What ISO is best for all round handheld (minimum 1/90)?

[toan_pham]

Hi,

 

I have a slow zoom (f/3.5-4.5) with a focal max focal length of 85mm.

Therefore I think that in order to hand hold most of my shots, I must

have a shutter speed of 1/90 or faster. I prefer to use available

light and not use flash as my built-in flash (Nikon F75) is extremely

weak. For this I would want a fast film.

 

On the otherhand I like to be able to fill-flash in daylight but my

sync is only 1/90 so have to stop down. But stopping down too much

loses quality as well as making the DOF too big for taking pictures

of flowers etc.. with a blurred background. Thus I would want a

slower film.

 

Can you please reccommend me a good all round ISO. I was thinking

about Fuji NPZ 800? What is everyone's opinion about this film? Or

would you recommend something like Fuji Press? I don't know much

about Kodak's (or any other brand's) range so open to suggestions.

 

I am interested in good colour reproduction and grain size. My first

experience with Agfa Vista 800 was shocking. Everything was soo pale,

no saturation whatsoever. Maybe the airport X-ray killed my film.

 

Look forward to hearing your advices.

 

Thanks heaps in advance.

[moli_luo]

<p>ISO 800 is very very high speed film for outdoor shooting. Using hte sunny 16 rule, if you use 100 speed film, you'd get f/16 aperture with about a 1/90 shutter speed. You can then calculate from that (ISO 50 f/8, etc), but with 1/90 x-sync, you probably won't be getting too shallow a depth of field. </p>

<p>Fuji Reala 100 is a great low speed all around print film. If you're not shooting people, then try Fuji Velvia 50. It's a superb low speed slide film. Also, you should take a look at this site for more film recommendations:

http://www.nikonians.com/html/resources/jrp_faq/jrp_faq_what_film/faq_what_film_to_use.html</p>

[fourfa]

they have a funky set of film recommendations...

 

my answer, for what it's worth: there is no one film that will do all you want. Use a mix of 50/100 and 400/800, rewind midroll when it's time to change film, and get a film leader retriever to start again from the middle of the roll later.

 

if that's too much trouble, use 400/800 all the time plus a dark neutral-density filter when it's too bright.

[EricM]

Toan, the NPZ is a great film, even pushes well to 1600. Kodak doesn't have a film that can compete in this asa range, and for Agfa...what were you thinking? Also, when i got my F90X years ago, i went to Nikon and they programed my camera so i had to hit the rewind buttons twice to rewind completley, if i only hit them once, it would rewind and leave the leader out, so i could stop mid roll. My F100 has this too, maybe yours? As mentioned above, it would be nice to swap film when wanted/need.

[EricM]

Toan, Sorry, just re read your post and should of mentioned that you only need the 90th shutter speed at the larger focal lengths. What is your zoom? If you have a 24-85 or whatever, then when you are shooting down around 24mm, you can get away with a 30th second exposure handheld.

[harry_akiyoshi]

A good all-around film is FujiPress 800. It's cheaper than NPZ, and will produce 8x10s with basically no grain if you shoot at 500. I buy it in twenty-roll packs just to have around -- it's something to throw in your bag if you're not sure exactly what's coming. I do the same thing with HP5+ for black and white film.

 

You either want a slower film or a neutral density filter for outdoor shots of flowers. Slower film will be higher in quality and easier to use. Try Reala.

 

It strikes me as odd that so many people like to shoot parts of a roll and then come back to it later. I tend to shoot whole rolls at a time -- maybe it's just how I think. If I were going to take pictures of flowers, I'd take a roll of flower pictures. A roll is kind of the minimum I'm willing to commit to anything. The only exception is street photography, which I do on kind of an ongoing basis almost continuously.

[the_macman]

Kodak Portra 400UC. It's new, only a few months old on the market. Rich and

deep color saturation. I shot portraits outside on sunny days using NPZ and

400UC. The NPZ seemed dull in comparison, a perfect natural tone film, but a

"quiet" one. No accents, nothing eye catching (again, it depends on what you

want). There is an ongoing debate whether Portra 400UC is suitable for

skintones. It certainly adds a certain punch which is a tad unnatural, kind of a

rosy glow... I absolutely love it, some don't... Kodak claims the grain of the

400UC is comparable to their other Portra ISO 160 films. I didn't scientifically

compared it but from the enlargements I made I must say it does have a

fantastic grain for a 400. I'm seduced and adopted it. Give it a try.

[the_macman]

Also, consider that in some cases a film intended for vivid color reproduction

may be the best choice if you're looking to capture the natural look of things

through an average or below average glass. Often you can kind of

compensate the glass' weakness by a film which adds some moderate punch.

