If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
"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........ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
film quality for different speeds
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Printing quality involved with digital vs. film | Progressiveabsolution | Digital Photography | 5 | September 26th 06 10:35 AM |
Digicams With MF Film Quality | One4All | Digital Photography | 164 | March 2nd 06 03:18 PM |
Negative film processing / printing quality | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 10 | February 28th 06 09:44 PM |
film scanning quality | rafeb | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | March 21st 05 09:04 PM |
Digicam Video Quality vs. Camcorders, Camcorder Image Quality vs Digicams | Richard Lee | Digital Photography | 21 | August 23rd 04 07:04 PM |