OT: Mountain landscape film choice.
David
like some suggestions as to what brand film to use. I'm mainly interest
in colour print film. Some of the images may get blown up to 8x10 (at
the largest). I generally use Fuji I'm curious as to what others use
and would suggest.
Thanks.
Nicanoltax Fan
10, Superia 400 is a good choice, as well. A little punchier than Reala, but
not nearly as fine-grained or sharp. But, for a 400 speed film, it's really
nice.
"David" <fil...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3B24F660...@videotron.ca...
Andy
wrote:
>Reala. Best stuff I've used. Of course, if all you're going to print is 8 x
>10, Superia 400 is a good choice, as well. A little punchier than Reala, but
>not nearly as fine-grained or sharp. But, for a 400 speed film, it's really
>nice.
Why recommend a 400asa film for landscape shots ? - I presume David is
taking a tripod. Even at 8x10 the 400asa grain would show wouldn't it?
David, If you are willing to try slide then Velvia is very nice. If
not I would stick to Fuji rather than Kodak. I can't see an argument
for using fast films in this situation. Stick to slower films.
..unless you need the grain to help add atmosphere to foggy morning
shots. I've never been certain that color grain works well for that
effect. But B/W can be beautiful.
It sounds like a good opportunity for some panoramic shots - a
fine-grained 35mm shot can be cropped into a panorama at processing
time, so you don't need to change cameras - just mentally blank out
the top and bottom of the frame when you take the picture.
Andy.
CJMorgan59
>Why recommend a 400asa film for landscape shots ? - I presume David is
>taking a tripod. Even at 8x10 the 400asa grain would show wouldn't it?
I would be surprised if you could see grain in an 8x10 image from a 400asa
color neg, and all the more so if that film was shot at an exposure index of
either 320 or 250.
I think it's a good recommendation (or that the very least that's what I myself
found myself using last time I went to the Rockies).
CJ
Andy
>Andy an...@sparkling.demon.co.-NO-SPAM-.uk wrote:
>>Why recommend a 400asa film for landscape shots ? - I presume David is
>>taking a tripod. Even at 8x10 the 400asa grain would show wouldn't it?
>
>I would be surprised if you could see grain in an 8x10 image from a 400asa
>color neg, and all the more so if that film was shot at an exposure index of
>either 320 or 250.
I suppose I was doing some dodgy math. I tried an 800 film (Kodak Max)
at it's rated speed a few months back and the grain was obvious even
with 4x6 prints. Normally I'll use slide.
I wonder also what the typical viewing distance is for an 8x10 - this
must form part of the equation as to how much grain is acceptable.
David
I'll be on the train for part of the trip so I'll need a somewhat fast
film for that. However I'll use something slower when my two feet are
on the ground.
David
I'll be on the train for part of the trip so I'll need a somewhat fast
film for that. However I'll use something slower when my two feet are
on the ground.
mcsalty
Agfa 50. I used it once and the results were terrible, though entirely through
the fault of the drugstore I took it to (and therefore my own fault for taking
it there). I found it to have very bold colours, so maybe not entirely useful
for landscapes.
i used some in this picture;
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=238672
Ilford Pan F. My old favourite for still life B&W, and I should imagine quite
interesting for landscapes. Not too contrasty, I find.
Reala 100. Nice, calm colours. Nothing "in your face" about it.
One of these, plus some Superia 400 for the train journey, and you're laughing.
--
"We're not scaremongering, this is really happening"
- Thom Yorke.
CJMorgan59
>>color neg, and all the more so if that film was shot at an exposure index of
>>either 320 or 250.
Andy an...@sparkling.demon.co.uk wrote:
>I suppose I was doing some dodgy math. I tried an 800 film (Kodak Max)
>at it's rated speed a few months back and the grain was obvious even
>with 4x6 prints.
Yes. I wouldn't be surprised. I've experienced the same.
Normally, I shoot any color print film at +2/3 from the recommended ISO (e.g.
an ISO 400 film I'll shoot at 250; an ISO 200 film will have me setting the
lightmeter to 125; etc.). I have noticed, however, that even a bit more is
needed for ISO 800 color print films. Consequently, I shoot these at an
exposure index of 400.
Shooting this way not only provides better shadow detail and color saturation,
but also reduces the apparent grain. "Apparent" is the operative word here
because just like grains of sand, you can distinguish less of them when there's
more around than just a few.
Shooting this way, I've found an ISO800 films shot at E.I. 400 makes a fine
8x10, and ISO400 film shot at E.I. 250 will yield 11x14.
So if someone is shooting an ISO400 film at E.I. 250 and only plans to enlarge
it up to 8x10, they should be quite fine because that certainly working on the
save side.
*********
>Normally I'll use slide.
If I'm using slide film, I go in the opposite direction, either shooting at the
recommended ISO setting, or else -1/3 stop (i.e. shooting an ISO 100 film at
E.I. 125). Admittedly, however, it's been a while since I've been using slide
film.
**********
>I wonder also what the typical viewing distance is for an 8x10 - this
>must form part of the equation as to how much grain is acceptable.
For this discussion, I've been talking about how grain might look if one is
holding a print in their hand (or at least at that distance).
