The right film for the job

[john_aceti]

Can someone please correct these statements? I am somewhat new to

photography and want to make sure I understand which film I should

use for the right shots.

 

From my recent reading this is what I have surmised.

 

Kodak Porta 160VC - use only for studio work, Fine Grain, good for

enlargements

 

Kodak Portra 400UC - Would be good for weddings where background

colors are equally important as the subject.

 

Fuji Superia Reala 100 - Good for outdoor sunny shots where low

contrast or "Softness" is desired

 

Kodak 100TMax - Good for outdoor or studio where extremely fine grain

where enlargement may be desired.

 

Kodak 400Tmax - Good for indoor/outdoor where a greater depth of

field is needed.

 

Kodak Gold 200 - Ok general film, where I do not expect to do any

enlargements

 

Kodak Gold 400 - Ok film when subjects will be moving such as

shooting son or daughter in a soccer game etc. Enlargements may be

grainy

 

Fuji Velvia - Mind blowing color slide film, would be great for

landscape in the tropics, sunsets etc. Is best to over expose shots

slightly by changing ISO on camera slightly.

[steve_levine]

It sounds like you have read every myth/legend here at PHOTO.NET.Id suggest shooting some films & see what you like,rather than listening to so much mis-information.

[EricM]

Well, John, this going to warm up the flame throwers! :-)

 

There�s only three Kodak films here I�d use, the Tmax 100 and the Portra�s�and that�s a maybe. The thing that bugs me about Kodak, is everytime I turn around, there�s a �new� film, and the old familiar ones aren�t. Or they�re the same film in a different box. Or the same box with a different film. The recent Tri-x thing was the last straw for me. I still love and use the EPT, EPJ, EPN, EPP.

 

Portra 160VC- try Fuji NPS/NPC, you might like

 

Portra 400UC- try the Fuji NPH for weddings

 

Superia Reala- good film, okay for people too and colourful clothing, (with a good correction for skin tones)

 

Kodak 100TMax- I like Ilfords Delta 100�

 

Kodak 400Tmax- perhaps the trickiest T technology film out there for great tonal range. Behaves well in HC-110

 

Kodak Gold 200-yuk

 

Kodak Gold 400-yuk

 

Fuji Velvia-mind blowing yes, saturation yes, grain yes. Kodachrome 64 is popular in this bracket too

 

And a mention for Provia 100F is worthy, as well as Astia.

 

Let the festivities begin�

[constance_cook]

John:

 

UC is a wonderful film for landscape,travel, and I also use it for street photography if I want color.

Conni

[phule]

For every film that exists there are 50 different opinions on how it should be used.

 

There's just no way you're going to get anything but differing opinions about these products on photo.net. The best bet (as has already been mentioned) is to try them out yourself.

 

Stick with what you like for consistant results but be sure to not limit yourself to only those films. Sometimes there's a gem of a film just waiting to be used that matches up with the photographer really well.

[jonathan_bundick]

Buy 3-4 rolls of each type you are interested in. Shoot under various lighting conditions. Have some prints made. Then buy in bulk the films YOU like. You can spend countless hours on Photo.net reading the archives on film choice. Narrow your choices, buy some flim and go shoot.

[everheul]

For any of the color print films, just make sure that you have a good lab. The pimple faced, minimimum wage goons behind the photo counter at wallgreens, Longs, et al could screw up a wet dream if given the chance.

 

If you are just starting out, and don't expect to be doing your own processing, I'd stick to the color films for now. You can always de-saturate in photoshop and print in B/W if you like.

 

If you do expect to try processing/printing for B/W pick one film/developer combo and stick with it for a long enough time to get a feel for what the film/developer can and can't do. I stuck with Tri-x/D76 1:1 for years and find myself reverting back to this quite frequently. If you have the means, I highly recommend trying your own processing...even when you screw up, it is still fun to experiment.

 

Of the color films you listed my personal favorites are reala and portra UC400. My lab prints on Agfa Prestige paper. I've had prints from UC400 on Royal paper from another (pro)lab that looked great, but the Reala on the same Royal paper didn't look so good. When re-printed at my usual (photo express of all places)lab on prestige, the prints came out better...I have no idea if this was a function of the operators at the respective labs or the paper itself.

 

There are others out there MUCH more knowledgable on what papers will work best with these films. This is just my 2 cents worth as to what works for me.

 

Have fun and just start shooting.

