Film Recommendation for trip (amature needs advice)

[tyler_ence]

Hey all...ive been taking amature photographs for a few years now

with my fathers old Minolta XG-7 from '79. A few weeks ago, i

finally purchased my own Canon Elan 7e with Canon's 28-135 USM/IS

lens. I would probably classify myself as an intermediate

photographer.

 

One thing ive never paid very much attention to as my skills

progressed is the different kinds of film out on the market. Ive

strickly been using kodak film and not worrying too much about the

results.

 

In September, I am going on a three month long trip to Europe,

Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand. One of my mail goals on this

trip is to take some amazing photos. Recently, ive been doing some

research about negative vs positive film. I believe it will be best

to bring negative film along on my trip, b/c im concerned about

exposing the slide film perfectly....

 

Anyway, any suggestions on negative film brands and models would be

greatly appreciated. I am going to some extremely colorful places

and would like a film that has really saturated colors. I know fuji

velvia is the leader for this....but again i dont believe this is

feasible for me. All I am taking with me is my camera body, lens,

circular polarizer, and 50mm f/1.8 prime.

 

Please leave me with plenty of suggestions...a general rule ive heard

is fuji is better for colors, and kodak is best for skin tones is

this true. I GREATLY value you opnions so please tell me your

favorites (especially for saturated colors) and film speeds if you

deem necessary.

 

Thanks again.....i really appreciate any help. Feel free to email me

if you wish.

[keith_van_hulle1]

Your generalization about Fuji and Kodak is wrong. You need to see NPH on skin tones. Or E100VS/Portra UC colors.

 

I would suggest some Gold 100 or Gold 400 as you can get it done almost anywhere correctly while travelling and not have to carry exposed film back.

 

But I would also suggest some Sensia 100. Yeah, it's cheap and some say it's plain, but for all-around shooting, I love it. Regardless of what I'm shooting, I always carry a few rolls with me just in case. Shot @ 80, and with the right subject matter, I think the colors should make you happy considering the kit you are carrying. Shoot a roll or two before you go and you'll know what to expect.

[tyler_ence]

Basically, I am going to be shipping exposed film back before I leave each country, therefore, carrying exposed film will not be an issue. I suppose my main goal will be to get the most dramatic shots with little grain and very saturated colors. I would like to take my best shots and enlarge them to 11x14 or a bit bigger. Any additonal help?!?!?!

[mikecat]

I would not recommend shipping the unprocessed film back. You're better off getting it processed there (preferred) or carrying the exposed film back in your carry on (2nd choice). It might be more expensive, but the other choice is permanently losing photos (either by damage, or actual loss) that you will never be able to replace.

 

If you DO want to send them (last choice), then you'll want to send them in the most reliable way, so you'll be shipping via courier (equivalent to FedEx, internationally DHL is a good choice) and that won't be cheap compared to regular mail. So you might not even wind up saving money, if this was your objective, once you add in the shipping costs. When shipping overseas, the problem is that you precious film may be sitting in an aluminum oven on the tarmac for hours in 150 degree heat for hours or days, then thrust into the unheated cargo hold down to freezing temperatures, then back up for the next tarmac ... you get the picture. Wildly fluctuating temperatures - especially extremes - are not good for unprocessed film. You may wind up with some really funky colors though once you do get them processed. If you ship them by mail, then add to the above problems that you may never see you film again or it could take months for it to get back home.

 

If you do process you film on your trip, and you want to save some space, then don't get prints made - go for processing only. This will be cheaper (until you go get prints made back home) and you can fit lots of processed negs in your carry on. Here's where the slide film will be a bonus. With slides, you won't have any heavy prints to schlep from country to country and they are quite a bit easier to review and edit than negs. In the end you can make great prints of just the best slides.

 

Good luck!

[jon whitear]

The choice of slide vs print film really depends on what you'll be doing with the resulting images. If you're making prints, it's probably best to stick with print film.

