Film recommendations

ryno · 08-05-2008, 08:32 PM

I'm going on a 10 day trip to some of the parks in utah, and am looking for a couple of films for specific conditions. I prefer slide for color, one I'm cheap, and only scan the ones I want to print large, and two, there's nothing like a slide on the light box. First, hiking midday, speed isnt important, but ability to handle higher contrast is. Second, it's a new moon, and I want to try star trails. Any other hints on star trails would be great as well.
Thanks, Ryan

clawhammer · 08-05-2008, 09:07 PM

Velvia should do well in southern Utah- I just bought a couple rolls for a hike in Zion NP. If you look through Michael Fatali's galleries you can see what film he used for his shots, and most of it is either Velvia 50 or Ektachrome 100vs. Tom Till has some great pictures in his portfolio, and when I was lucky enough to meet him he said he mostly shot Velvia. I don't have any ideas for star trails, sorry.

Which parks are you visiting?

jgredline · 08-05-2008, 09:40 PM

Ok, this is what a buddy of mine and I where talking about at lunch today....

First my very newbie impressions..
When it comes to black and white, I can tell the difference between Kodak bw400cn and Tri-x like night and day...

When it comes to color, I have used atleast 8 different films including some real hi end Kodak Hi def stuff to cheap 99 cents store stuff and while initially there is some difference, after PP work is done, I see no difference...This is with 4 different bodies
as well...I just don't get it.

woof · 08-05-2008, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by clawhammer

Velvia should do well in southern Utah- I just bought a couple rolls for a hike in Zion NP. If you look through Michael Fatali's galleries you can see what film he used for his shots, and most of it is either Velvia 50 or Ektachrome 100vs. Tom Till has some great pictures in his portfolio, and when I was lucky enough to meet him he said he mostly shot Velvia. I don't have any ideas for star trails, sorry.

I think clawhammer's recommendation is a good one.

I am a more recent convert to Fuji. Spent some time with Superia Reala 100, and on the film side can recommend that highly. I shot Red Rock Canyon outside of Vegas with Reala and was very happy with the results. Anything I might have done better had to do more with my lens choice and eyesight.

I'm working through some Velvia now and really like it. So much so, I wish I'd started there. Since I scan most of what I shoot in film anyway, where it really count, I'm going to be "all in" on the Velvia from here on out.

I beleive that Velvia has the highest resolving power of any slide film. I have read that a 35 mm Velvia slide can hold detail up to 160 lines per mm, which is a resolution equivalent to around 22 megapixels on a full-frame sensor... I won't pretend that when I look at it, I see it that way. But what I do see I really, really like.

In any event, I can't speak for the Velvia 50. All my experience has been specifically with Velvia 100F. I can tell you that I read somewhere that Velvia 100 is better with long exposures.

Product page: Fujifilm USA | Products | Film | Fujichrome | Velvia

woof!

Paul_C · 08-05-2008, 11:12 PM

I've been shooting a lot of Velvia 50 (original formula) lately and am trying really hard to like it. I can't recommend it for high-contrast scenes as the shadows will block up quick at box speed, but shooting it at iso 32 or 40 should somewhat help alleviate that. I've read that it's not recommended for long exposures as reciprocity failure kicks in fast and heavy, but I've not tried it.

So far Provia is my one true love in slide film. For 35mm stick with the 100. Shooting medium format the grain doesn't matter as much and 400 works a treat. I also just got back a 120 roll of Ektachrome E100G which looks very promising on the light box.

(Reala is probably the only color negative film I'd bother with, but even it is a tough pill to swallow after getting used to Provia.)

titrisol · 08-05-2008, 11:49 PM

For birght light get Velvia 50, for all purpose shooting get Provia 100 or Velvia 100 from Fuji.
I would tkae a couple of rolls of Provia400 as well just in case.

ryno · 08-06-2008, 05:19 AM

I'm spending four days each in Zion and Brice. I did a little reading last night, and like Paul says, provia 100f sounds like it might work well, it can handle higher contrast, and has low reciprocity failure. Since I wont have a chance to practice, any help with aperture would be great. I read something that the wider the lens the more you need to open it up. His reasoning was a little technical for me. Others have said anywhere from wide open to f8. I'm also bringing a medium format rangefinder with delta 100 or FP4. I can't wait
Ryan

zx-m · 08-06-2008, 07:03 AM

Javier: I think what you are seeing in terms of b&w is a difference in character--that is, a difference in the grain structure of the film. This is the easiest thing to identify when comparing prints. As you have observed, traditional b&w (such as Tri-X) has a distinctive and more pronounced grain, and 400CN has a sharper, less grainy look. Also, the rendering of the grays will vary between the two films.

