[k100d]

Also, I was wondering if depending on the lens I use, the saturation/colors may change? Or will this hardly be noticable? I am planning on taking my M35/2.8 and M50/1.4 primes, and have the feeling the 50 is slightly sharper and renders colors a little better (comparing them when on my dSLR).

yes there will be differences, but sometimes hard to say exactly what it is. also a lens that may be very good for colour stuff, may not be so good for b&w. e.g. "modern" lenses now tend towards sharp rendering with lots of contrast, which sometimes doesn't show as well in B&W.

[ChrisPlatt]

I like Kodak Gold 100 and hear lots of good things about new Kodak Ektar 100.
Kodak UC400 is very nice. If you can't find it Kodak HD400 gets good reviews.

Chris

[k100d]

400UC is discontinued, so if you like it, grab as much as you can.

[alex.r]

Thanks for the replies Chris and k100d. I saw that Kodak Ektar 100, seemed to be very good as well. However I'm afraid ISO 100 maybe too slow for my general purpose needs, concerning lighting conditions. Although I think I might have to pick a roll up just to see what it's like, do some testing in various lighting...Can hardly resist

[heatherslightbox]

As for 400 speed color film, I'm a fan of Kodak's High Definition 400. It has nice bright colors and is sharp. If you can't get it locally, then B&H has it in 3-packs for just under $10 + shipping.

Kodak | High Definition 135-24 400 - 3 Roll Pack | 1190750 | B&H

I just dropped off a roll of it today for developing and scanning. Once I pick it up tomorrow, I'll post some of my results.

For my 100 speed, I've tried Reala and like it fine, but I'm anxious to try the Ektar 100. Right now, Kodak has a rebate deal going on where you get $5.00 back if you buy 3 rolls of Ektar.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/e...ktarRebate.pdf

If you'd like to use both 100 and 400 speed films while on your trip, you might consider picking up another ME Super and have 1 loaded with 100 and the other loaded with 400.

Heather

[aruxaru]

if you won't be processing the films yourself and if you want full control over what the pictures turn out, i would imagine slide films are what you would be looking into. the caveat though is that you will need to be more careful with exposure (something that may be a little difficult if you are travelling due to unfamiliar weather and lighting).

For E-6, I have always liked Provia 400x, however I have found that Sensia is a great general purpose film too. It's a little more saturated and perhaps on a resolution level, not as good as Provia. They come in 100, 200, 400 speed as well. Although it's a mere "consumer film" (as opposed to the pro line velvia, provia, astia), i think it's a great allarounder.

[lithos]

Alex, if you stopped by in Brugges (heh), I can hook you up with a guy who does nothing but film shooting .

Still, I'd stick with pro C-41 (also called "negative" or "print" or "chromogenic") film if this is important to you. If you've only got one camera, it's handy stuff to have - it reacts better to pushing (underexposing), with less grain.

Granted, this applies mostly to Kodak films, as there's a greater difference between their pro stuff and their consumer stuff - you might find that some Kodak MAX film is made in China. Fuji, on the other hand, tends to (from a practical point of view) use the exact same emulsions for both some of their consumer and pro film, with the only difference being in the quality control and the handling. A good example are the "Press Packs" of Fuji's Superia film - the same as their consumer Fuji film, but kept refrigerated in transit and with better quality control.

Anyway, to end my ramblings, I'd go for the following:

Low Speed: Kodak Portra 160VC, pulled to about 125~100, to help keep the shadow grain in check. You'll lose a bit of saturation, but OK when using 160VC (Very Contrasty?) for portraits.

Mid Speed: Kodak Portra 400VC. Another reason I recommend the "VC" versions of these films is that they're a bit cheaper than the "NC" versions.

Highish Speed: Kodak Portra 800. Noticing a pattern here? Don't be afraid to push this to 1600 if you have to.

I don't mind using Fuji films, but I'd rather use Kodak. Fuji tends to have a slight greenish cast. Kodak tends to be warmer.

(And hwblanks, unless there's an Antwerp, Belgium in the US, I don't think Alex qualifies for any of those deals.)

[alex.r]

Alex, if you stopped by in Brugges (heh), I can hook you up with a guy who does nothing but film shooting .

Still, I'd stick with pro C-41 (also called "negative" or "print" or "chromogenic") film if this is important to you. If you've only got one camera, it's handy stuff to have - it reacts better to pushing (underexposing), with less grain.

Granted, this applies mostly to Kodak films, as there's a greater difference between their pro stuff and their consumer stuff - you might find that some Kodak MAX film is made in China. Fuji, on the other hand, tends to (from a practical point of view) use the exact same emulsions for both some of their consumer and pro film, with the only difference being in the quality control and the handling. A good example are the "Press Packs" of Fuji's Superia film - the same as their consumer Fuji film, but kept refrigerated in transit and with better quality control.

Anyway, to end my ramblings, I'd go for the following:

Low Speed: Kodak Portra 160VC, pulled to about 125~100, to help keep the shadow grain in check. You'll lose a bit of saturation, but OK when using 160VC (Very Contrasty?) for portraits.

Mid Speed: Kodak Portra 400VC. Another reason I recommend the "VC" versions of these films is that they're a bit cheaper than the "NC" versions.

Highish Speed: Kodak Portra 800. Noticing a pattern here? Don't be afraid to push this to 1600 if you have to.