 

Cheers

[jim_appleyard]

John, the answers you gave were not WRONG, it's just that there is a lot of gray area in between. Many photogrqaphers shoot weddings with Porta 160 NC. Is 400 better? Maybe. Is 800 better? For some photographers it is. Yes, Kodak Gold 200 is a good general film, but if you use a tripod, a good lens and give it a good exposure, you can get a very nice enlargement out of it. Is Velvia better? Maybe. There are too many variables. Follow the advice given above about trying 3-4 rolls and see what YOU like. I would try 10 rolls, however.

[lex_jenkins]

I'm a b&w guy so when I choose to use color film I wanna know it's gonna work for the job at hand without having to run a dozen trials. So my selection tends to be fairly limited.

 

For slides, Provia 100F for a compromise between saturation, contrast control, fine grain and sharpness; and Kodachrome 64, because I'm a bit sentimental.

 

For serious color prints, Fuji Reala (for landscapes, etc.), NPS, NPH and NPZ (for portraiture, weddings, etc.). And now, based on comments from folks whose opinions I respect (like Scott Eaton), I'd be willing to try 400UC on an appropriate project.

 

For snapshots, Kodak Gold 100 (great skin tones) and Fuji Superia Xtra 800 (great latitude, color fidelity under mixed lighting, cheap and available anywhere).

 

I know there are more perfectly good color films out there. I just don't have time to research them.

 

B&W films? Don't get me started - I love experimenting with them and developers. If you want a recommendation for just one you can't go wrong with Tri-X. Match the exposure index to the developer and subject matter or desired result and you can do just about anything with this proven film. From EI 100 in Microdol-X to EI 1250 in Diafine (faster in other developers) it can do just about anything reasonably well.

[aguilabrava]

You should also try Konica Impresa 50 (expose it at EI 32)and Fujicolor NPS 160 (expose it at EI 125).

[oskar_ojala]

I like "mind blowing" for Velvia...exactly who's mind is blown is left out, apparently the interpretation is left to the reader :-)

 

Seriously, my opinions only: skip everything that says "kodak gold". If you want speed, good colors, good versatility and fine grain, use Kodak Portra 400UC (skip everything that says "Portra VC" too - it's either UC, NC or Fuji for me.) Keep everything simple in the beginning: you will do well with superia reala and 400UC as the only color neg films you start with.

 

For BW, I recommend starting with Agfa APX100, Kodak Tri-X, Ilford FP4+ or HP5+. TMax films have very fine grain, but the tonality is not always the best and they are generally more "difficult" films than the ones I listed.

[Robert_Lai]

The bottom line is for you to try different film until you get a look that you like, and then to keep using that stuff.<p>For colour negative film, I find the variability of the printer is such a great factor that I really don't care what I use. I just pick up whatever is cheapest at the supermarket. Yes, you may laugh, but it seems to work out fine. Because of the praises that the following have had in photo.net, I picked up by mail order Fuji Reala and Agfa Ultra 100. I've not shot enough with it to make any valid conclusions yet.<p>I rarely shoot ISO 400 films, as my last experiences with them was in the 1980s, and ISO 400 films usually gave golf-ball size grain with chalk and coal contrast. Lately, I found Konica Super Centuria in 27 exposure rolls at Price Chopper for the equivalent of $1.30 per roll (in a 5 pack). I've been impressed with its low grain, normal colour rendition and moderate contrast.<p>Slides don't have any intervention from a third party after development, so I'm more fussy about these. As Lex Jenkins has already stated, Kodachrome 64 gives very nice skin tones. The palette is somewhat muted in comparison to today's oversaturated E6 films. If you pick up a National Geographic from the 70s or the 80s, you'll instantly recognize the K64 look.<p>Kodak's new Ektachrome E100G and E100Gx are also great films. I've used a fair amount of both. Very sharp, with saturated but not unrealistic colours. I'm still not certain what Gx gives over the G, as G is already warm to my eye. I also use Velvia 50, but my uses for it are somewhat limited as I don't do a lot of landscape. I just bought it, along with the K64 to keep the manufacturers interested in making the stuff, and holding off their day of extinction a little longer.<p>B&W is even more personal. I can't find a decent lab to process it. I've developed my own in the past, and that is really your best route with the traditional B&W films. I'm just now trying chromogenic B&W film, so I don't have any opinions with it yet. If you get interested enough, buy a bulk roll of the B&W film and spool your own. I still have bulk rolls of Ilford Pan F, Kodak Tmax 100, and Tech Pan in the basement. The order that I mention them is also the order of fussiness in developing. I don't print my B&W negs, instead I make B&W slides out of them using Kodak 5302 positive print film. It's a movie film that is used for the final movie print (i.e. the roll that you view in the cinema). Because it's made for projection, it will last virtually forever under the heat of a projector. Having silver grains making the image, said image never fades.

