35mm film and wildlife...

Hi everyone and thanks in advance for your advice on a topic that

I'm sure has been covered before. I'm going to Africa for three

weeks in November and will be shooting a lot of wildlife (stationary

and moving), landscapes and whatever else finds its way in front of

my camera, under all kinds of lighting conditions. I'm going to

start stocking up on film and need some advice on which kind will

give me the best results. Last time I went I shot about 40 rolls

and used a mix of Fuji and Kodak. I'd like to use one film (brand,

ISO) for the whole trip so I don't have to keep swapping film out of

my camera. I'm looking for something that will maintain sharpness

when enlarged beyond 8x10 without being too grainy. I'll be using

an Elan IIe with Canon lenses (200mm 2.8L, 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS, 20-

35mm 3.5-4.5, 50mm 1.8 and an EF 2x II teleconverter) and a 540EZ

flash unit. Also regarding grain in general...in order to reduce

the appearance of grain is it best to shoot at a longer exposure

with a smaller aperture or a shorter exposure at a wider apeture?

This is a lot to ask so thanks again for your advice!

Given that I've been away from film for a while, take this with a grain of salt, but...one film, one ISO (sure you want to do this? no Provia or Velvia landscapes?), can handle >8x10...I'm thinking Kodak 400UC. I say that based on my experience with the old Supra 400, knowing it evolved from that line. It was one of my favorite films grain and sharpness wise.

 

As for reducing the appearance of grain, you want a correct exposure. Longer/shorter with corresponding apertures to produce an identical exposure in both cases should not make any difference in grain. The film receives the same amount of light either way. Underexposing, however, will make grain worse.

Velvia 100F, or Kodak 100VS. 400UC is quite grainy in a 8x12 print.

IMO, your zooms aren't compatible with a 100 speed film and moving wildlife (presumably also out the window of a Jeep-type vehicle). I second the 400UC. Better to have sharp pictures than blurry, low-grain ones. Disclaimer: I haven't been to Africa yet.

I disagree completely. Check BBC/British Gas Wildlife photographer of the year books, they have technical details for almost all shots and many of them were taken in Africa. 99% of the shots taken with film have been taken with iso 50-200 slide film (with the 200 being usually pushed from 100). For very good reasons IMO.

 

You can take iso 400 print film if you want but the quality of iso 100 slide film is from another planet when it comes to nature photography. Lens aperture is not an issue, you use a tripod if you need to.

I second slide film.

Scott,

 

If this is the trip of a lifetime and the only memories will be the photos, instead of a rhino's head mounted above your fireplace, why not take along a better, medium format camera; such as a Mamiya 645AFd or Fuji GA645Zi?

 

This way, the choice of film will be less critical than with the smaller 35mm format...

 

Just a thought, from a former Nikon shooter...

Take Provia 400F and the 100 ISO slide film of your choice. I really don't think you can do it with one film.

 

Daniel is correct about grain. The exposure matters, but the combination you use to get there is irrelevant.

You might also want to consider Superia Reala print film for bright conditions. Again, it doesn't seem wise to limit yourself so severely on a trip like this.

Reala is much better than Superia!

 

See:

http://users.snip.net/~joe/knoxville/index.htm

for fall foliage samples of Reala 100, souped & scanned in a Noritsu minilab...<div></div>

I'm going to be one of the naysayers here. This is probably going to be a rare event in your lifetime; maybe even one that will not be repeated. Do you really think it wise to use reversal film under these circumstances?

 

Look, there's nothing nicer than a well done piece of transparency film if, and these are big IFs, you plan to a.) look at them on a lightbox under a loupe, b.) project them using a good quality slide projector on a good screen, or c.) you have an in with the big man upstairs and have made special arrangements with him for the perfect lighting conditions most favorable for using slide film. I don't have that kind of juice. Maybe you do. If you plan to make scans or prints, then I'm certain that you'll get better results and more keepers using color negative film. Some reasons why follow. Color negative films have an extremely wide exposure latitude. Two stops of over exposure is nothing. You'll still get a good scan or print. You can't say that about any reversal film. As little as 1/2 stop exposure error in either direction and the frame is useless. Color negative film scans a whole lot better than slide film. If you want prints, the inherently low contrast nature of these films works to your advantage. You can always bump up the contrast and color saturation to the levels you like using the digital photo editing software of your choice after scanning. You can even set up a slide show of digital images if you like. If you ask me, it's no contest. Go out and get a couple of rolls each of 100 or 160 and 400 speed color negative film from the big players, Kodak and Fuji. Go out and shoot similar subjects with each and see which you like best. Then go with that.

