pphaneuf

While the 50mm/f1.4 USM is niftier (if you have enough money, get it!), there's just no excuse to not have the 50mm/f1.8. It's noisy and not so fast, but it's adequate. Manually focusing with it is next to impossible, but boy, is there good glass in the lens, and for next to nothing!

Another yelp for NPZ. It has no tolerance for underexposure, though, but has no problem with (reasonable) overexposure, so I concur with the setting your camera at ISO 640, 520 or 400 (experiment a bit to see what works best for you, I like 640 myself). But the same is true of Reala, so...

While the Canon DSLRs have an annoying boot-up delay and horrible viewfinders (and I'm only used to an EOS-30/Elan 7, think how digusted I'd be if I had an EOS-1 or EOS-3!), their shutter lag is on par with comparable film SLRs.

 

I also find that pre-focusing helps a ton with my Canon S45 digital P&S. It's not always possible, but I sometimes stand there, prefocussed, holding the shutter release half-way, for up to a minute, waiting for the "decisive moment", or using the manual focus, when appropriate. While the actual shutter release isn't the fastest thing in the world, these things take forever to autofocus...

You might say that the point of Velvia is to bring strong colors where there aren't any. It is very saturated, but even more contrasty, so the strong colors are a lie. Some other films are much less contrast (so they won't prop up a small amount of color into bright flashes), but they'll go all the way on the saturation scale if you do have the colors in the first place (such as with flowers). For example, Fuji Reala is like that.

Regarding price of digital, I'm not really a high volume shooter, but I spent easily enough on film and development in the three years I have done serious photography to buy a 10D plus a bunch of CompactFlash. If you buy a 10D (or a 300D) now and use it at all (I go out and take pictures maybe a couple of times a month, doing about 4 rolls per month. In canadian money, it cost me about $20 to buy a roll of NPZ (my main film, since I don't shoot much I tend to use good film) and have it developed, for about $2800 (a 10D goes for $2000, and a 300D for $1500). Even if they come out with better cameras, I figure a 10D that takes good pictures today (arguably better than some of the smaller MFs, like 645) will still be doing the same in three years.

 

At the moment, for traveling, storing the pictures and batteries tend to be the biggest annoyances. Having one of these portable hard drives with a CompactFlash reader would help one, and having a spare battery should fix the other (the newest cameras get surprisingly run times on a single charge). Since you will be in well-developed countries, I supposed charging during the night should not pose a problem.

While Sensia 400 is supposed to be the amateur version of Provia 400F, when I looked for it at my local photo store, they sold them at roughtly the same price! So I stuck with Provia 400F.

 

For an (old, not the new 100F) Astia equivalent, Sensia 100 is very good and noticeably cheaper than Astia was. I like it's reasonable contrast and warmth too, so that's nice. Maybe they'll upgrade it to match the Astia 100F or they already, I don't know, I guess I might get a pleasant surprise the next time I buy some!

A nude shot with Velvia, now THAT is vulgar!

I concur with Scott. Astia (or is just-as-good amateur version, Sensia 100) is a fine all-around slide film.

 

Tungsten looks horrible uncorrected (as you get with projected slides, say), use a filter or a flash! ISO 100 plus common tungsten lighting plus appropriate filter generally doesn't give you a fast enough shutter speed, so...

<blockquote><em>The higher contrast of E100G will give the impression of higher saturation in middle tones, but Astia will handle strong colors much better than any Kodak slide film (for that mater so will Velvia or Provia).</em></blockquote>

 

<p>My favorite way of explaining this is that if you have rather boring colors, the higher contrast film would make them pop more, but if you have <em>actually</em> strong colors, then you need a lower contrast film that actually has the saturated pigments to go with it.</p>

 

<p>In the neg films, Fuji Reala is a common victim of this misconception. It's pretty damn low contrast, so people tend to say that it's a dull film that is not very saturated. It's not <em>artificially</em> saturated, that's for sure, but give it strong colors, and it'll take them up and above what many supposedly saturated films will.

 

<p>I will also back Scott's opinion that the Fuji films handle strong colors much better than the Kodak films. I went to Prince Edwards Island two years ago on vacation, and I took landscape pictures that had the place's red dirt. While this dirt is pretty strong colored, it's nowhere near as red as the car in Scott's picture, obviously, but the one roll of Kodak E100VS that I had was at the very edge of color blocking, while the Sensia 100 and Provia 100F had no problems at all, I wouldn't want to see what E100VS would do to that red car!

 

<p>Last I checked (about a month ago), Sensia 100 was similar to the older Astia, not to the newer Astia 100F.

Like Scott said. Reala is truly lovely for landscape work, I find. I like to overexpose it just a bit, by about a third of a stop (I set my camera's ISO to 80). It's fantastic that way.

 

Sensia 100 is also another of my favorites. For slides, I shoot Sensia 100 (which is almost the same as the older Astia), Provia 100F and 400F and Velvia, and after going through my slides a number of times, my girlfriend is adamant: when she uses my camera, she wants "Fuji RA" (Sensia 100, she says that because she looks at the film's edge markings!) in the camera.

I have had excellent result with Fuji Frontier prints from Ilford XP2 Super pushed three stops and rated at 1600. Try it out!

As others have said, go with Fuji Superia-Reala (NOT SUPERIA 100!!!). Velvia just has bad reciprocity characteristics for long exposures. It's theoretically correctable, but it takes so many filters stronger than anything I own that you wouldn't need an ND filter after that! Reala likes a bit of overexposure, so that's perfect for your use (where you might overexpose a bit in an effort to get the milky water).

