What film for wildlife photography in 1997?

**RedRuff** · 02-03-2021, 01:43 PM - **1 Like**

This might be fun (and probably in the wrong forum) but...

...as a big Jurassic Park fan I put together a Nikon F5, 85mm 1.8D lens, and Hoya HMC Skylight filter as a copy of the one used in The Lost World (They also used F100's but bleh

). I want to get round to taking some nice photos of it and other Jurassic Park-y equipment but I thought it'd be cool to include some appropriate rolls of film for flavour.

So what would a wildlife photographer use film-wise, money no object, in 1997? After scouring the "discontinued films" Wikipedia page I ended up with Ektar 1000 as being pretty fast and pro-grade but there might be a better or more accurate option. I don't know enough about older films or wildlife photography (I just shove fistfuls of Portra 400 into my camera to shoot sheep).

Cheers

stevebrot · 02-03-2021, 02:03 PM - **2 Likes**

The short answer would be Kodachrome 64 Professional since most magazines required it. (At least that is what my wildlife photographer friends told me and what they were shooting up until they went digital.)

Steve

**gofour3** · 02-03-2021, 03:24 PM - **1 Like**

+1 for some flavor of Kodachrome, 25 or 64 or 200.

Phil.

**dms** · 02-03-2021, 05:10 PM

Since you cannot get Kodachrome, Ektachrome would be a film also used and it is made again.

With color negative it is much harder to get the color adjusted and likely slide had higher resolution (especially Kodachrome). With slides you see the colors and can then adjust if need be.

**Ron Boggs** · 02-03-2021, 05:29 PM

By the late '90's the publication game was largely Fuji Velvia for anything possible at that slow speed (50), Kodak chrome films popular in the '80's had fallen away by the early '90's but bounced back with E100VS for "very saturated" in 1999. Fuji Provia 400 got the high speed nod along with some holdout Ektachrome 200 fans--both were so grainy that we all tried to stay with Velvia 50 and Provia 100. I probably still have each of these films in the freezer...35mm and 120 rolls if you need them for accuracy and want them cheap--like free. Can't recall anybody in the late '90's using Kodachrome 64 other than scientific "record" stuff requiring less saturated colors. Pretty much all magazine work was Fuji by then. Check the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Contest books for worldwide "prove its" or to see that I'm correct on this if you doubt me.

**roberrl** · 02-04-2021, 08:32 AM

+1 for the Fuji slide films for magazine use.
I was told that they had more saturated colours so that after the loss from printing they looked right.
That may not suit your use.

**gofour3** · 02-04-2021, 10:41 AM

A 2013 quote from the National Geographic Photographer, Steve McCurry who took the famous "Afghan Girl" photo using Kodachrome back in 1984:

I’ve been shooting digital for years, but I don’t think you can make a better photograph under certain conditions than you can with Kodachrome. If you have good light and you’re at a fairly high shutter speed, it’s going to be a brilliant color photograph. It had a great color palette. It wasn’t too garish. Some films are like you’re on a drug or something. Velvia made everything so saturated and wildly over-the-top, too electric. Kodachrome had more poetry in it, a softness, an elegance. With digital photography, you gain many benefits [but] you have to put in post-production. [With Kodachrome] you take it out of the box and the pictures are already brilliant.

Phil.

stevebrot · 02-04-2021, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

Velvia made everything so saturated and wildly over-the-top, too electric.

I shot Fujichrome 100* during the 1990s for landscapes with excellent results, but Velvia RVP was simply too much for my subjects. I would never have considered it at the time for use where color fidelity or general tonality were a priority. As for Velvia (released 1990) eclipsing Kodachrome 64 by 1993 (Jurassic Park), I think not.

Steve

* It may have been labeled Fujichrome Professional 100 at the time, but short of unmounting a few slides to check the edge imprint, it is hard to tell.

**RedRuff** · 02-04-2021, 01:13 PM

Thanks for all the replies. Some really interesting stuff! I'm not particularly looking to the film so I'll likely be looking at expired stuff.

I will shoot Ron Boggs a PM though!

**ChrisPlatt** · 02-04-2021, 05:55 PM - **1 Like**

Kodachrome might be "period correct" but today it cannot be processed as color slides.

I'd choose fresh current (new) Ektachrome E100 for good results with the right "look".