That's an incomplete, partial and vague theory. However, in many cases

"natural" films tend to be fragile in the sense that they need the "natural" lens

along, meaning a lens which truthfully conveys color with accuracy, obviously

higher end and above-average lenses. Simply put... if you use a good natural

color film with a Quantary it will most likely look washed-out and dull. Again,

this arizes from experience and it's certainly not valid for all lenses/films

combination, but consider it as two variables which have to be matched

carefully.

[roman_kuznetsov]

It depends... Currently, my all-round print film is Royal Supra 400. More than adequate grain, nice colors, nice skin tones, fast enough, cheap. Also, I like Agfa's Optima Prestige 400. Try it! Worked very good for winter scenes, sharp, but unfortuneally not so fine-grained as RS400.

 

People believe that RS400 in Europe is close to American Portra UC and HD400.

[fourfa]

"It strikes me as odd that so many people like to shoot parts of a roll and then come back to it later. I tend to shoot whole rolls at a time -- maybe it's just how I think. If I were going to take pictures of flowers, I'd take a roll of flower pictures. A roll is kind of the minimum I'm willing to commit to anything."

 

that's cool if you have the budget for it. when I was processing superia at costco, I did the same. with pro films at pro labs even E6 adds up fast, never mind a competent printer with negs or B&W.

[EricM]

"It strikes me as odd that so many people like to shoot parts of a roll and then come back to it later. I tend to shoot whole rolls at a time -- maybe it's just how I think. If I were going to take pictures of flowers, I'd take a roll of flower pictures. A roll is kind of the minimum I'm willing to commit to anything."

 

I always load and reload, it's not about price, it's about carrying your camera around with you and finding spontaneous shots or oppurtunities. Do a few frames of velvia at a couple different f stops, swap lenses, rewind, do a couple more frames with B&W, rewind, do a couple in cross process. Walk on. Couldn't imagine a whole roll on a flower.

[EricM]

I've re read Toans post, and he/she is talking about fast films...although mixes it up because no one would shoot flowers on an 800 film anyway.

 

NPZ 800 is the best fastest film (can't believe someone compared it too a 400), in my opinion. A four layer emulsion film that can be corrected under any light, scans really well, and pushes one stop without much notice. Fuji Press is cheaper, yes, because it's inferior. Period.

[toan_pham]

Looks like that mid roll change is the way to go. But I have F75, does it have the custom function you described to leave the leader out? Can it be programmed by Nikon? It does have custom function but I don't recall that any of them allows rewind with leader out.

 

Thanks heaps.

[EricM]

You might have to contact Nikon, i had to take my F90X in and they did it in a matter of seconds. My F100 has been programmed the same way, but i can't remember if i took it in or if it's in the custom settings...

[harry_akiyoshi]

I don't know that FujiPress is inferior to NPZ, only different. NPZ has slightly higher resolution and less grain at higher EIs, and it pushes better. It also has more muted colors and looks flat in low-constrast situations at 800.

 

I don't think Toan will see any benefit from using NPZ. I still use it when I need to push-process, or when I want more natural skin tones, but the cost/benefit ratio is too high for my taste for general shooting.<div></div>

[EricM]

Andrew, you're right, it is a flat film in flat lighting, i usually expose @500 for this. I'm not a big time user of fast print films anyway, but when i've had too, i did my tests and didn't care for the fuji press much. I was also shooting under a mix of tungsten and flouresent, so i needed the four emulsion film. That's a great image, could even mistake it for E6.

[mark_uhde]

"Maybe the airport X-ray killed my film."

 

It certainly didn't help. The airport X-ray WILL damage any and all film, regardless of speed. The extent varies. 400 and above - it can definitely be noticeable. Request hand inspection, but note that outside the US and Canada you may have a hard time - in the US and Canada it's your right! Also, the cosmic radiation in the airplane cabin doesn't help either...

[christopher_bibbs]

"It certainly didn't help. The airport X-ray WILL damage any and all film, regardless of speed. The extent varies. 400 and above - it can definitely be noticeable. Request hand inspection, but note that outside the US and Canada you may have a hard time - in the US and Canada it's your right! Also, the cosmic radiation in the airplane cabin doesn't help either..."

 

I don't know about all airports, but at least Detroit Metro and Orlando Int'l refused to hand inspect my film as it was "only" rated as 400ISO. I believe their cutoff was 800ISO, but I'm not sure if that was the lowest speed they hand inspected or the highest they machine scanned. I developed all of them myself and a few are clearly fogged.

[Spearhead]

Oh here we go again.

 

The only way to tell if your film is damaged by airport machines is to have two identical rolls, shot at the same time, processed at the same time, with one going through the machine and one not.

 

FWIW, I've traveled through numerous airports that would not hand check film, some in places where language was an issue so I couldn't really argue the point, yet none of it has ever been fogged. Much of it 400 speed film shot between 400 and 1600. Now I'm probably more finicky about processing than a lot of people on the forum, so maybe the reduced likelihood of processing errors has an impact here.