 

I'd get the film processed along the way. We have some places that can process film here in Austrlia (!) but I'd avoid getting any done in Asia. There are a couple of reasonable palces in Bangkok, but if you're looking for professional results, save them for Oz.

 

I can't recommend any particular films, since I don't use much print film. Having said that, remember that the light can be harsh down here, so some low contrast stock might be good for poeple pictures. You might want to add a warming filter to your bag, as well.

[tyler_ence]

Thanks, I'm liking the responses. Remember, Im looking for some advice with film choices....brand models...etc. Thanks again!

[amy_hoy]

Consider the Portra series of films by Kodak. The NC versions (Neutral Color) of these

films are great for getting good but low contrast shots of high-contrast subjects

(meant to show detail in both bride's white dress & groom's black tux), but that's not

really what you want. You want the VC version... Vivid Color. They're not kidding on

the Vivid part. I like to use Portra 160VC and sometimes 400VC to shoot macro shots

of flowers and it definitely delivers where color is concerned while not looking

ridiculous. Now Kodak has come out with Portra 400UC, for Ultra Color, and I'm

taking some of that on a trip with me next week, but haven't shot it before. From my

prior experience with this line of Kodak films, though, and what I've read, I'm sure it

won't disappoint.

 

Give these films a look. They're colorful and low on grain for the speed. I love 'em.

[marshall]

One that should be mentioned is that you should try out some of this stuff before you go. Since you have time, take these suggestions and shoot a few rolls. I'd even suggest shooting some slide film as well to see if it's really a problem for you. I would agree that in high-contrast scenes, print film would give you an advantage, and would second the recommendation to try Portra. Enjoy.

[alaghi]

Agfa ultra 100, kodak portra UC or portra VC.

[robert goldstein]

Superia Reala for bright conditions (it's the finest color print film overall) and Portra 400UC for less bright conditions. It would be nice for you to be able to test each of these before you leave.

[James G. Dainis]

I liked the Kodak Royal Gold 400 for saturation although some would call it too cartoonish. It has been replaced by Kodak HD (high definition) which is the same film renamed. You might want to carry two camera bodies, one with high and one with low contrast film.<BR>

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

Royal Gold 400, Minolta XG-9, 45mm Rokkor-X lens, 1/250 sec, f/16, March 2003</center><BR>

[NullMcNullkins]

If you go with Gold 400, you'll regret it. The grain is terrible and the colors are pretty bad.

 

Personally, I'd take Fuji Reala, Kodak Royal Supra 400 (Same as Portra 400 UC, but *much* cheaper), and some Agfa Ultra 100. If you get it processed along the way, I wouldn't worry too much about poor prints, as long as your negs are OK. Just use the prints as proofs and then get the ones you like color corrected the way you want them when you get home.

 

Take care and have fun!

[richard_pellom__long_live_]

Ben is actually quite wrong about Gold 400. The grain is not bad at all and the colors are fantastic. It's one of the best values for a versatile, all around-type film.

[NullMcNullkins]

Richard,

 

Printing hundreds of rolls a day lets one see many types of films. IME, Gold 400 very grainy, and the colors are not very good. There are much better choices.

 

In fact, the colors and grain are better in Superia 800 than what Gold 400 produces. However, YMMV.

[ted_marcus1]

<i>Kodak Royal Supra 400 (Same as Portra 400 UC, but *much* cheaper)</i>

 

<p>Although a Kodak representative told me that Royal Supra is the same as Portra 400UC, it's not true. Royal Supra 400 <i>appears</i> to be the same as High Definition 400. The spec sheets are essentially identical. The difference is that RG 400 is sold outside the United States in 24 and 36 exposure rolls, while HD 400 is sold in the United States only in 24 exposure rolls. I don't think we're about to get a straight answer from Kodak on this.

 

<p>HD 400 is a very decent film that prints well and scans well. It is similar to the discontinued Supra 400. But, by all accounts, Portra 400 UC has finer grain and possibly better color, at a much higher price.