Chris

02-03-2021, 01:43 PM - 1 Like	#1
RedRuff Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 145	What film for wildlife photography in 1997? This might be fun (and probably in the wrong forum) but... ...as a big Jurassic Park fan I put together a Nikon F5, 85mm 1.8D lens, and Hoya HMC Skylight filter as a copy of the one used in The Lost World (They also used F100's but bleh ). I want to get round to taking some nice photos of it and other Jurassic Park-y equipment but I thought it'd be cool to include some appropriate rolls of film for flavour. So what would a wildlife photographer use film-wise, money no object, in 1997? After scouring the "discontinued films" Wikipedia page I ended up with Ektar 1000 as being pretty fast and pro-grade but there might be a better or more accurate option. I don't know enough about older films or wildlife photography (I just shove fistfuls of Portra 400 into my camera to shoot sheep). Cheers

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Comedy Wildlife Photography Awards 2020 finalists - something to cheer you up	Des	General Photography	17	10-20-2022 06:20 PM
Comedy Wildlife Photography Awards 2019	jeallen01	General Talk	2	10-04-2019 08:50 AM
Binoculars as part of wildlife photography kit	leonine	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	30	04-08-2019 07:09 PM
Misc 1997 Medical Mission	johnmflores	Post Your Photos!	9	09-30-2010 10:16 PM

02-03-2021, 02:03 PM - 2 Likes	#2
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	The short answer would be Kodachrome 64 Professional since most magazines required it. (At least that is what my wildlife photographer friends told me and what they were shooting up until they went digital.) Steve

02-03-2021, 03:24 PM - 1 Like	#3
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	+1 for some flavor of Kodachrome, 25 or 64 or 200. Phil.

02-03-2021, 05:10 PM	#4
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	Since you cannot get Kodachrome, Ektachrome would be a film also used and it is made again. With color negative it is much harder to get the color adjusted and likely slide had higher resolution (especially Kodachrome). With slides you see the colors and can then adjust if need be.

02-03-2021, 05:29 PM	#5
Ron Boggs Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: MT Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,349	By the late '90's the publication game was largely Fuji Velvia for anything possible at that slow speed (50), Kodak chrome films popular in the '80's had fallen away by the early '90's but bounced back with E100VS for "very saturated" in 1999. Fuji Provia 400 got the high speed nod along with some holdout Ektachrome 200 fans--both were so grainy that we all tried to stay with Velvia 50 and Provia 100. I probably still have each of these films in the freezer...35mm and 120 rolls if you need them for accuracy and want them cheap--like free. Can't recall anybody in the late '90's using Kodachrome 64 other than scientific "record" stuff requiring less saturated colors. Pretty much all magazine work was Fuji by then. Check the BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Contest books for worldwide "prove its" or to see that I'm correct on this if you doubt me.

02-04-2021, 08:32 AM	#6
roberrl Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 345	+1 for the Fuji slide films for magazine use. I was told that they had more saturated colours so that after the loss from printing they looked right. That may not suit your use.

02-04-2021, 10:41 AM	#7
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	A 2013 quote from the National Geographic Photographer, Steve McCurry who took the famous "Afghan Girl" photo using Kodachrome back in 1984: I’ve been shooting digital for years, but I don’t think you can make a better photograph under certain conditions than you can with Kodachrome. If you have good light and you’re at a fairly high shutter speed, it’s going to be a brilliant color photograph. It had a great color palette. It wasn’t too garish. Some films are like you’re on a drug or something. Velvia made everything so saturated and wildly over-the-top, too electric. Kodachrome had more poetry in it, a softness, an elegance. With digital photography, you gain many benefits [but] you have to put in post-production. [With Kodachrome] you take it out of the box and the pictures are already brilliant. Phil.

02-04-2021, 12:22 PM	#8
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by gofour3 Velvia made everything so saturated and wildly over-the-top, too electric. I shot Fujichrome 100* during the 1990s for landscapes with excellent results, but Velvia RVP was simply too much for my subjects. I would never have considered it at the time for use where color fidelity or general tonality were a priority. As for Velvia (released 1990) eclipsing Kodachrome 64 by 1993 (Jurassic Park), I think not. Steve * It may have been labeled Fujichrome Professional 100 at the time, but short of unmounting a few slides to check the edge imprint, it is hard to tell.

02-04-2021, 01:13 PM	#9
RedRuff Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2018 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 145 Original Poster	Thanks for all the replies. Some really interesting stuff! I'm not particularly looking to the film so I'll likely be looking at expired stuff. I will shoot Ron Boggs a PM though!

02-04-2021, 05:55 PM - 1 Like	#10
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	Kodachrome might be "period correct" but today it cannot be processed as color slides. I'd choose fresh current (new) Ektachrome E100 for good results with the right "look". Chris

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search