Good negative film for Mount Rainier Wildflowers

<p>Any suggestions?</p>

<p>Too many variables — mostly depends on weather and how you're going to shoot (the more magnification, the more light you'll need to avoid motion blur etc).</p>

<p>I like Ektar for its colours, but many people find it too saturated. It might also be a bit slow, depending on how you shoot.</p>

<p>I like FujiFilm Superia ISO 400. Will you be scanning the negatives? What part of Mt. Rainier Park will one find the best wild flower scenes? And what time of the year is the best?</p>

<p>Do you have a tripod? If you don't have to worry about shutter speeds try Ektar or Reala (if you can still get Reala...) or Fuji Superia 200 if you want to save a couple bucks - it's not Reala but it's close. Any of those films are good for really colorful subjects.</p>

<p>Ektar 100 with a close-up lens and a tripod would be my choice.</p><div></div>

<p>I've gotten good colors in 4x6 prints using the regular Fuji Color film you can get at any Walmart, Rite Aid, or other popular retail outlets. Just check the pkg and make sure the film is well within the stamped expiration date. Then keep the film cold and dry till you can get it processed. You might want to try a roll or two of this more common film alongside the more premium Superia, and compare the results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've gotten good colors in 4x6 prints using the regular Fuji Color film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not doubting your judgement, but wouldn't 4x6 prints be slightly small for judging a film? I'm thinking I'd print at least to 8x10, but that's really just personal preference.<br>

Got a roll of Reala back yesterday that I'd shot at ~EI 25 (apparently I'd heavily overexposed) and I was shocked at the lack of saturation compared to Ektar (also overexposed). Might just be that Reala doesn't like overexposure. FWIW, the negatives were almost black (as most of my negatives are…)</p>

<p>Hugo, what you're seeing is normal. Almost black means overexposed. Decreased saturation is the expected result from overexposing Fuji print film. I do this on purpose sometimes - e.g., 800 film shot at 400 or 200 yields a nice effect. You can almost use the ASA dial as a saturation dial.</p>

<p>Expose the stuff as intended and it's a pretty colorful film, though not unrealistically so. Here's a set I shot recently: <a href="http://www.fluidr.com/photos/21616771@N04/sets/72157624005826798"><click></a> - all the color shots numbered 0031 and higher are Reala. (The first few are Superia 200.) The Reala, viewed blown up, is a bit better than the 200, but the 200 can certainly be used for 8x10's. So can the 400. I've got a lovely recent family shot here that's an 8x10 from the Superia 400 with a bit of cropping. The 800 shows grain at that size, but is that really so bad?</p>

<p>Andrew — Nice set, if a bit much to look at.<br>

I suppose I'll stick to Kodak films then…</p>

<p>I'm sure Superia 200 can enlarge beyond 8x10, can't it? I'm hoping 400 can…I might not bring digital this summer to Europe and Superia (or Gold) will be my backup films (in the case that I run out of Ektar and/or Tri-X (heaven forbid…)).</p>

<p>Superia is very grainy compared to the pro line of films IMO. Superia 400 (shot a few rolls last year) was much grainier than 400H.</p>

<p>Grain isn't something to worry about, really, but I find the texture of traditional B&W grain much more pleasing than C41/T-grain (Kodak)/Delta grain (Ilford)</p>

<p>Randall, are you planning on only taking colour?</p>