What ISO mix for vacation?

I'm going to Russia at the end of the month (about 16 days in

country) and I'm about to order some film but right now I'm sorta

perplexed as to what ISO mix I should take. Since I like my fotos to

have good contrast I'm thinking 20 rolls of 100 and then maybe 10

rolls of 400 and 5 rolls of 800. I realize this kind of decision is

going to come down to a very subjective decision but I'd like some

input from other travelers. If all are 36 exposure rolls that'd give

me over 1200 photos, that ought to satisfy even a trigger happy

camera jockey such as myself. But that's really beside the point,

I'm curious about what mix some of you would prefer and why.

It really depends on what kind of lens, or lenses, you'll be bringing with you. If you

have fast lenses (1:2.8 or faster), you can get away with mostly 100 and 400 film. If

your lens are slower than that, I'd go with mostly 400 and 800 film, and maybe a few

rolls of 100 for the really sunny days.

You don't say what kind of camera(s) or lenses you use.

With my SLRs, during daylight, I'll shoot 100 (lately,

I'm favoring Portra, which is 160). I'll use 400

for interior work or flash. I've always got fast

lenses available. In my P&S Olympus Stylus

Epic, I always use 400, because it can use the DoF

cushion provided by the smaller aperture.

<p>

Are you bringing three bodies for each of the three speeds?

If not, 36 exposures may be a lot to go through if you

happen to have the wrong film loaded. With one body,

I'd be much more inclined to settle on a single film

speed, probably 100. Maybe a couple of rolls of fast film

to be loaded before museum visits or other interior

photo ops.

<p>

But the general suggestion for things like this is to

use pretty much what you use at home.

I always run out of money before I go on holiday, so I just grab what I can from the fridge. Then on my last day I realise I'm never going to shoot that Tech Pan, so it goes back in the fridge when I get home. Probably doesn't need to go in the fridge, but otherwise I wouldn't know where it was.

 

So I'm giving you advice about film speeds when I can't even organise the right films...

 

I'd take something that pushes or pulls quite well if you need it, e.g. Tri-X.

Tricky choice. I like Fuji 800 for its versatility, but obviously it's not the finest grain you can hope for. I'd probably take mostly 800, with a few rolls of 100 for the cases where you know you'll be outdoors.

 

What about using the film that you normally use?

It depends a lot on what sort of photography you're doing. If you plan on doing landscapes with a tripod, then it sounds like you have a bit too much fast film for that. If you plan on doing indoor photography in places where you can't use a tripod / flash - churches, museums, etc. - then you probably want more 800 speed film. If you plan on doing street photography, I'd say that 400 is a happy medium and you'd want more of that. If you're going to be hanging out with friends in dark smoky bars and want some shots of that, then I'd add high speed black and white too your list. Generally when I'm traveling I carry film in the ratio of 2:1:1 (100, 400, 800) plus a few roles of BW 1600 or 3200 for emergencies. The high speed films I try to buy in country to avoid X-Ray damage.

 

Personally, it sounds to me like you're bringing a bit too much film. I find that when I overshoot on vacation the negatives / slides just sit in a corner because it's too much trouble to edit them. Editing in camera usually nets me better results, at least partly because I'm concentrating more on what photos I want than on getting every possible shot. I usually budget about a roll a day, and that seems to even out well.

 

This is a bit off topic, but I also find it helpful to think about the final product when I'm budgeting for film. If I want to assemble an album that really documents a place I've visited, then I'll budget a bit more film and carry around a notebook so I've got the caption information for later. If it's just to have some shots to tell people "Hey, I've been there, this is what it looks like" I'll budget downwards.

I'd take two films: Provia 100F and Tri-X.

 

With the Tri-X I could expose anywhere from EI 200-1200 with development in ID-11, Rodinal or other conventional developers for the slow speed rolls and Diafine for the other extreme.

 

If color only, tho', Provia and probably something like NPH or Portra 400UC.

 

If color negative film only, then Reala (assuming I can tote a medium format camera) and NPH or Portra. Otherwise, if 35mm only, NPS or NPC instead of Reala.