We photographers sometimes get carried away with such matters (almost obsessed
with the want of fine grain and taking a magnifying glass to our images). And
I'd perhaps modify my comments above if others who looked at our images did the
same.
CJ
AlexZN
> Reala. Best stuff I've used. Of course, if all you're going to print is 8 x
> 10, Superia 400 is a good choice, as well. A little punchier than Reala, but
> not nearly as fine-grained or sharp. But, for a 400 speed film, it's really
> nice.
Are you kidding? His landscape won't run away from him, so there is
zero reason to use fast speed film. Zero. Especially if you are going
to use a tripod. Reala is not a good film for landscape simply becuase
it is low contrast. It is good for people photos where excessive
contrast ruins the image. By far the best choice for landscape photos
is slide film, simply becuase it has a narrower latitude and therefore
enhances the contrast a bit more than print film. Velvia is the number
one choice for landscape photos. Provia F100 would be my second choice
becuase it has so fine grain and the colors still come out nicely.
Save 400 print film for low-light hand-held photography where you need
all the speed you can get.
Nicanoltax Fan
enlarge to 8 x 10 or smaller. With those specs, the Superia 400, of Supra
400 would be hard to beat. And the grain will be nearly invisible at that
size.
"Andy" <an...@sparkling.demon.co.-NO-SPAM-.uk> wrote in message
news:702ait8onhe9ig3jj...@4ax.com...
Nicanoltax Fan
He's shooting for prints, and neg film is a better choice for prints. And
color is a matter of taste. Personally, I think the latest generation of
pumped up slide films with their garish and totally unrealistic colors are
the ugliest things I've ever seen. Reala records the scene as it looked, and
has plenty of contrast to capture some nice images. It can also capture some
very subtle differences in colors and contrast. In his original post, he
said nothing abut a tripod, but did mention the rockies, which could mean
hiking. So no, I wasn't kidding. I think Superia is a good recommendation,
as is Reala. Especially when the original poster asked for a neg film in the
first place. But hey, why bother to respond to the post when you can
pontificate?
"AlexZN" <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4057e0d.01061...@posting.google.com...
David
earlier post, Illl be on the train some of the time so fast shooting
may/will be required.
David
using Fuji for sometime now and it seems to be popular choice.
Again, Thanks.
Rafe B.
If you're scanning the film, Reala is a good choice. Negative film is
quite a bit easier to scan. Reala was my favorite film for landscape
photos, recently superceded by Kodak Supra 100.
Kodak Royal Gold 100 is also a decent film for this purpose.
rafe b.
Bob Hickey
done with it, but around here, something seems to get lost in the
processing. The best I've found lately otherwise is Superia 100. I give
it a little extra though. It just seems to jump out. Bob Hickey
AlexZN
slide film, but it does blow any print film out of the water.
It might not be the best choice if you are printing a bunch of 4x6's,
but if you are printing a few enlargements then it just might be the
ticket.
From what I know, it is a lot cheaper to get accurate color rendition
from a slide film than from a print film. How so? Show me a cheap
print lab that will give you accurate color from your print film... If
you have some close to you, you are very lucky. On the other hand I
can get my slides develop at reasonable cost and I know that I get the
colors that I photographed.
Reala is a great film for people photos, I love it for that. However
for the landscapes slides win. It also really bugs me when people
suggest high speed film for landscape tripod-based photograpy.
Alex
"Nicanoltax Fan" <fu...@bout.it> wrote in message news:<GEnV6.12$Kn3...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>...
Nicanoltax Fan
have suggested a slower print film, but not a slide film. Slide film doesn't
win when the original poster requested a suggestion for print film. That
being the case, all your words regarding the alledged superiority of slide
film amounts to meaningless pontificating. And, for prints up to 8 x 10,
I'll still go with print film. Have you ever taken a slide to your local lab
and had them printed? They stink. The only two choices I've found acceptable
for prints from slides are Ilfochrome and digital. Internegs always lose
sharpness, color, and usually look really flat. So unless you're willing to
pay for expensive scanning and printing, or expensive Ilfochrome, why bother
with slides?
Reala is a good people film, but certainly not the best people film out
there. The saturation is too high for that. And I'm so sorry that my
recommendations bugged you, but I usually respond to the post as it was
written, and try not to read my own personal preferences into it, like
assuming that the user will have a tripod, or really wants a slide film
recommendation when they asked for print film. And color is personal, so if
you want Velvia colors, have at them. I can't stand them. Velvia is
wonderfully sharp and fine grained, but those magenta-hued skys are too
damned ugly for me to accept. And don't ever include a person in the shot
unless you enjoy blotchy red-faced subjects. Yes, the color on many slide
films will better many print films, but, the poster did not ask for slides.
Just out of curiosity, when's the last time you shot and printed any 400
speed print film? The latest crop, like Supra and Superia are incredibly
fine-grained! And if you need a higher speed film, the choices in the slide
world are very limited. Provia 400F is the only film with fine grain, but
the colors are really flat, and not very accurate. All the other 400 speed
slide films have sand-paper like grain, so they don't work for me.
"AlexZN" <ale...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4057e0d.01061...@posting.google.com...