For a trip to Africa, I wouldn't limit myself to one type of film. Pick up a second camera body; they're cheap these days. Myself, I like Provia 100F pushed a stop to 200 for low light, it has excellent grain and sharpness that doesn't change much when pushed. I also wouldn't be leaving for Africa without some Velvia. Concerning grain, don't worry about it if scanning, programs like Noise ninja will work wonders at eliminating what little there is with slides. As for negative film, you could take some Reala, but if you're scanning, be prepared to deal with a lot more noise and grain; negs just don't scan as well as transparencies.

Color negative film has indeed some exposure latitude but most of this doesn't apply if you want a good, large print. It's only mostly for 4x6s and indiscerning eyes. I have never seen any good wildlife work published made from color negs - that's because it's inherently unsuitable for the job.

 

Also, color negative film is IMO difficult to scan. 400UC requires heavy post-processing (grain reduction) to get rid of the grain to make a usable 8x12. You have no color reference to work with. Iso 100 slide film, on the other hand is a delight to scan with a nice film scanner.

I don't know Illka. Motion pictures are shot on color negative film that's very similar to the stuff we use in 35mm cameras. Transfers are made to several types of media for final output, one of them being print film. Yes there is usually quite a bit of image manipulation done before the final print is made. Contrast, color balance, and color saturation are all adjusted to obtain the desired result for a given output medium. The point is that the information you need, and much more information than you get with transparency films, needed to make an excellent print is already on the film. What you do with it is what makes the final product a great piece or a piece of junk. Don't judge the quality of color negative films by the 4x6 prints coming from the local 1 hour lab. These labs usually do make crappy prints and you're correct in assuming that most of their customers don't know the difference.

 

Been to the movies lately?

Thanks everyone for your responses. I guess I should shed a little more light on my previous experience in Africa photographing the flora and fauna. Unpredictable is about the only way to describe it. You never know what will be around the next bend in the road. One minute you're taking a picture of the amazing savanna and you turn the corner and there's a herd of elephants at a water hole showering themselves with mud, or you startle a few zebra a hundred yards away and they take off running. Or, you've just photographed the most amazing sunrise you've ever seen and out of the trees come a family of warthogs (which don't stand still for anything). That was my reason for wanting one speed of film that could handle most situations, though I understand that no film will handle all situations without some compromises.

 

Yes, you shoot out of a vehicle but they are open and there are no windows to deal with. When a photo op presents itself the vehicle almost always stops, providing a stable platform from which to shoot. Sometimes it's also possible to get out and use a tripod.

 

I realize that slide film is better in some situations but I need the exposure latitude that print film provides because sometimes it's all you can do just to get the shot framed, focused and the shutter button pushed before the leopard you've been tracking all day disappears again into the bush. Besides, my photos aren't going to be appearing in National Geographic anytime soon and I won't be enjoying them with a loupe and a lightbox...I like prints! :-)

 

I'm hoping to take a second camera body with me but it will mostly have the long zoom on it, not loaded with Venutian Velveeta SuperPro SpaceModulation XZ9000 color gyrated super-synchro film (the BEST film for photographing royal phizzbins when the ambient dew point has reached a squared factor of 7.3). I found that more shots were missed because I was changing lenses and not because I had the wrong film loaded. I will take some 100 with me because I know there will be some occasions for it that I've planned on (botanical gardens, architecture, etc.)

 

Again, thanks everyone for your advice, it is much appreciated! Maybe I should rephrase my question...