I don't mind using Fuji films, but I'd rather use Kodak. Fuji tends to have a slight greenish cast. Kodak tends to be warmer.

(And hwblanks, unless there's an Antwerp, Belgium in the US, I don't think Alex qualifies for any of those deals.)

Thanks a bunch for the recommendations. The Kodak Portra series seem to have gotten in your favor I've heard other people speak well of these films, too.

I'm still in quite some doubt, so I will definately have to pick op some single rolls of what I'd like to try out, and see how they perform in various lighting conditions. I would like to try out the new Kodak Ektar 100, but am afraid this will be too slow in case we get bad weather, and for indoor/night shooting. However once again, I will have to try this out on beforehand. On the other hand I don't think I'd mind a 800 ISO, as my prints will be relatively small so grain is less of an issue.

So far these films have sparked my interest the most:
Kodak Ektar 100
Kodak HD400
Kodak Portra 800

The coming week I'll pick up a roll of each, and let you know what I think of em

[lithos]

I wouldn't waste time with that HD400, consumer stuff. Remember, all the Yanks recommending it probably have a greater price difference between consumer and pro stuff on their side of the Atlantic.

Trust me: Portra, Portra, PORTRA!

Ektar's a bit of an unknown quantity. By all means try as many films as you can (Portra especially!) and choose.

A good reason to choose the same line of films is, as Ira touched on, is that the emulsions all look the same. That's one of the things pro grade films tend to do well - they're matched for that (but most viewers of your pics will neither care, nor be able to tell.)

[alex.r]

A good reason to choose the same line of films is, as Ira touched on, is that the emulsions all look the same. That's one of the things pro grade films tend to do well - they're matched for that (but most viewers of your pics will neither care, nor be able to tell.)

Do you mean by this, the same line of film in different ISO's? 'cause that might solve my problem concerning various lighting conditions; if i can take ISO 160/400/800 ish along. Like I said, the prints will be relatively small (definately smaller than 4x6) so the differences in ISO may not be too disturbing. Especially since the prints will somewhat be ordered by moment or event (and thus in the same lighting conditions/ISO) on one page. The next page would be a different event, perhaps later at night in higher ISO, for matter of example.

[heatherslightbox]

Here are a couple of examples of pics from the roll of Kodak HiDef 400 I just had developed:





HTH,
Heather

[geauxpez]

Well, I'll throw my opinion into the ring as well. You have two categories of photography: daytime color photography and nighttime color photography.

During the day, I assume you will shoot these: buildings, streets, city-scapes, monuments, parks, shops, people (mostly at a distance), etc.

At night: Streets, city-scapes, well-lit cafes, and closer shots of people.

During the day I would recommend a more saturated film such as Kodak UC400 (or 200 for outdoors), or a nice 100 speed film (nearly all but the cheapest are very good). Since it is less likely that you will shoot people up close, skin tones won't matter as much, but colors that pop in your scenery will.

At night, switch to Portra (commonly referred to as "wedding film") since it is kind to skin tones and your surroundings will likely have less vivid color -- no need to be super-bold with the emulsion. This is when thinking in black & white (as you are used to) will come in handy.

Ultimately, there is no substitute for spending time with different emulsions and learning your likes and dislikes before you travel, so take at least a couple of kinds of film so you don't get back home and say "I wish I would have...". At least you can compare. I understand the linearity that some of the other posters are recommending. You may not like it. As was also mentioned above, check out the "film shots" thread. Lots of examples of lots of emulsions.

Couple of shots with HD400 (aquarium setting)





(yes, Wayne's face is naturally a little red)

[artobest]

Great shot! Funny and delightful.

[Canada_Rockies]

Also, I was wondering if depending on the lens I use, the saturation/colors may change? Or will this hardly be noticable? I am planning on taking my M35/2.8 and M50/1.4 primes, and have the feeling the 50 is slightly sharper and renders colors a little better (comparing them when on my dSLR).

If all your lenses are Pentax, you won't notice any change in the look of the images. As to E-6 process, you have virtually no exposure latitude with slide film, and it is not possible to correct the colours that you would change using white balance with digital SLRs.

If you like a softer look, more natural colours, try a roll of Agfa. I have always liked their colour treatment. Just make sure that you buy colour not chrome. The first is negative film, and has exposure latitude, usually 1 under to 3 over. Slide film has virtually no latitude; the slide is the end product.

Enjoy your challenge, and make sure to have fun!

[alex.r]

If all your lenses are Pentax, you won't notice any change in the look of the images.

I don't own many lenses (they're all mentioned in my signature, except for the DA 18-55 which I never use anymore) and will just be taking my two fully manual primes: both Pentax M series. So thanks for clearing things out for me on this aspect.

The first is negative film, and has exposure latitude, usually 1 under to 3 over. Slide film has virtually no latitude; the slide is the end product.

Pardon me for my ignorance, but when you say "exposure latitude", which slide film does not have, is this being corrected by my photolab when processing/printing? Or is this latitude somehow a characteristic of the film? How does this work?

Enjoy your challenge, and make sure to have fun!

Thank you, and I definitely will! I've always loved Paris (visited it quite often) and am hoping to discover some sights I haven't yet discovered/noticed. Although I'll be taking plenty of film, ever image on every roll is precious Which is another thing I like about going out with my analog camera: I think more and look better before I act.