Fast Transparency Film

I am going to be doing some wildlife work in a week or so with the

Canon 300mm f/2.8l IS. A lot of it will be of necessity hand-held or

of fast moving subjects and so I'll need a faster film than my usual

Provia 100.

 

I plan on running a few tests early this week, but was curious as to

the preference of folks here for a 400 speed transparency film. The

choices are Fuji M/S 100-1000, Kodak E200 -- both pushed, or Provia

400. Has anyone compared grain, contrast and color rendition, and

drawn any conclusions?

 

Many thanks,

 

Michael Reichmann

 

www.luminous-landscape.com

Provia 400 is way to grainy IMO. E200 and RMS are both very good at 400. E200 does really nice in direct sunlight, but seems to show more grain and goes pretty flat in shade. Where RMS is being pushed two stops it should help the contrast in these situations. Either way both are nice films.

If you need ISO 400, both Ektachrome E200 pushed one stop or the new Provia 100 F pushed two stops (to ISO 320) yield good results, but you should test it first yourself to make sure that they meet your expectations. The fine grain in Provia 100F gives you the flexability to shoot it straight at ISO 100 or pushed one or two stops still with good results.

 

However, do you really need ISO 400 with a fairly fast (f2.8) lens? David Middleton once said that if you need ISO 400, the light is probably too poor for good images. While I am sure that there are exceptions to that rule, Middleton's comment certainly makes a lot of sense in general.

Good point Kenny. I've never shot at this particular locale before and therefore I want to be prepared with an ISO 400 solution.

 

I don't care to hand-hold the 300mm IS at less then 1/125sec, or 1/250sec with the 1.4X extender (particularly for birds in flight). I also prefer to use the lens at f/4 whenever possible.

 

Since 1/125sec at f/4 with ISO 400 is a typical early morning / early evening light level I'm not in agreement Mr. Middleton's assessment.

 

Thanks for the responses so far. I'll be running my own tests this week and will post some comments when I have results. At your suggestion I'll now include RDPIII pushed 2 stops. If that works it would solve the film inventory issue, if nothing else.

 

I'm curious to hear other people's experience with this as well.

 

Michael Reichmann

 

www.luminous-landscape.com

Unless they've broken something when they added IS, the lens will be extremely sharp wide-open without the 1.4x. At least my non-IS is. You won't get enough gain in DOF to make stopping down worthwhile. If you're shooting birds in flight without the extender, I can think of no reason to stop down - any loss in sharpness is going to be balanced by the increase in sharpness due to the higher shutter speed doing a better job of freezing subject motion (which not even IS can do for you).

 

Shoot E200 at its rated speed or push your Provia a stop and have a little faith in your IS gizmo. That's what you bought it for.

 

I never shoot ISO 400 slide film. The magazines I shoot for seem to like the richer palettes of films like Velvia and E100SW and no ISO 400 film has that kind of saturation and warmth. Personally I like E100SW better than Provia, but they both push a stop with no problem.

I've used E200 pushed one stop for shooting theatrical productions and am quite pleased with it. I've never tried Kodachrome 200 pushed, if anyone can comment on that. Grain and contrast issues of course are slightly increased with the push, but the images look very good- the theatre was quite dark and I was shooting (varying on my location from the stage) with a 300f4, a 104/2.8 and a 50/1.8- this was the show's photo call, by the way so the actors weren't moving around quite so much... but the colours and grain looked fine to me and the theatre's crew and actors and I was still shooting fast enough at f5.6 to freeze most motion, so in daylight or near-daylight it should be plenty sufficient.

Try checking the older postings under "film" at both the Nature Photography and Original Q&A forums for more info on pushing Provia 100F, which in my experience is currently the BEST color slide film to push to 200 or 320.

Please try Fuji MS100/1000 at 400 and compre with

Fuji Provia 400. Probably you will be surprised

with MS100/100. My usable Fastest transparency

was Kodachrome 200 until MS was released, but now

I use MS 100/1000 at 400 or even at 800. For me

Provia 400 is too grainy and Kodachrom 200 has

too deferent color tendency for me because my

standard film is Fuji Velvia.

Certainly MS100/1000is very expensive, but it is

worth for its price.

After shooting 50 or so rolls of Provia F at EI 100 and 200, the grain in E200 pushed to EI 320 just looks huge to my eye. I haven't pushed Provia F to 320 yet, so I can't comment on color balance in that situation.

 

I agree with Shun. When light gets low enough to dictate 320+ film, the results just aren't often very flattering. Shoot wide open and have faith in IS.

I've been very pleased with the E200/Ektachrome Elite 200 films. They have grain that is similar to the 100-speed chromes sold in the mid-80s. I frequently use it to help compensate for the rather slow lenses I use. Some like a 100-speed film push processed, but I feel this won't be much better, if at all. I wouldn't go for any slide film with higher speed than 200 at this time.