 

You're dropped on an island with your favorite 35mm camera and the following list of photographs that you must take or you can't get off the island:

A sunset

A sunrise

A flower

A bird in flight

A landscape of the shoreline

A palm tree

A portrait/candid of a person

A person surfing

An animal doing animal-type stuff

 

You can only choose one roll of color negative film from which you will have prints made at the local Photorama by a guy named Bert who actually knows what you mean when you tell him you "pushed it one stop with the PushStopper X14 Film Toaster." The prints will prove you completed your assignment and get you a date with the really hot flight attendant on your flight home...

 

Which film do you choose? (theme from Mission Impossible plays in the background)

 

:-)

You do not say where in "Africa" ( it is a big place ) but am assuming you mean the game parks.

 

I do not believe one type of film and only one camera would be a good idea for the following reasons :-

 

1. A lot of your best photo opportunities will be early in the morning or late in the day when the light is low and something quick will be needed.

 

2. Mid-morning and mid-afternoon will be very bright and you can get away with something slower ( forget midday it is usually only good for resting up and drinking cold beer ).

 

3. Sometimes you will be close to the animals and sometimes not, so you will need the ability to use an appropriate film for each situation.

 

4. Africa is not just animals ( you cover the landscape part in your question ) so you need to be able to adapt to the shot on hand. Do not forget that the people can also be very photogenic as well.

 

To sum up - the variables are so great that you need to be flexible in your approach and your equipment.

 

Remember also that dust can be a major problem and it would not be a good idea to keep opening up your camera to change films. You would be wise to keep the lens changing to a minimum as well. Try and settle on what looks to be the best combination of lens/film/camera at least for starters.

 

Sometimes to get a shot you will have to push the boundaries and accept that you will get a grainy result - better that than miss a great opportunity.

 

There will be times when 100 film will be fine and others when 400 will be needed. The choice of which film is a very subjective one as is the choice between slide and print. I would suggest you try and have a look at as many shots as you can find ( starting on this site ) and see what appeals to you.

 

Hope this helps and enjoy your trip.

I'm surprised to hear that 400UC is grainy, I remember Supra 400 offering very tight grain.

 

But, if you insist on sticking to one film, you're going to have to pick 400-something, and at 400 you're much better off with neg film than slide.

Scott,

 

You should reconsider medium format with a Mamiya 645AF system -- Which I used to replace most all of my dSLR shooting, including motorsports -- since it has these advantages:

 

1) You get 16 frames on a roll of 120 & 32-33 frames on a roll of 220 film, with each frame having over three times the real estate of the postage-stamp-sized 35mm format;

 

2) You can change film in mid-roll by popping off the back and snapping on a new one -- All of about 4 seconds with practice;

 

3) This body shoots two frames per second in continuous mode;

 

4) You have a pair of AF zoom lenses -- 55-110mm and 105-210mm -- available:

http://www.photo.net/gc/view-one?classified_ad_id=645707 [OK, so I'm shilling one of mine!]. These correspond approximately to 35-70mm and 70-140mm on a 35mm camera with the "cropping factor";

 

5) The 645AF body also takes all the manual focus C lenses, including the massive (and sweet!) 500mm f/5.6, which is under $700 used on eBay;

 

6) The older (1999-2001) 645AF kit with back and 80mm f/2.8AF lens goes for $600 on eBay -- There is a surplus of them! -- while the newer (2001-2005) 645AFd kit will fetch $1000-$1100 (I track the prices);

 

7) Extra complete film backs can be bought for under $100; and film back inserts (which are handy for fast roll changes if you aren't changing film speed) are about $60.

 

Here is my eBay search string I use, which I've saved as a "Favorite Search" I check several times per day (copy & paste into any eBay Search box):

 

Mamiya ("300 mm", 300mm, "500 mm", 500mm, 645AF, 645AFd, "645 AF", "645 AFd", "645 AF-d", 645-AF, 645-AFd) -NC1000 -500DTL

 

This string will return anything for the 645AF platform, plus manual focus 300mm and 500mm glass. I have the 300mm f/4.5AF, and it too is SWEET! :)

 

REMEMBER, a 6x4.5 frame has three times the real estate of a 35mm film frame!!

For the desert Island thing: If I had only one film, it would be Sensia 100. If I could use three kinds, none of them would be Sensia. I like Velvia for landscapes, Provia for animals, and Astia for flowers.