film quality for different speeds

Hello,

I recall lower ISO speed films were considered to be less grainy, and
also that the improvement in film technology was reducing that
graininess with time.

I have an old Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 35mm camera and I am thinking
of playing with it in the coming few weeks -- with negative as well as
with slide film. Due to its smaller aperture, a higher speed film is
recommended (200 or 400).

Any feedback on how good are 400 and 800 ISO films now a days in
graininess as compared to ISO 100? Which films would you recommend.BTW,
this is not for professional photos, but I also don't want the lower end
of consumer films either.

thanks,
-HS

On Dec 4, 5:30 pm, "H.S." wrote:
Hello,

I recall lower ISO speed films were considered to be less grainy, and
also that the improvement in film technology was reducing that
graininess with time.

I have an old Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 35mm camera and I am thinking
of playing with it in the coming few weeks -- with negative as well as
with slide film. Due to its smaller aperture, a higher speed film is
recommended (200 or 400).

Any feedback on how good are 400 and 800 ISO films now a days in
graininess as compared to ISO 100? Which films would you recommend.BTW,
this is not for professional photos, but I also don't want the lower end
of consumer films either.

thanks,
-HS


Do you want to use black and white or color film?

It's hard to come by, here anyways, but 400-speed Portra films are
great.
Fuji Reala 400 is a decent film as well.
For b&w, Ilford Delta 400 professional has silky smooth tonal range
and ultra-fine grain.
I know you mentioned they are not for professional use, but you do
want great quality pics.
Helen

wrote:

Do you want to use black and white or color film?

Color. Sorry I missed that.


It's hard to come by, here anyways, but 400-speed Portra films are
great.
Fuji Reala 400 is a decent film as well.
For b&w, Ilford Delta 400 professional has silky smooth tonal range
and ultra-fine grain.
I know you mentioned they are not for professional use, but you do
want great quality pics.

Yes! Thanks.

-HS


Helen

On Dec 4, 6:00 pm, "H.S." wrote:
wrote:

Do you want to use black and white or color film?

Color. Sorry I missed that.

It's hard to come by, here anyways, but 400-speed Portra films are
great.
Fuji Reala 400 is a decent film as well.
For b&w, Ilford Delta 400 professional has silky smooth tonal range
and ultra-fine grain.
I know you mentioned they are not for professional use, but you do
want great quality pics.

Yes! Thanks.

-HS Helen

There are many more knowledgable than I on this group, but I was
always pleased with the results using the films I suggested.

"H.S." wrote in message -Free...

Hello,

I recall lower ISO speed films were considered to be less grainy, and
also that the improvement in film technology was reducing that
graininess with time.

I have an old Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 35mm camera and I am thinking
of playing with it in the coming few weeks -- with negative as well as
with slide film. Due to its smaller aperture, a higher speed film is
recommended (200 or 400).

Any feedback on how good are 400 and 800 ISO films now a days in
graininess as compared to ISO 100? Which films would you recommend.BTW,
this is not for professional photos, but I also don't want the lower end
of consumer films either.

thanks,
-HS

For 400 speed film I think you would be happy with Kodak Portra 400NC or 400VC.
These give very good skin tones. I havnt tried the 800.

Cheers

"H.S." wrote:


Hello,

I recall lower ISO speed films were considered to be less grainy, and
also that the improvement in film technology was reducing that
graininess with time.

I have an old Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 35mm camera and I am thinking
of playing with it in the coming few weeks -- with negative as well as
with slide film. Due to its smaller aperture, a higher speed film is
recommended (200 or 400).

Any feedback on how good are 400 and 800 ISO films now a days in
graininess as compared to ISO 100? Which films would you recommend.BTW,
this is not for professional photos, but I also don't want the lower end
of consumer films either.


For ISO 400 print film, try Fujicolor Pro 400H which is no more grainy
than a typical ISO 100 emulsion of five years ago. If you absolutely
*must* have an ISO 800 film, there is Fujicolor Pro 800Z, but it is
more grainy and less saturated than 400H.

If you have difficulty obtaining these professional colour print
films, you will also get good results with Fujicolor Superia Extra 400
and 800 which are more consumer oriented.

