Going on Vacation-Need a Print Film Reccomondation

[andrew_pike1]

In the second week of August, I will be going on vaction to

Washington D.C. Obviously, I plan on taking pictures. Recently, I've

started shooting slides more than prints, and the rest of the print

film in our household is either already shot or getting dangerously

near it's expiration date. So, for the first time in a long while,

I've had to think about what kind of print film I will need.

 

If it were convienient to shoot slides, I would almost definately use

Kodachrome 200, as I love the Kodachrome color palatte. But slides

are inconvienient for sharing with friends and family, so I'm stuck

with prints.

 

After doing some reasearch on the film buying guides at popphoto and

photographic.com, I've narrowed it down to my three likeliest

contenders. Normally, I'd use a 100 or 200 speed film, but for the

sake of my ignorance of what my shooting conditions will be like,

I'll go for the film that is adaptable enough to handle any almost

any situation I throw at it, but without too much grain.

 

I have chosen films that the articles state have a goodly degree of

saturation, as I want a bit of punch to my prints.

 

The first is Agfa Vista 400. I read an article on it that gave it

much praise about such things as color saturation, sharpness, and

grainularity.

 

The second is Fujicolor Superia X-TRA 400. The editors of the

magazines praised it for having "the characteristics of a 100 speed

film but two stops faster". I have previously used this emulsion, and

I was impressed.

 

The third is Kodak Ultra Color 400. I know it's basicaly repacakaged

Portra 400UC, a film that I tried once and liked. I've read a few

articles on the Portra 400UC that priased it for it's saturation.

Editors were apparently able to tell the differnce between it and a

less saturated from across a room.

 

I would also say Supra 400, but Kodak (stupidly, I think) decided to

cancel it, and my last roll expires in September. Oh well.

 

Any of your opinions would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

-Andrew Pike

[phule]

Fuji Reala Superia ISO 100

 

Fuji NPH ISO 400

 

You probably can find a lot more information by using the "Search" link on the top of this page.

[._._z]

Rate Superia at 200 or 320.

 

I also like NPH (rate as above).

[r.t. dowling]

Agfa Vista 400 is not a bad film, but it's significantly grainier than the others you mentioned.

 

Fuji Superia XTRA 400 has decent grain and excellent saturation, but its contrast is quite high. Skin tones are not particularly good.

 

Kodak 400UC is definitely the best of the three you mentioned. Its grain is just as fine as XTRA 400, but it's a bit sharper and a bit lower in contrast, which also improves the skin tone issue. But I would also recommend Fuji NPH, especially if you plan on having your photos printed on Fuji paper.

 

For what it's worth, some stores (such as B&H) still sell Supra 400. I liked it for overcast days, but found it to be too harsh for sunny days and not very friendly with skin tones.

[madwand]

Ditto on the Agfa and Kodak 400 UC comments above. I've always liked Agfa films (well just the Optimal line actually) for their colour balance, but find that they are fairly grainy compared to more recent competition. Roughly, from memory alone, I think that the Agfa Optima 100 is comparable in grain to (perhaps worse than) Kodak 400 UC, so this is another vote against Agfa and one for Kodak 400 UC.

 

But this assumes that grain really matters to you -- e.g. for scanning and enlarging. For just 4x6, I'd suggest trying several other films in addition before your trip.

[jason_fitzmaurice]

Personally I like the look of Vista; however, I'd pick up a roll or two of each film, and give them a try. If you have a Wallgreens near you you can buy their store brand, which is relabled Agfa Vista. But I'd try all of them and see. It is worth the few bucks to make sure you pick what you want.

 

And K200 is my favourite film as well.

[scott_eaton]

Am I the only one that thinks using 400 speed print film on the East Coast in August in daylight is just a bit silly? Why not just load up with Kodak Max 800 and be happy? {cynical = off}

 

I'd use Reala for daylight and UC400 or NPH for everything else - end of problem. That covers the gamut of the best all around print films on the market.

 

None of my local Professional Fuji or Kodak labs want a thing to do with Agfa films since they have no software for them.

 

Please also tell us where you can get Superia 400 that has the "same characteristics of Reala, but two stops faster." I guess that means Fuji will be introducing a new version of 400 speed Velvia with Velvia 100 grain. It's not so much the fact that magazines print this junk to sell issues, but the fact some of you take it honestly that bothers me.

[charles_jacobson]

For full on slide-like colour saturation you may like to try agfa ultra 100. <br>

cheers,<br>charles.

