Film Type

Michael Sosopoulos wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions what film should I use on a photo trip in
Iceland?


How soon are you going? Probably one of superia 400 / nph / superia 800 / npz
Note that in autumn / winter, the days are quite short at nothern lattitudes

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Use whatever you are used to shooting elsewhere. You don't want to be
experimenting with new films on such a trip.

[Such questions cannot be answered accurately without significantly more
detail. Do you want slide or print recommendations? Landscapes, flowers,
birds? What time of year/weather. Be specific and you'll get a better
answer.]


--
- Alan Justice

"Michael Sosopoulos" wrote in message
...
Does anyone have any suggestions what film should I use on a photo trip in
Iceland?

The comments of Alan Justice are directly on point. The only addition
I would make is to find out aboout film developing services in Iceland
to reduce the risk of damage to film by x-ray systems operated by
airline security.


Francis A. Miniter


Michael Sosopoulos wrote:

Does anyone have any suggestions what film should I use on a photo trip in
Iceland?

otzi wrote:

I'll reiterate the need for speed . And or take some supporting device.
Today the faster emulsions are quite good so don't be too hesitant. I have
found Fuji 800 surprisingly good and it comes in boxes of 9, around here any
way. 1600 starts to show itself but.... if it means getting the shot....
Thats why I take two backs when traveling. One at 100 or 200 and one at 800.

I'll vote no on speed. Faster films have poor color and lots
of grain. If you are doing landscapes, the slower speed the better
and take a tripod. There is a reason why pro photographers
use slow films like fuji velvia for landscapes. If you are
doing action shots, then speed is important, but a digital
SLR would give better results than high speed film.

Roger Clark
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
otzi wrote:

I'll reiterate the need for speed . And or take some supporting device.
Today the faster emulsions are quite good so don't be too hesitant. I have
found Fuji 800 surprisingly good and it comes in boxes of 9, around here any
way. 1600 starts to show itself but.... if it means getting the shot....
Thats why I take two backs when traveling. One at 100 or 200 and one at 800.

I'll vote no on speed. Faster films have poor color and lots
of grain. If you are doing landscapes, the slower speed the better
and take a tripod. There is a reason why pro photographers
use slow films like fuji velvia for landscapes. If you are
doing action shots, then speed is important, but a digital
SLR would give better results than high speed film.

As far as i can tell, if they had a supply of fuji velvia at 400 ISO
they'd fight to get it.


Roger Clark
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
otzi wrote:

I'll reiterate the need for speed . And or take some supporting device.
Today the faster emulsions are quite good so don't be too hesitant. I have
found Fuji 800 surprisingly good and it comes in boxes of 9, around here any
way. 1600 starts to show itself but.... if it means getting the shot....
Thats why I take two backs when traveling. One at 100 or 200 and one at 800.

I'll vote no on speed. Faster films have poor color and lots
of grain. If you are doing landscapes, the slower speed the better
and take a tripod. There is a reason why pro photographers
use slow films like fuji velvia for landscapes. If you are
doing action shots, then speed is important, but a digital
SLR would give better results than high speed film.

As far as i can tell, if they had a supply of fuji velvia at 400 ISO
they'd fight to get it.


Roger Clark
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:

otzi wrote:


I'll reiterate the need for speed . And or take some supporting device.
Today the faster emulsions are quite good so don't be too hesitant. I have
found Fuji 800 surprisingly good and it comes in boxes of 9, around here any
way. 1600 starts to show itself but.... if it means getting the shot....
Thats why I take two backs when traveling. One at 100 or 200 and one at 800.


I'll vote no on speed. Faster films have poor color and lots
of grain. If you are doing landscapes, the slower speed the better
and take a tripod. There is a reason why pro photographers
use slow films like fuji velvia for landscapes. If you are
doing action shots, then speed is important, but a digital
SLR would give better results than high speed film.


As far as i can tell, if they had a supply of fuji velvia at 400 ISO
they'd fight to get it.

Yes, if it had the grain, color and contrast of regular
velvia. But no 400 speed film does. Pros generally
use slower speed film and push a stop or so. E.g. with
velvia 100 push 1 stop when needed to 200. But the cross-over
point in image detail is: 6 megapixel DSLR is similar to 35mm
ISO 100 film, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
Digital has lower noise too.

Roger

Sander Vesik wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:

Sander Vesik wrote:

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:


otzi wrote:



I'll reiterate the need for speed . And or take some supporting device.
Today the faster emulsions are quite good so don't be too hesitant. I have
found Fuji 800 surprisingly good and it comes in boxes of 9, around here any
way. 1600 starts to show itself but.... if it means getting the shot....
Thats why I take two backs when traveling. One at 100 or 200 and one at 800.


I'll vote no on speed. Faster films have poor color and lots
of grain. If you are doing landscapes, the slower speed the better
and take a tripod. There is a reason why pro photographers
use slow films like fuji velvia for landscapes. If you are
doing action shots, then speed is important, but a digital
SLR would give better results than high speed film.


As far as i can tell, if they had a supply of fuji velvia at 400 ISO
they'd fight to get it.

Yes, if it had the grain, color and contrast of regular
velvia. But no 400 speed film does. Pros generally


No film presently does - film development continues.


use slower speed film and push a stop or so. E.g. with
velvia 100 push 1 stop when needed to 200. But the cross-over
point in image detail is: 6 megapixel DSLR is similar to 35mm
ISO 100 film, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
Digital has lower noise too.


yes, it has a nice graph that shows us that either your scanner is broken
or you don't know how to apply approriate filtering post-scanning. But
given that its a on-web film vs digital review by somebody going wide-eyed
into teh digital world, I guess its expected...

Some parts - esp where provia ends up - are especilly ridiculous.

I see. You must be a "pro" (see my other post in this newsgroup.

1) I guess the $65,000 drum scanner isn't good enough, operated
by a professional (I know him personally and he is top notch).
If not, then what would you advocate I use for such tests?
I've had scans up to 11,000 dpi done in my tests so I could explore
the entire range possible with film.

2) there is no provia 100F on the plot. The plot was made
before 100F came out. 100F would plot a little higher on the
graph, but not by a lot. And that is irrelevant to your
advocating 800 to 1600 speed film.

The results are good solid science with results that are in
agreement with other works.

Take a picture with 1600 iso film of the moon with a
500 mm lens, scan it with your best scanner.
I'll do the same with 6 mpixel digital. It'll be obvious
which is better, it will be digital. But if we tried a
landscape with slow speed 35mm film versus 6-Mpixel digital,
I bet the film would be better.

You insult me with your comment "film vs digital review by
somebody going wide-eyed into teh digital world..." You haven't looked
at my site very much. I do a lot of film work, as my
latest images prove, http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.NEW
Every tool has strengths and weaknesses, whether slow, fine
grained film, fast film, or digital, whether large format view
camera, or point and shoot. No one tool is good for all
situations, just like you can't build a house with a screwdriver
alone. I get to know my tools, and use the best one for a
particular task.

Roger

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

2) there is no provia 100F on the plot. The plot was made
before 100F came out. 100F would plot a little higher on the
graph, but not by a lot.

Correction:
The plot was made before velvia 100 came out, but after provia
100. In either case provia 100 is not on the plot.
I should add both of these films. Perhaps, I'll add a table
and include other films as well and keep the plot
so it is not more cluttered.

Roger