I would not recommend slide film for your camera, because its light
metering is set up for print film, however with the right camera,
Fujichrome Provia 400X is an exceptionally good ISO 400 slide film
which is no more grainy than a typical ISO 100 slide film of five
years ago.

The mass move to digital has blinded many people to the significant
improvements in abilities of modern films.

"H.S." wrote in message
-Free...

Hello,

I recall lower ISO speed films were considered to be less grainy, and
also that the improvement in film technology was reducing that
graininess with time.

I have an old Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 35mm camera and I am thinking
of playing with it in the coming few weeks -- with negative as well as
with slide film. Due to its smaller aperture, a higher speed film is
recommended (200 or 400).

Any feedback on how good are 400 and 800 ISO films now a days in
graininess as compared to ISO 100? Which films would you recommend.BTW,
this is not for professional photos, but I also don't want the lower end
of consumer films either.

thanks,
-HS

Unless you are planning to do the dark room work including optical printing
(or high resolution film scanning/digital printing) yourself, don't bother.
It you take your film for commercial processing these days, the film will be
developed and digitally scanned at the lowest possible resolution, and you
will be given very poor quality digital prints that have no detail
whatsoever, noticable pixels and wierd colours and look like something
produced in your grandpa's bathroom in the 1950s. This will negate any
advantage offered by any specific film, or for that matter by any particular
lens. Graininess, speed etc will mean next to nothing when the film is
subjected to this lowest common denominator process.
And I am not talking only about Walmart/Drugstore processing here. In the
largeish city where I live, there are several "proper" photo stores that
cater to the professional trade. Only one continues to do traditional
optical printing from film, and at an extremely high cost.
I am still interested in film photography but gave up darkroom work years
ago. And I can't get too excited about doing endless high resolution film
scans that take up hours of time and masses of memory.
You might like to play with some slide film though. It's all end-point
chemistry and so it's difficult for processors to screw up and you will get
direct, optical, high resolution images.

"Norm Fleming" wrote in message
...

"H.S." wrote in message
-Free...

Hello,

I recall lower ISO speed films were considered to be less grainy, and
also that the improvement in film technology was reducing that
graininess with time.

I have an old Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 35mm camera and I am thinking
of playing with it in the coming few weeks -- with negative as well as
with slide film. Due to its smaller aperture, a higher speed film is
recommended (200 or 400).

Any feedback on how good are 400 and 800 ISO films now a days in
graininess as compared to ISO 100? Which films would you recommend.BTW,
this is not for professional photos, but I also don't want the lower end
of consumer films either.

thanks,
-HS

Unless you are planning to do the dark room work including optical
printing (or high resolution film scanning/digital printing) yourself,
don't bother. It you take your film for commercial processing these days,
the film will be developed and digitally scanned at the lowest possible
resolution, and you will be given very poor quality digital prints that
have no detail whatsoever, noticable pixels and wierd colours and look
like something produced in your grandpa's bathroom in the 1950s. This will
negate any advantage offered by any specific film, or for that matter by
any particular lens. Graininess, speed etc will mean next to nothing when
the film is subjected to this lowest common denominator process.
And I am not talking only about Walmart/Drugstore processing here. In the
largeish city where I live, there are several "proper" photo stores that
cater to the professional trade. Only one continues to do traditional
optical printing from film, and at an extremely high cost.
I am still interested in film photography but gave up darkroom work years
ago. And I can't get too excited about doing endless high resolution film
scans that take up hours of time and masses of memory.
You might like to play with some slide film though. It's all end-point
chemistry and so it's difficult for processors to screw up and you will
get direct, optical, high resolution images.