I recently shot a few rolls of M/S 100-1000 at 200, 400 and 800 speeds . At 200 it's excelent and 400 it's still very good but at 800 it was too contrasty and grainy for my taste.

E200 looks very good exposed at 320 and given a 1 stop push. Yes, I know that 400 would be a true one stop gain in speed, but 320 is the recommend speed for the standard 1 stop push and I have found that it works very well. Likewise for using it at ISO 640 and the two stop push.

 

One advantage E200 has over the Fuji 100/1000 product is that you don't have to pay as much for pushing since E200 starts at ISO 200. You can also buy Elite Chrome 200 which is cheaper than 200 and just a good. It pushes well to 320. I have not tried EC200 at 640, but have heard that Kodak does not recommend a two stop push for this film.

 

By the way if you really need speed Fuji's NHG800 is great stuff. It is not a crime to use print film from time to time.

First of all, I don't mean to disagree with Stanley, but in my case, I don't like to use ISO 200 film much, let alone ISO 400. While I usually keep a couple of rolls of ISO 200 film around, typically they just sit there until they are about to expire and I am forced to use them or in some case just let them expire.

 

If you don't need fast film ofter, you could be better off just buy ISO 100 film (such as Provia 100F/RDP III) or M/S 100-1000 and push it one or two stops when it is necessary. As far as the cost for push processing, in the US, Kodak charges aournd $2.50 per stop but A&I in Los Angeles only charges $1 per stop. Again, if you don't need ISO 200 and 400 often, it may be cheaper this way than losing a couple of rolls to expiration.

Of course, if you need ISO 200 and/or 400 a lot, it is a different story.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed their observations and opinions. Much appreciated.

 

I've now finished my own test of 6 transparency films which were rated at ISO 400. The winner is quite surprising. Agfa RSXII 200.

 

I've posted the methodology, samples and results at my web site at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/iso_400.htm

 

Michael

 

www.luminous-landscape.com

If your just taking personal photographs, I see nothing wrong with any of the higher 400 speed films. I recently brought out a role of Kadak's consumer slide film Elite 400 for a rugby match, and although the color wasn't that of Velvia, and the grain size 'slightly' large, it was far from dissapointing. The grain was manageable, and the colors and contrast appropriate. (The greens came out slightly muted) In the end, it all comes down to what your shooting and for whom. Wildlife can be shot with both fine, and large grain films; remember that the grain can work to your advantage, setting a mood. On the other hand however, it can ruin a photograph. No one wants to see a fragile, detailed photograph look grainy. Your film tests should be what you go on. Afterall, only you know what you like.

Michael-- a quick comment. As alluded to above, the standard 1 stop push on Kodak E200 only gets you to EI 320, not 400. So it's not surprising that your 1 stop push (rating at EI 400) gave disappointing results. Better to go with the manufacturer's suggestion and rate it at 320 if you want to push a stop.<p>

 

Rated at 320 and pushed one stop, my results with E200 would have been the clear winner in your test. Of course, that doesn't help you if you really feel you require EI 400.

Shun, I would agree with your comments up to a point. If you consistently need a higher speed film, then E200 is a better choice both in terms of photo quality and costs. I believe E200 and its cheaper consumer film EC200 produces a better picture than any 100 speed film pushed one stop.

 

Price wise you can put a roll of EC200 into a Fuji mailer that costs about $3.30 from B&H. That is a lot cheaper than paying for a one stop push from A&I, Kodak or the local lab. The increased cost of EC200 compared to Sensia 100 or EC100 is about $1.40 per orll That is less than the increased processing costs using A&I, Kodak or the local lab to push a film one stop.

 

Of course, film choice is a very personal decision. And I would never think to tell anybody that my choice is better. If I did I would be at war with every Velvia fanatic at this site.

Actually, Russ's comment applies to all of the Kodak E100 films as well. Manufacturer's recommendation is to expose at 160 for push +1 and 320 (not 400) for push +2.

 

My only other comment is that the only thing I get even a slight sense of from the pictures on the web page is color rendition. Other than that I find them almost completely unhelpful (that's not to say that the originals weren't useful). For example, I thought the Agfa photo looked like it had poor shadow detail. And, some of the geese pictures are significantly more fuzzy than others, which makes no sense to me unless you weren't using a tripod, in which case I question their usefulness (for example they would say nothing about sharpness, which I view as important, and the color chart won't help you with that either). Finally, I can't make out grain in any of the photos. I guess I would find a tripod shot of a static object shown at very high magnification to be most helpful along side the color chart.

Lanier,

 

I agree with your critique of the photos on the web site. What was so obvious in the light box through a lupe became vagueness and mush when turned into a small low-resolution picture on the web. That's why I commented that folks would have to take my word for the subjective evaluation.

 

And yes, the camera was most definately on a tripod.

 

Thanks for your, and eveyone else's comments.

 

Regards

 

Michael