[constance_cook]

Ted is right. Portra UC does have very fine grain and excellent color and a high price and ever since I discovered it, I've been willing to eat rice and buy Portra UC.

 

Conni

[tyler_ence]

Hey all....Ive noticed that some of the films you have recommended to me are "professional" films (ie. Kodak Portra VC). Are these the films that will require refigeration and quick development after exposure? Unfortunately, i will be traveling in rural areas and will not be able to refigerate my film, or even get it developed for weeks, possibly a few months. Ive heard to stay away from professional grade b/c of the high maintence....is this true...a little help please!!!

[NullMcNullkins]

"Although a Kodak representative told me that Royal Supra is the same as Portra 400UC, it's not true. Royal Supra 400 appears to be the same as High Definition 400. .... I don't think we're about to get a straight answer from Kodak on this. "

 

That's interesting. I e-mailed Kodak awhile back, and they said that Royal Supra 400 was Portra UC 400. While I've never checked the spec sheets myself, I was also told that they're identical, too.

[ryan_taylor1]

Regarding professional film: so long as you are able to keep it relatively cool such as in an air conditioned room, you won't have any problems. I have often done shoots where I kept the exposed (and unexposed) film in an airconditioned room for several weeks before processing and it was fine. Just be sure that you don't leave it in a hot car or something like that. The only place you could run into trouble is if you were doing product shots and trying to match precisely the color of each roll. Since you aren't doing that, you'd be hard-pressed to find any difference in film kept at room temp. versus refrigerated.

[ryan_taylor1]

Regarding film, run some tests at home first. Get a few rolls of different film and do some test shoots of the different films on the same scene. Look at how each film renders the scene and decide which one you like. Also try rating each film a little slower (giving more exposure). In my experience print film prints better with about a 1/3 stop overexposure - so rate 100 film at 80. My 1/3 stop overexposure is just a generalization and I suggest you try it out during some tests. As a final recommendation, bring an extra camera. If you could bring your father's minolta with a 50 mm lens that would be perfect. It doesn't take up much room and if your camera crapped out when you came upon that perfect scene, all would not be lost.

[maxasst]

I have been very pleased with Walgreens store-branded 400 ASA(actually Agfa Vista) film developed through Qualex (which our local Walmart apparently uses) this summer, my best cheap combination. This achieves very bold colors yet good rendition of brown, light brown skin tones my family has. My experience with other films is as follows: Royal Supra and Royal Gold caused a very harsh orangey skin tone, Fuji's Superia 400 does a fair job with color but blocks up with contrast in highlights, and Agfa 400 HDC is grainy for brown skin but with good rendition of blues and reds. Kodak Max 400 gives vibrant but blocked up colors and very mottled skin tones, and is the worst by my eye. Fuji NPH is able to capture the broad range of contrasts and does a very nice rendition of skin tones especially with overexposure, but at the expense of seeming more dull and less "vacation-like", to coin a term. I took some pictures of a newborn on the same roll which came out spectacular, but pictures at the Golden Gate bridge seemed very muted and boring on NPH. Kodak Regular Supra does a good job like NPH and with flash, but since production has stopped, you might end up with older film if you buy this. So, for this past vacation, I brought some Fuji NPH 400ASA for a christening, Walgreens (AGFA Vista) 200ASA for beach and daytime pictures, and alot of Walgreens 400ASA for general pictures indoors and out. I threw in one roll of the new Kodak HD400 which we used at the beach and in a restaurant as an experiment/trial.

 

I hope this helps.

[bill_tuthill]

<I>Royal Supra 400 appears to be the same as High Definition 400 [not

Portra 400UC]</I>

<P>

I just spent some time looking at the three datasheets, and the PGIs

(39 versus 40) support RS400 being the same as HD400, while the

inclusion of push-1 characteristic curves support RS400 being the

same as 400UC. Guess somebody will have to test them. I posted my

findings of major differences between HD400 and 400UC

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005KOU">

in this thread</A>.