Yes, but if you view them on a computer monitor, all of the above still
applies.....In fact (and I know this will horrify all the purists on this
forum) I have pretty well given up on good quality lenses in photography.
Basically, the reason is, I have little use for them. I take slides, and
scan them with a film scanner, and then view them on my 5 year old Sony
monitor, and perhaps send them to friends and relatives, who may print them
out on cheap printers, or send them out for relatively small prints
themselves. The advantages of good quality equipment will be lost in this
process....I am able to eliminate gross distortion errors in the lens with
Photoshop routines, and compensate for vignetting and other cheap glass
problems, so why should I have thousands of dollars tied up in good quality
glass? Most of the time, I just keep my 24 to 120 zoom on the camera, and I
seldom need anything else, since I am not a peeping tom or into astro
photography....:^) Sure, I could use a 24 - 120 f/2.8 zoom, but nobody makes
one........

Norm Fleming wrote:


Unless you are planning to do the dark room work including optical printing
(or high resolution film scanning/digital printing) yourself, don't bother.
It you take your film for commercial processing these days, the film will be
developed and digitally scanned at the lowest possible resolution, and you
will be given very poor quality digital prints that have no detail
whatsoever, noticable pixels and wierd colours and look like something
produced in your grandpa's bathroom in the 1950s. This will negate any
advantage offered by any specific film, or for that matter by any particular
lens. Graininess, speed etc will mean next to nothing when the film is
subjected to this lowest common denominator process.
And I am not talking only about Walmart/Drugstore processing here. In the
largeish city where I live, there are several "proper" photo stores that
cater to the professional trade. Only one continues to do traditional
optical printing from film, and at an extremely high cost.
I am still interested in film photography but gave up darkroom work years
ago. And I can't get too excited about doing endless high resolution film
scans that take up hours of time and masses of memory.
You might like to play with some slide film though. It's all end-point
chemistry and so it's difficult for processors to screw up and you will get
direct, optical, high resolution images.




Here is an interesting tidbit. I wanted to get a few negative films
scanned to a CD. The films were already developed. I took a couple from
the set to a professional photo studio. They gave me a quote of, IIRC,
$1.5 (Canadian) per frame. Out of curiosity, I asked what was the size
of the scanned images in pixels. The guy wasn't sure. He was the manager
himself! Bad sign. Anyway, I picked up the film and the CD next day,
only to notice that the scanned images were 1800x1200 and that there
were a few scratches on my film that weren't there earlier in addition
to a few thumb prints. That left me with some bad taste in my mouth.

Next, I gave a similar job to a drugstore nearby. The guy who works in
the photo section there also wasn't able to tell me what size of images
they scan, but when I got my scans back, they were 3072x2048 pixels. I
noticed that they used a Noritsu scanner and were taking care of all the
films and stuff with those special gloves and other things.

Since then, I just go to that drug store to get my prints and scans
done. The same guy works there, being going there for the last four
years now, and appears to be experienced and interested in the job. He
also avoids any "touching" to the contrast/brightness if I request him
not to.

So, I know most of the film and photo advanced users here always
recommend going to a pro shop for good results, but my experience here
has been the opposite. However, if you really think about it, it just
shows that good workers are not necessarily found in pro shops only. Oh,
did I mention that the job in the drug store cost me less than half of
what I had to pay the pros? The only thing that the drug store doesn't
do is slides. So not much choice there.

Finally, that drug store is a chain. They have another location a few
blocks away. I gave a job there and got much smaller scans, I think they
were around 640x480! So, there is no consistency across the locations,
but at least there is some in the same location.

So from my experience, one has to do some leg work to see which shops
can give you good results.


regards,
-HS

On Dec 5, 9:52 pm, "Norm Fleming" wrote:
"H.S." wrote in message

-Free...

Unless you are planning to do the dark room work including optical
printing
(or high resolution film scanning/digital printing) yourself, don't bother.
It you take your film for commercial processing these days, the film will be
developed and digitally scanned at the lowest possible resolution, and you
will be given very poor quality digital prints that have no detail
whatsoever, noticable pixels and wierd colours and look like something
produced in your grandpa's bathroom in the 1950s.

yes, I notice this particularly because I use an antique stereo viewer
which likes 6x4 inch prints. Because these are enlarged by the
viewer you become very aware of the resolution of the scanned image.
not surprisingly, prints are done at a resolution appropriater for
normal viewing at the chosen size. In the past, prints seem to have
had a resolution much better than the naked eye could detect.

Robert