I, too, sometimes have difficulty noticing the differences between a consumer grade color film (i.e. Superia 200 or 400) and the "pro" color films, such as Pro 160C. I do not do enlargements, as they are expensive. I opt for quality 4"x6" matte prints--plain and simple. They are also great for photo albums, and, while some may consider the 4"x6" format small, I would note that not too long ago (in the 1960s and 1970s), the common print size was 3.5"x3.5" (3"x3", not including borders). I still have a 3.5"x3.5" photo of me (taken by my mother in 1970). At the time, I was a child. That little shot conveys quite a message. The 4"x6" print size is also full frame for 35mm. Those 8x10s that people seem to like so much are, in 35mm, missing 20% of the shot (full frame would be 8"x12").

Regards,
Glen

clawhammer · 08-06-2008, 11:46 AM

The secret about color neg films is that when you have them printed at a lab, the machines automatically balance the color depending on which film it is. Seeing a difference in color when lab-printed is totally up to chance, because besides the emulsion settings most places leave auto-correct on, or their tech adjusts them to fit what he think looks best. You may get better results scanning the film yourself.

As for exposures, I did some slot canyons earlier this year, and it varied from f/2.8 and 1/50 to f/2.8 and 1/4 or 1/2. It depends on the time of day and where the sun is. I've got all the pertinent data on the photos in my slot canyon gallery, but unfortunately I shot digital in there

08-05-2008, 08:32 PM	#1
ryno Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 220	Film recommendations I'm going on a 10 day trip to some of the parks in utah, and am looking for a couple of films for specific conditions. I prefer slide for color, one I'm cheap, and only scan the ones I want to print large, and two, there's nothing like a slide on the light box. First, hiking midday, speed isnt important, but ability to handle higher contrast is. Second, it's a new moon, and I want to try star trails. Any other hints on star trails would be great as well. Thanks, Ryan

08-06-2008, 07:03 AM	#8
zx-m Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 376	Javier: I think what you are seeing in terms of b&w is a difference in character--that is, a difference in the grain structure of the film. This is the easiest thing to identify when comparing prints. As you have observed, traditional b&w (such as Tri-X) has a distinctive and more pronounced grain, and 400CN has a sharper, less grainy look. Also, the rendering of the grays will vary between the two films. I, too, sometimes have difficulty noticing the differences between a consumer grade color film (i.e. Superia 200 or 400) and the "pro" color films, such as Pro 160C. I do not do enlargements, as they are expensive. I opt for quality 4"x6" matte prints--plain and simple. They are also great for photo albums, and, while some may consider the 4"x6" format small, I would note that not too long ago (in the 1960s and 1970s), the common print size was 3.5"x3.5" (3"x3", not including borders). I still have a 3.5"x3.5" photo of me (taken by my mother in 1970). At the time, I was a child. That little shot conveys quite a message. The 4"x6" print size is also full frame for 35mm. Those 8x10s that people seem to like so much are, in 35mm, missing 20% of the shot (full frame would be 8"x12"). Regards, Glen Last edited by zx-m; 08-06-2008 at 07:48 AM. Reason: typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FA/film lens recommendations	Aaron.M	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	08-10-2010 01:20 PM
Film recommendations?	wedge	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	41	07-28-2010 01:23 PM
Looking for recommendations for a film camera	RichyX	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	21	10-07-2009 09:23 AM
Film scanner recommendations, anyone?	heatherslightbox	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	51	04-10-2009 05:07 AM
Film Recommendations	jbrowning	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	12-11-2007 12:50 PM

08-05-2008, 09:07 PM	#2
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	Velvia should do well in southern Utah- I just bought a couple rolls for a hike in Zion NP. If you look through Michael Fatali's galleries you can see what film he used for his shots, and most of it is either Velvia 50 or Ektachrome 100vs. Tom Till has some great pictures in his portfolio, and when I was lucky enough to meet him he said he mostly shot Velvia. I don't have any ideas for star trails, sorry. Which parks are you visiting?

