 Douglas Robertson |
What film? I am often read about what speed of film to use but not so ofetn about the type. I almost always use Kodak Gold 100, because I know it is a good brand and it is not too expensive. I was wondering how this compares too elite chrome 100/Royal gold etc? will there be a differnce in quality in a 6x4 print or maybe something a bit bigger? Also, why do Kodak seem to push the marketing towards this 400 and 800 speed max versatility? I see this on sale everwhere. I know most buyers will be snapshot takers but surely 200 speed or 400 speed film is the best all round option even for this type of user?
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
The good news is that 400 films today may be as fine in grain and color rendition as 100 was years ago. If this is true, newer 100 films should be fantastic. Try to get some Kodak Supra 100. It seems to transfer the technology of the improved faster films to the 100 end. Kodak is discontinuing Supra, but is moving the line to the Portra end. Try some 160 speed Portra. Most film buyers use point n shoots with skimpy max apertures. Not that many people are savvy enough to try to use 100 films. People like us need to let the manufacturers know that we want the best in fine grain and accurate color. In the 100's, all I know to tell you is to try all the Kodak and Fuji variants with the subject matter you like best. Use the same processing lab for all your tests, and see what you like best. By all means, give Portra a try. I shot a friend's wedding with it and could not believe the quality in the 160.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
First of all the big difference between Gold 100 and Elite Chrome 100 is that the Chrome is a slide film. If you are interested in prints then slide film is not the best way for you to go. Film is a personal choice. I may like one film a lot but that doesn't mean you will. It may not fit your shooting style, taste, or lab that you use. You can get many different results from film from lab to lab. It all depends on the quality of the lab, the chemicals they use, and the paper they print on. Try a bunch and see what you like. My theory on why Kodak pushes the higher speed films is this: they assume that most consumers are using p&s cameras or SLR's on program mode and that they don't know much about how exposure really works. Higher speed films will yield a higher number of keepers than slower speed film. This is because negative film handles overexposure very well and higher speed film allows for faster shutter speeds so you get less blurry photos. The more keepers you get out of a roll the better Kodak looks to you. It is true that the higher speed films are much better these days than they used to be. But they still aren't as fine grained as the lower speed films. So you can't enlarge them as much. Plus, they limit you to higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures. Which means you can't be as creative with them. They have their place, don't get me wrong. But there is no one film for every situation.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
From Kodak's perspective, they are marketing to the overwhelming mainstream of film buyers. These are the owners of zoom lens P&S's that have hideously slow lenses and limited exposure ranges (top practical shutter speed for standard leaf shutter is 1/500th second), and they very rarely asks for prints larger than 4x6. Add to that significant numbers of these owners using them to photograph their children at night or indoor sports events, or even attempting to photograph fireworks (I kid you not) using the weak-kneed built-in flash. The one-hour lab this film is given to, which takes beatings from the customer when these pix don't turn out well, has a fighting chance to get some kind of print out of the negatives if it was ISO 800 film. Those of us with a battery of fast prime lenses, multiple camera bodies and medium format gear make up less than 5% of the total film market. Hope this gives you a different perspective about why you see this kind of consumer advertising. IMHO, ISO 200 film is a good match for nearly all zoom lens P&S's as long as the user isn't trying to do something with it that is way outside the low light end of its exposure and flash range. I try to use as slow a film as I think I can get away with for many of the reasons Jeff mentions in his last paragraph. My general purpose 35mm film is ISO 64; in medium format, it's ISO 100. There's also at least a half dozen other films on hand from ISO 50 to ISO 1600 for unusual exposure situations and more specialized work. As Jeff stated, one film cannot do it all. BTW, there is a huge difference in the graininess of Kodak's Gold 100 (now called Bright Sun) and Royal Gold 100. The "Royal Gold" films are much finer grained than their "Gold" counterparts of the same film speed. Gold 100 is quite grainy for a film its speed. Portra 400 NC has approximately the same PGI (print grain index). It's little wonder you were impressed with Portra 160! Here are the graininess print grain index numbers for some of Kodak's 35mm color negative films using the same measurement standard of 4.4X magnification to 4x6 print size (higher number is grainier): -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Douglas Robertson |
Guys, thanks for the thoughts. Really useful. The section on GPI index is very interesting, I had no idea there was that much variation between different types with the same speed. I guess Portra and the Royal Gold will cost a fair bit more than the standard Gold. I found it interesting about what was said about people photographing night scenes (e.g. fireworks) with the flash going off. Just about every single person I know owns some type of camera but hardly anyone I know seems to know how to use them properly. I often find it amusing if I am at a fireworks display and I see flashes firing left right and centre. Even the people I know that own an SLR harldy ever use it off the fully automatic mode and have no clue about fstops shutter speeds etc. For an item that is so widely used by so many people, (and a lot of money spent) it seems very strange to me the lack of knowledge on the part of the average user. If people would even follow the 'top ten tips' you find at any website 95% of their photos would be improved.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Douglas Robertson |
Guys, thanks for the thoughts. Really useful. The section on GPI index is very interesting, I had no idea there was that much variation between different types with the same speed. I guess Portra and the Royal Gold will cost a fair bit more than the standard Gold. I found it interesting about what was said about people photographing night scenes (e.g. fireworks) with the flash going off. Just about every single person I know owns some type of camera but hardly anyone I know seems to know how to use them properly. I often find it amusing if I am at a fireworks display and I see flashes firing left right and centre. Even the people I know that own an SLR harldy ever use it off the fully automatic mode and have no clue about fstops shutter speeds etc. For an item that is so widely used by so many people, (and a lot of money spent) it seems very strange to me the lack of knowledge on the part of the average user. If people would even follow the 'top ten tips' you find at any website 95% of their photos would be improved.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||