[grahams]

Where does Kodak High Definition 200 fit in? Anyone with an opinion?

[madwand]

<i>Where does Kodak High Definition 200 fit in? Anyone with an opinion?</i><p>

 

Excellent film IMO; a bargain; worth a look & comparison in performance to 100UC and 400UC. (Comparison of HD 400 to 400 UC might be more straightforward, but I haven't tried HD 400 myself.)<p>

 

Excellent scan-friendly grain -- akin to 100/400 UC.<p>

 

Perhaps lower contrast than 400 UC. Could be a great film for strong sunlight + shadows, perhaps trading off some "punchiness" in other conditions, but usable in some cases where 400 UC would be too contrasty. 400 UC for overcast / HD 200 for bright sun might be a good balance. But I'm not sure about these comments -- I've only shot one roll of HD 200, and 400 UC in 35mm, and these were on different days, lighting conditions, and subjects.<p>

 

I'm aware of some debate as to whether or not 400 UC is a high contrast film. It certainly looks contrasty to me sometimes, and not at others. Perhaps there's a difference in the 35mm and 120 versions. Perhaps it's medium-high contrast whereas HD 200 is medium-low contrast. But a simple study of the two films side-by-side under the same conditions would answer these question better. Unfortunately, I don't usually shoot that way.

[madwand]

<i>Am I the only one that thinks using 400 speed print film on the East Coast in August in daylight is just a bit silly?</i><p>

 

Could be. I find that cities can be quite dark even in daylight due to buildings blocking the light, and also often find alleys / etc., that need faster film in the absence of a tripod. The question in my mind is not so much "can I get any advantage from 400?" but rather "will 100 be able to give me all the shots that I'm after?". Even with vintage cameras, I have yet to find that 400 is too fast in my experience (although it could be e.g. at a beach; a ND filter / polarizer might be needed then.) It's nice that UC 400 is fine-grained enough that it's not as painful to use as 400 speed films used to be in the past.

[Ed_Ingold]

For hand-held shots, with or without flash, you need ISO400 for a good range of f/stops with shutter speeds high enough for sharpness. A shutter speed equal to the reciprocal of the focal length is an absolute minimum. Twice is better.

 

For more contemplative pictures, using a tripod, ISO100 film is a good choice. While you can use ISO100 film, handheld, you are limited to bright sunlight or wide apertures. Tripods are hard to use while traveling with a group, in crowded situations, and are usually banned in historical buildings and museums.

 

The grain in ISO400, 35mm film is very noticeable at 8x10 prints or larger. This is acceptible for people pictures, but finer-grained film is better for landscapes and architecture.

 

I find I use about 10 rolls of ISO400 to every roll of ISO100 for travel photography involving people or groups. If my objective is landscapes and architecture, and I'm traveling at my own pace, the ratio is reversed. If you're on the move, ISO400 is the best film to use. You will find it very frustrating to have ISO100 film in the camera, and will end up changing mid-roll too much. A second body is a great comfort in this case.

 

My personal favorites are Fuji NPH400 and Reala (ISO100). Other films are just as good, but I've found the sweet spot for scanning and printing these films.

 

All this is a good case for getting a digital camera. These days I use a DSLR for practically everything, and film mainly in medium-format. The experience I cite is for 35mm film, however, based on travel and event assignments.

[Greg M]

Reala 100 and/or Fuji Press 400 for situations where faster is needed or desired. I've picked these two because they scan beautifully with my Canoscan film scanner.

[James G. Dainis]

I have no problem using 400 speed film on the beach at Puerto Rico or in sunny Italy. The speed comes in handy it I want to take a photo inside in low light areas like this church.<P>

<center>

 

<img src=http://www.geocities.com/dainisjg/stpeter500.jpg><BR>

Fuji NPH 400 1/30@f1.8</center>

[madwand]

<i>The grain in ISO400, 35mm film is very noticeable at 8x10 prints or larger. This is acceptible for people pictures, but finer-grained film is better for landscapes and architecture.</i><p>

 

Sadly, this is often true, even with 400 UC. I'm having a tough time getting a handle on 400 UC's graininess. In some shots, it seems remarkable -- so much so that I can scan without GEM and get acceptable results. In others, as mentioned above, it's unaccepatable. I'm not even sure what the variables affecting graininess are -- 35mm film vs 120 film? Amount of exposure? Lab doing processing? Film batch? I hope I'll get a better handle on this with more information / experience.<p>

 

At 4x6 though, it's almost always invisible, and sometimes barely visible if you look hard.<p>

 

But I do not agree that grainiess is more acceptable in people pictures -- if the type of grain is such that the effect is to discolour skin, then this is very objectionable.<p>

 

Fortunately, there're software grain-removal tools like Neat Image and Noise Ninja to help out when needed.