 

Of course, I wouldn't be disappointed if all I could do was buy Kodak Gold 100 locally wherever I visited. It's really not a bad film at all.

You didn't say whether you're using negative or slide film. But I'll assume you're using negatives. In that case, I will suggest that there is little reason to bother with ISO 100 film. Bring as many rolls of ISO 400 as you think you'll need, and perhaps a few 800 if you know you're going to be hand-holding indoors or at night.

 

Since my photography is almost entirely travel-related, I have found that ISO 400 negative film is the most versatile and convenient choice for just about any situation. I use it exclusively, except when I have experimented with Fuji Superia 800 rated at 640 (which compares very favorably with ISO 400 image quality). The image quality of ISO 400 color negative film today is so good that there's no need at all for anything slower.

 

If you're shooting detailed landscapes with professional-grade lenses consistently mounted on a heavy tripod for mural-size enlargements, the slightly better grain and sharpness of ISO 100 film might be worthwhile (but for that you'd probably be better off with slide film like Velvia 50 or Provia 100F). But for anything else, the convenience (and extra sharpness from being able to use a smaller aperture and/or a faster shutter speed) of ISO 400 will outweigh the minimal reduction in image quality. The latest ISO 400 films-- Fuji NPH, Kodak Portra 400UC, or the late lamented Supra 400-- should provide everything you're likely to need in terms of image quality.

 

So I suggest not worrying about "mix" and taking as much ISO 400 as you think you're going to shoot.

When traveling, if I expect some people shots I load my main camera with NPH400 and a backup (if any) with Velvia. That way, I'm set up for the most challenging situation I'm likely to encounter.

 

The amount of film seems a little light for 16 days in such an interesting location. You know best, but I'd carry about twice that amound - figuring about 25 rolls a week. I'd reverse the 400/100 ratio unless my subject was scenery or buildings.

 

For hand-held shots, especially with fill-flash, ISO 400 makes the most sense to me. If used for scenery, the sharpness is limited by the film rather than shutter speed - but it's a good compromise. I've never cared for ISO 200, because travel situations go outside it's envelope a little too often. Shooting a European tour group for publicity, I shot 10 rolls of NPH400 to every roll of Velvia/Reala.

 

ISO 800 is probably not that useful except for action - sports or theater.

 

If you use a tripod (and I highly recommend you carry one) or other support device (e.g., a bean bag), ISO doesn't matter as much. For best sharpness, I use Velvia or Reala. Hand-held, you are limited to bright sun (or nearly so.) On a vacation in Colorado last year, I shot 25 rolls of Reala (35mm and 120) and 5 rolls of Velvia, nearly all using a tripod. But I had NPH 400 on hand, just in case.

 

It's not very practical to alternate or (worse) to switch film mid-roll. With one camera, I'd stick to the faster film. I wouldn't use Velvia unless I had a second body, or enough subject matter to use a whole roll. I think that's the single, best reason to replace 35mm with digital.

I always take two bodies with me, one loaded with Reala and the other one with Superia 400. Ratio of rolls 1: 2. Iso 400 is nowadays so good you can (almost) forget problems with grain or coloursaturation.

I will never take iso 800 with me, too sensitive for x-ray scanners at airports and museum.

And don't forget a table-tripod/bean bag besides that heavy tripod.

Well, you're hearing a lot of what other people would do, but we don't have a lot to go on for what you want to do, and you have no pictures posted, so we can go on that. I just got back from a vacation in the southwest (U.S.) and of 29 rolls, I don't have anything faster than 100. Then again, I didn't really do any people photography, and it was all slide film.

 

Just my opinion, but I don't think 200 speed film buys you anything. It's neither enough speed advantage over 100 nor enough grain advantage over 400.

 

Have a great trip.

I would bring more 200 than anything else, or maybe the same amount as your 100. 400 is very good to have if it is a darker day. I really don't think 800 or higher is necessary unless you plan to do night photography. If you have a fast lens, or plan to use lenses with shorter focal points, you can afford a slower film. Those are just some suggestions.