 

I also recommend getting there early or waiting a bit into the afternoon (2 or 3 hours after sunrise or before sunset), the light is better than the harsh mid-day light...

Fuji NPZ. That's the hot stuff. Fuji showed that they really are the kings of 800 color neg with NHG II and NPZ.

 

As with all Fuji pro negative films, they give a rather optimistic rating that's at the limit of what the film can do (hence not supporting underexposure very well and being able to deal with lots of overexposure). That's why lots of people will rate it at 1/3 of a stop slower than what's on the box (640 for NPZ, 1250 if you push it one stop, which it does well).

Yes, set your camera at 640 for NPZ. It's awesome, as long as you're careful not to underexpose.

 

I also often have poor prints from this film when the scene is dark on purpose (it was dark, so I exposed a stop or a stop and a half below what my camera meter recommended), but only because the operator on the Frontier attempts to "salvage" my picture. You tell him to print dark pictures dark, and everything will be peachy (especially on Frontier, they go well together).

Make sure you don't underexpose the NPZ, it doesn't like that very much... Most people set their camera at something like 640 with this film (seems like most pro/semi-pro negative films from Fuji (Reala, NPH and NPZ, from my experience, maybe others) like 1/3 to 1/2 a stop more light than what the package says).

<p><i>Still, many photo.netters want to believe that they can save some pennies by using a consumer film which, they think, is identical to a more expensive professional one.</i>

 

<p>Sensia 100 is the same as Astia (but not as Astia 100F), Sensia 400 is the same as Provia 400F. But I think that's about it, at least for Kodak and Fuji.

 

<p>He's also perfectly right about the printing, unless you really get to the bottom of the film barrel (Kodak Max 800 anyone?). But between choosing HD400 (this is like Royal Gold 400, right?) and 400UC, or choosing between Wal-Mart and a better lab, I'd worry more about the lab.

My experience with NPZ is that 800 is too much, the colors aren't quite as I like them and if you underexpose just a bit, it starts graining up pretty quick.

 

Basically, overexposure also reduces the sharpness, as Scott explained. I found that at 640, I had all the colors I needed and a bit of safety against underexposure. I know about some people liking 500, and I can understand, and I know that some use 400, like you said, but I find that excessive.

<center><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1044037"><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1044037&size=md"></a></center>

 

<p>This has been taken on XP2, pushed 3 stops and overexposed by one stop (my camera was set at 1600). This was on an overcast day, so the scene contrast was very low. A one stop push should be a piece of cake. I'd set my camera at 640.

Alex, you want Fuji NPZ. Rate it at 640 maximum (feel experiment at 500 or even 400, but it is so sensitive to underexposure that 800 is not quite good). It's almost a stop faster too and looks amazing on a Frontier.

 

I have to admit not having tried UC, and it *is* the very latest Kodak brought out and is well spoken of, but before UC, properly exposed NPZ on a Frontier could whip any 400 Kodak made on any paper, that's for sure.

Scott Eaton said "XP2 lacks the orange mask of Portra B/W and T400CN, so it's tougher for conventional labs to get neutral prints from".

 

On color paper, that is. Conventional B&W prints are actually easier without the orange mask.

<center><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1044037"><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1044037"></a></center>

 

<p>This has been shot on Ilford XP2 Super, setting the ISO on my camera to 1600 and having the lab push process it by 3 stops. The weather was overcast, so the scene contrast was low, but XP can obviously stand a few stops of pushing without breaking a sweat (it's rather low contrast to start with).

Push it. I like to over expose it a bit, so I do stuff like shooting it at 800 and giving it a two stop push at the lab. Works like magic. Still not too much density range (I'm all with Scott on this, get Provia 100F and desaturate), but the contrast will get the kick in the pants that it deserves.

 

If you've got a high contrast situation, use it as-is. If you need really high speed, the increased contrast is still manageable because it was so low to start with. XP2 is really great. :-)

I'd expect a Fuji Frontier B&W print from a Sensia 100 slide to be really sweet, with good tonality and crisp contrast. I only do this stuff on my computer monitor though, never printed it (I'm not much of a "printer type").

I have an Elan 7e, and I find the metering to be rather accurate, but within the limits of a reflected light meter. That is, if I shoot something darker or lighter than a midtone, I compensate accordingly.

 

I generally use the center weighted metering, as I don't like the unpredictability of the evaluative metering. Happened to me a few times that I had a really bright source in the frame, a bit too close to the middle, and I dialed in something like -1.5 stop of compensation, but the evaluative metering had already done so for me, so it was completely underexposed (checking the same scene with the center-weighted metering proved me right). On the other hand, maybe if I left it alone (no compensation), it *might* be good, but I like doing the work and I trust myself better.

 

When I'm going slow, doing landscape for example, I almost always use the partial metering, evaluating various parts of the scene separately to compute the proper overall exposure. It is accurate enough for that work, at least for me (note that I am a 50/50 user of slide and neg films).

 

In the studio, I always use a handheld incident meter. Plus, you can't meter flash exposition with the in-camera meter, so in that case it's certain to be the handheld meter getting whipped out.

Is the side of that building in the shadow of the sun, or is it getting direct sunlight? If this is sunlight, things are weird. But if this is light coming from the sky (which is BLUE, eheh!) or the clouds (which are not quite as blue, but relatively much more so than the yellow sun), then you've got a simple color temperature problem (the xxxxK thing).

 

I would guess that the G2 is in auto color balance mode. Set it to daylight for a fair comparison with slide film.

 

Well, "fair" is not the word I'm looking for. More direct comparison, with less variables. The fact that you have color balance adjustment on digital cameras is one of their biggest feature!