[ted_marcus1]

<p>Take Portra 400UC/Ultra Color 400 and don't bother with anything else unless you're taking portraits and need something more restrained. It has very vibrant color and very fine grain, so you wouldn't gain anything by also carrying a slower film.

 

<p>I had found Supra 400 the ideal film for travel because it had fine grain and vibrant color, and it scanned well. Although Kodak claims to have discontinued it, B&H still sells it. I have no idea what this film actually is, how fresh it is, or where it came from. 400UC (under either name) is the best replacement for it I've tried. It has similar color, just as fine grain, and better shadow detail. Supra 400 tended to develop "dandruff" grain in underexposed shadows; 400UC is head and shoulders above Supra in controlling this problem. It also scans quite well.

 

<p>If you like slides, 400UC is an excellent slide film. Send it to <a href="http://www.dalelabs.com">Dale Labs</a> and order slides. They'll print the negatives on Kodak Vision film (usually used for movie prints), put the mounted slides in a transparent plastic sheet, and send them back with the negatives. You can also order prints at the same time, so you can have slides for yourself and prints to share.

 

<p>If you're going to Washington, I would be concerned about hassles from police and security guards. Hassling photographers is an increasingly common way for cops and officials to show that they're actively fighting the War on Terror without actually doing anything useful.

[madwand]

I just realized there's another variable -- I use a glass holder for MF scans, but not for 35mm scans. The glass holder might be adding a bit more diffusion and reducing the effects of grain. More to test & ponder...

[ted_marcus1]

<i>Comparison of HD 400 to 400 UC might be more straightforward, but I haven't tried HD 400 myself.</i>

 

<p>To paraphrase the final sheep slogan in <i>Animal Farm</i>, "HD400 good, 400UC better." HD400 is practically a consumer version of legacy Supra 400, with the same high color, fine grain, scannability, and "dandruff" grain in the shadows. It seems to have been tweaked to provide better minilab prints. The trouble is that it's only available in 24-exposure rolls.

 

<p>400UC has similar color (I scan both films with Vuescan's "Royal Gold 400 Gen 2" setting), somewhat finer grain overall, and definitely better grain in shadows. But it may have a bit coarser grain in blue skies. Bill Tuthill has done a more scientific comparison of the two films; perhaps he'll weigh in.

 

<p>400UC is the best general film for travel, with its balance of high image quality and very convenient ISO 400 speed. But if you run out 400UC in an area where there isn't a camera store, you can't go wrong stopping at the nearest drugstore or supermarket and buying a three-pack of HD400.

[andrew_pike1]

A few of you mentioned Fujicolor NPH 400. I've never tried, or even heard of this film before. It sounds interesting. Please tell me more about it.

 

Thanks for the other answers as well. Your advice has been very helpful. I've now narrowed it down to this Fuji NPH that many of you talk about and Kodak UC400. I'll have to do some more research on those two to make my final decision. Thanks.

 

-Andrew Pike

[bill_tuthill]

Andrew, I would use NPH for a wedding where skin tones are critical,

and 400UC for travel so I could scan it myself. NPH doesn't Vuescan

well, and 400UC has too-strong red response for portraits of people

with imperfect complexions. In response to Ted, I found HD400 to have

very grainy skin tones compared to 400UC (see <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Io7">

this thread for 2400 dpi scan samples</A>) but it's a competent film.

I was not overly impressed by HD200, although some people like it,

and Royal Supra 200 (sold in Europe) is even better-liked.

[James G. Dainis]

There is no one film fits all. I like NPH because of the lower contrast and I shoot a lot of people in my vacation photos ("My wife in front of the world's largest ball of twine") so I like the good skin tones. If I want postcard saturated colors, which would be bad for flesh tones, then I would use UC or HD.

<P><center><img src=http://www.geocities.com/dainisjg/kodakrg5.jpg><BR>

Kodak HD 400<BR></center>

[jay_.]

I'm one of those who tries every emulsion at least once, but in the past 15 years I have only used 3 color neg films repeatedly for 35mm travel photography: Ektar/Royal 25 (now discontinued), Royal Gold 100 (now discontinued), and now Portra 160VC. I always carry a couple rolls of Portra 800 for emergencies. I do not like Reala as much as 160VC.