[imaginator]

First, consider film speed, regardless of the specific film qualities. Slower films are best, especially for big enlargements, but sometimes you need a faster film because of subject movement or camera movement (handheld). This is because you can use a faster shutter speed with the faster films (a fast lens helps also) You really need to understand exposure to make sense of all this. have you read the Learn section here on photo.net? There is a good article on Film that will ge you started. After you choose a films speed (for a particular situation) then get into the specific film qualities, and also consider how the film will be used (some films scan better than others) Ignore all generalizations, like "good for zoom lenses", "for good depth of field", ect. This is meaningless and confusing! Film speed is directly related to exposure (lens aperture and shutter speed) The lens aperture is chosen for the depth of field needed, shutter speed is chosen to avoid motion blur issues (subject movement, camera movement) Finally, consider what light will be used... sunlight, shade, artificial lights, moonlight, ect. and choose a film that works well in that light (or combination of light)

[discpad]

John,<br><br>

 

In these days of the Great Digital Upheaval, you need to look at your workflow preferences, especially when enlarging prints past about 8x10. <br><br>

 

<b><i> Why do I recommend this examination of your workflow? </i></b> <br><br>

 

It depends on whether your workflow involves digital, or optical output. If your output is optical, on a printer with a skilled operator, then C41 negs are OK... Until you need a Big Print, when it has to go into an enlarger and the costs go ballistic due to the labor and materials required to get a perfect print. <br><br>

 

On the other hand, if your workflow involves digital output, either on an inkjet printer or on a laser/LED photo printer (like a Lambda or LightJet), then shooting slides makes the scanning process (crossing the bridge from optical to digital) infinitely easier, since it's intuitive, i.e. you can compare what's on the screen to the chrome in your hand, and adjust accordingly. <br><br>

 

<b><i> On the other hand, </i></b> shooting C41 negative film has one MAJOR advantage, which wedding/event shooters leverage: Exposure latitude. You can shove a roll of Kodak Gold 800 into a disposable camera and get *reasonably* good results indoors and out, in situations where either a digital camera or chromes just won't produce even barely acceptable images due to their limited exposure latitude. <br><br><b>

 

You'll notice that I don't try to dictate which is the best film -- <i> But I want to make sure you know the workflow consequences of your choices.

 

</i></b> <br><br>

From the lab, <br>

Dan Schwartz

[john_aceti]

Photoshoot is today!

Subject: "Hooters Girl" for the calendar

Output Required: They want 8x10 bikini shot and 8x10 uniform shot

(She also would like some headshots)

 

Todays WX: Full sun, shooting between 3-5:30PM have reflector boards in case of strong shadows, light will be nearly perpendicular to the waterfall and should have a lot of glimer off the falling water. This I hope will have a cool effect when I reduce depth of field. Angle of light will be about 45 degrees to the models right side on many of the shots.

 

Film: Porta 160vc, Porta 400UC, Reala 100, TMAX 100, Superia 200. (not sure why they don't require slides)

 

Camera: Sigma SA7, Sigma Lenses, from 50 - 300 depending on shot

 

Location: Waterfall background, small soft white sand shore. There will be a lot of gray in the background due to the time of year and few leaves on the trees.

 

Model: Absolutely stunning petite brunette. I don't think a "bad" picture of her is possible.

 

Planning on using the 160vc amd the TMAX for headshots, the remaining rolls for body shots.

 

Will post sample photo when done!

 

I am a bit tense, this is only my second modeling shoot. Yes, I will be using a tripod with a remote controlled shutter.

[john_aceti]

Well after about 25 minutes of shooting pictures

 

I asked her if she felt comfortable about being photographed, she said yes and it was fun. I then looked at the top of the camera to my surprise I said to her, Good, now lets try it again, this time with FILM IN THE CAMERA!!

 

I thought she was going to kill me but instead she burst out laughing, it was probably a good thing because after that, the nerviousness of the shoot went away and became a fun event.

 

I think she liked the publicity, there was a group of guys watching the shoot from a distance while other vehicles kept coming into the parking lot and S L O W L Y turn around. You have to understand, it is February here in NC and will be some time before guys see women in bikini's.

 

We were so lucky that the weather turned out nice, it actually got quite warm during the shoot.

 

So, I ended up using (after my virtual roll of film) Kodak Porta 400UC, Reala 100 and Porta 160VC. All three rolls were very fresh film kept refrigerated until 5 hrs before hand.

 

The result? Remarkable colors, fine grain and exceptional quality on all three rolls. I really like the portra films especially with the polarizing filter on.

 

A great turn out, great photos and a lot of fun.<div></div>