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 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 +++ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
"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 +++ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
"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 +++ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Film Type
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
type of film for senior portraits | Sam Carleton | Photographing People | 12 | June 11th 04 08:34 PM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Identifying slide film type | Ziphius | Film & Labs | 7 | January 11th 04 01:38 AM |