[Canada_Rockies]

This thread brought to you by Fuji Photo Film Co Ltd.

Chris

I'm old enough to remember when Fujichrome 50 passed Kodachrome as the film of choice.

[ajuett]

I shot my first roll of Reala 100 and wow, it's definately the best color and quality film I've tried so far. Too bad it's $10 a roll or I'd use it all the time.

[Mike Cash]

This thread brought to you by Fuji Photo Film Co Ltd.

Chris

Not my first choice for film, but these images were all taken on $1.50 Fuji Industrial Records ISO100 film (meant to be "just good enough" for use documenting work done on construction sites to back up billing).

My first choice for general all-round shooting is DNP Centuria 200, but that has gone out of production and it looks like the above mentioned Fuji will shift to being my main film when I can no longer get my hands on the Centuria.

[rthomas]

This thread brought to you by Fuji Photo Film Co Ltd.

Chris

If I could still get it, I'd be shooting Kodachrome 25 and 200.

[Cosmo]

Fuji Pro 400H negative film. Great neutral colours, medium contrast. Very low grain, the Pro series is really good, at iso 160, you get a choice of 2 films, the 160s is great for reproducing skin tones, the 160c is a high contrast version. These iamges are scans of prints, so don't really do the images justice.






Kodak colour plus 200. Yes, that really cheap horrible film. But I've found if you use it right, it's not too bad for long exposures. Grain is about the same as the Pro 400H








Fuji Provia 100F. This film, when exposed correctly is virtually grainless. I've scanned film in at 12800 pixels per inch, looked at the image at 100% and it is so clean, only in the under exposed areas is there any hint to grain texture. These are poor scans, but the film gives great neutral colours, high contrast, very good results.

[MeFirstO]

i'm pretty new to 35mm film, so i'm sorry if this sounds stupid: what's the difference between these categories

- color negative (eg*. fuji superia 1600 w/ 4th color layer, nph 400, superia xtra 800, npl 160)
- color reversal (eg*. provia 100, velvia 50, 64T type II, provia 400)
- APS (eg*. nexia a200)
- slide (eg*. sensia 100)

thanks a lot!

*as advertised here.

[artobest]

Negative film gives you a developed film strip that has a negative image of the subject, ie all colours reversed, usually with an orange mask over the whole thing to help in the printing stage. Negative films are used by people who wish to make prints. They're not as easy to scan as some other films. They usually have a wide dynamic range, great for portraits etc.

Reversal films are also called slide or transparency films - the developed film contains a normal, 'right-way-round' image of the subject that can be used for scanning, projecting or printing using special processes. The confusing name refers to the development process, not the result! You can get them from the lab mounted (in plastic or cardboard squares) or unmounted, as film strips. They have a narrower dynamic range than negative films and need careful exposure.

APS stands for Advanced Photo System. It's a smaller format used only in APS cameras.

Slide - see above. The Sensia you mention is a consumer slide film. It's really very good. The other reversal films you list are professional slide films - produced under more exacting conditions, often with a slightly better base. I strongly recommend the Provia 400 for all-round excellence. It's not cheap though!

[ChrisPlatt]

My advice is to shoot some Kodachrome now while you still can...

Chris

[MeFirstO]

Negative film gives you a developed film strip that has a negative image of the subject, ie all colours reversed, usually with an orange mask over the whole thing to help in the printing stage. Negative films are used by people who wish to make prints. They're not as easy to scan as some other films. They usually have a wide dynamic range, great for portraits etc.

Reversal films are also called slide or transparency films - the developed film contains a normal, 'right-way-round' image of the subject that can be used for scanning, projecting or printing using special processes. The confusing name refers to the development process, not the result! You can get them from the lab mounted (in plastic or cardboard squares) or unmounted, as film strips. They have a narrower dynamic range than negative films and need careful exposure.

APS stands for Advanced Photo System. It's a smaller format used only in APS cameras.

Slide - see above. The Sensia you mention is a consumer slide film. It's really very good. The other reversal films you list are professional slide films - produced under more exacting conditions, often with a slightly better base. I strongly recommend the Provia 400 for all-round excellence. It's not cheap though!

thank you a lot for your kind and clear explanation - only the negative and the slide ringed some bells. i guess i'll stick with the negatives for a while, then

My advice is to shoot some Kodachrome now while you still can...

well i considered kodak too, but for the moment i try to go one step at the time. beside that, kodak is not so "high profile" in the town where i live - i barely saw a small franchise lab which doesn't seem thrustworthy to me.

[Jake67]

I love, love love velvia 50 when exposed right. Or Portra for negative film.

I still like Kodak film myself.

[tibbitts]

I'm old enough to remember when Fujichrome 50 passed Kodachrome as the film of choice.

I don't recall Fujichrome 50 ever passing Kodachrome as a film of choice; in fact I don't think it was ever popular at all. I recall Velvia (50, of course, which was the only speed then) being the first real Kodachrome replacement.

For me personally, one downside of Kodachrome was the wildly variable color balance. It was just all over the map from one batch (not necessarily film batch, but processing batch) to another. I don't recall that being nearly as much of an issue in the 60s (KII) or 70s, as it was with even the pro versions in the 80s.

I did enjoy the (non-pro) Ektachrome 100 Extra Color when it was around, although it didn't have the sharpness and tight grain of Velvia or Kodachrome.

Now I just use digital, which is definitely better in almost every way. I do have a couple rolls of Velvia 100 that I've never tried - since I have prepaid processing, maybe I'll try that sometime.

Paul

[jgredline]

So far in my very limited experiance, I need to go with Kodak UltraMax films. I also like the Kodak Gold 100 film and my cheap 99 cents store brand film which I have found out is fuji. Sorry, I am no help.

[HarryN]

You might find it interesting that your perception of color and what you prefer is somewhat genetically driven. As a result, some people will prefer the color tones of Fuji, while I personally prefer the color tone more common in Kodak films.

I like Kodak Ultra Color for its great saturated colors, but it is not for everything.

[drewdlephone]

I'm going to go against the general consensus and say I'm not any particular fan of Fuji. The Superia line of films is a great argument to start shooting digital, to be frank. They have this garish green/magenta obsession that makes it almost impossible to get skin tones. I've also tried Superia Reala (100ISO) and, while the grain was fantastic, the colors were understated and nothing to really write home about.

I can't offer any suggestions on slide film, as I've only shot one roll (an expired roll of EliteChrome 200). However, for negative films, for outdoor work Kodak Ektar 100 is a nice, fairly high saturation but very low grained film, and being from the Professional portfolio, it's typically bereft of color balance issues if processed promptly and properly stored. Portra films are amazing; incredibly sharp and beautiful rendering of skin tones, but their non-portrait performance tends to be a bit muted with NC and a little too wild with VC (these being variations on their formulas, NC for Neutral Color, VC for Vivid Color). Also, if you can't find either of these, Kodak Gold 100 works incredibly well for off-the-shelf film. Getting harder to find now, but it's close enough in grain and color rendition to Ektar to make you seriously question the $3-4 premium you pay for Ektar (or, at least that I have to pay).

So yeah, sorry to break up the Fuji party, but yeah. It's all about personal preference. To really know how a film performs, you need to shoot and get your pictures processed to CD and get it done WITHOUT corrections. A skilled lab technician can easily correct for Kodak and Fuji's quirks, so you'll never really know how your film is performing without getting them done "in the raw", so to speak. This is not an issue with slide film, obviously.