08-05-2008, 09:40 PM	#3
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Ok, this is what a buddy of mine and I where talking about at lunch today.... First my very newbie impressions.. When it comes to black and white, I can tell the difference between Kodak bw400cn and Tri-x like night and day... When it comes to color, I have used atleast 8 different films including some real hi end Kodak Hi def stuff to cheap 99 cents store stuff and while initially there is some difference, after PP work is done, I see no difference...This is with 4 different bodies as well...I just don't get it.

08-05-2008, 10:32 PM	#4
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by clawhammer Velvia should do well in southern Utah- I just bought a couple rolls for a hike in Zion NP. If you look through Michael Fatali's galleries you can see what film he used for his shots, and most of it is either Velvia 50 or Ektachrome 100vs. Tom Till has some great pictures in his portfolio, and when I was lucky enough to meet him he said he mostly shot Velvia. I don't have any ideas for star trails, sorry. I think clawhammer's recommendation is a good one. I am a more recent convert to Fuji. Spent some time with Superia Reala 100, and on the film side can recommend that highly. I shot Red Rock Canyon outside of Vegas with Reala and was very happy with the results. Anything I might have done better had to do more with my lens choice and eyesight. I'm working through some Velvia now and really like it. So much so, I wish I'd started there. Since I scan most of what I shoot in film anyway, where it really count, I'm going to be "all in" on the Velvia from here on out. I beleive that Velvia has the highest resolving power of any slide film. I have read that a 35 mm Velvia slide can hold detail up to 160 lines per mm, which is a resolution equivalent to around 22 megapixels on a full-frame sensor... I won't pretend that when I look at it, I see it that way. But what I do see I really, really like. In any event, I can't speak for the Velvia 50. All my experience has been specifically with Velvia 100F. I can tell you that I read somewhere that Velvia 100 is better with long exposures. Product page: Fujifilm USA \| Products \| Film \| Fujichrome \| Velvia woof!

08-05-2008, 11:12 PM	#5
Paul_C Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 97	I've been shooting a lot of Velvia 50 (original formula) lately and am trying really hard to like it. I can't recommend it for high-contrast scenes as the shadows will block up quick at box speed, but shooting it at iso 32 or 40 should somewhat help alleviate that. I've read that it's not recommended for long exposures as reciprocity failure kicks in fast and heavy, but I've not tried it. So far Provia is my one true love in slide film. For 35mm stick with the 100. Shooting medium format the grain doesn't matter as much and 400 works a treat. I also just got back a 120 roll of Ektachrome E100G which looks very promising on the light box. (Reala is probably the only color negative film I'd bother with, but even it is a tough pill to swallow after getting used to Provia.)

08-05-2008, 11:49 PM	#6
titrisol Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: In the most populated state... state of denial Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,854	For birght light get Velvia 50, for all purpose shooting get Provia 100 or Velvia 100 from Fuji. I would tkae a couple of rolls of Provia400 as well just in case.

08-06-2008, 05:19 AM	#7
ryno Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minneapolis Photos: Gallery Posts: 220 Original Poster	I'm spending four days each in Zion and Brice. I did a little reading last night, and like Paul says, provia 100f sounds like it might work well, it can handle higher contrast, and has low reciprocity failure. Since I wont have a chance to practice, any help with aperture would be great. I read something that the wider the lens the more you need to open it up. His reasoning was a little technical for me. Others have said anywhere from wide open to f8. I'm also bringing a medium format rangefinder with delta 100 or FP4. I can't wait Ryan

08-06-2008, 11:46 AM	#9
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	The secret about color neg films is that when you have them printed at a lab, the machines automatically balance the color depending on which film it is. Seeing a difference in color when lab-printed is totally up to chance, because besides the emulsion settings most places leave auto-correct on, or their tech adjusts them to fit what he think looks best. You may get better results scanning the film yourself. As for exposures, I did some slot canyons earlier this year, and it varied from f/2.8 and 1/50 to f/2.8 and 1/4 or 1/2. It depends on the time of day and where the sun is. I've got all the pertinent data on the photos in my slot canyon gallery, but unfortunately I shot digital in there