a pretty good story.

I don't like to generalize about films... especially for photographing flowers. Film should be chosen according to the light (full sunlight, overcast, shade) but I've found with flowers that it also depends on the color of the flower... some films working well for one color but not for others. Personally, I have decided the best approach is to use two camera bodies, each with a different film, or even go to the extreme of changing film when conditions change (or for different colors of flowers.) I've been working on this idea recently, but waiting for spring to do some "real world" tests. I was pleasently suprised (last spring)with using Fuji NPH in full sunlight. Printed on Fuji paper it gave very accurate colors... not real strong, but very true to life, and also helped with the harsh light and shadows. Of course, not everyone neccessarily wants (or needs) accurate colors, so higher saturation films are often preferred anyway. Most photographers avoid full sunlight for flower pics, prefering softer diffuse light of overcast or shadow, but then the light has much blue so a "warming" filter helps (and high contrast film) Backlit is also very nice (sun shining through the flower instead of reflecting off the surface) Early morning/late evening light is nice for "warmth" and might make a certain flower appear different than mid-day sunlight... certainly different than "cool" overcast or shade. There is also the issue of how the film will be used. Some films scan better than others, and print films can look different depending on the paper used. I am no authority on all of this, but I wanted to remind people that you can't just make generalizations about which film is best.

I would highly recommend FUJI Superia Reala 100 E.I.@80 ISO.