Film recommendations

[Cris Schroeder]

Camera questions are beaten more often than a dead horse here, so I’d like to shift gears a little to discuss film choice for those who still work with it. For background, I have used digital (Canon XTi) for my sky and storm shots over the last two years but really enjoy working with film. I generally work with TMAX 100 since I can develop it at home, and because it has a great dynamic range and very fine grain. It also scans well. The only color film I’ve used recently is Fuji Provia. I shot some landscapes with it last fall but never really tried it out.

I’ve run into the full gamut of lighting conditions on my chases this year. My storm structure shots typically have a high dynamic range, especially when including foreground elements. Up close, however, the dynamic range is often very low and I make good use of curves in Photoshop to bring out detail. How do film shooters deal with this variation in scene contrast? Do you shoot something with a wide dynamic range (Provia) and deal with the low-contrast scenes in Photoshop, or switch to something like Velvia to bring out the detail in the lower contrast scenes? Finally, is anyone using print film? Print films supposedly have a wider dynamic range than transparency films but I have never tried to quantify how much.

 

[Darren Addy]

Are you scanning the negatives/slides to work with it in Photoshop? Curious what slide scanner you use.

I'm sentimental about film, but I just don't understand what the justification would be for still using it today, unless you have your own darkroom and enjoy that side of things OR you are working with bigger negatives for bigger enlargement purposes.

That being said, slide film is much less forgiving of exposure errors than print film is (as I'm sure you know). Kodak has just released a new print film especially for nature that you might want to check out: Professional Ektar 100. Q&A here.

 

[Greg Campbell]

I like Provia and the Kodak E-100x films.

Of the popular E6 offerings, Astia/Sensia has a bit more grain, but you (probably) get the most dynamic range (if only by a hair. Provia is very close.) Natural colors, good sharpness and grain. Of the E6 films, this would be my first choice for storm chasing use, simply because of the extra headroom.

Provia and E100-x are very good general purpose films.
I like E100-G for lightning; it has a very natural shoulder and minimal color shift during long exposures. On the downside, long exposures don't accumulate the rich sky colors as well as the Fuji films. I haven't run any formal tests, but E100-G may have a bit more dynamic range than even Astia.
E100-GX strikes me as a little too warm for general weather use, sunsets excepted!
Provia is also an excellent compromise, with a hair more apparent grain than the E100 but slightly punchier colors and contrast.

Velvia (the 100F iteration) is, of course, a fantastic for landscapes. The saturation sometimes strikes me as overcooked, but then I go look at the cartoonish stuff digital shooters are posting everywhere. With careful metering, you can make the sharp density curve work in your favor to produce deep blacks in your composition. The most demanding emulsion, but it also produces the most dramatic out-of-the-developer-tank images. For chasing, I'd shoot something more forgiving, and post-process to taste.

Print film has never really appealed, but I'm going to try some in my Bronica soon. A little more grain will be lost in the gigantic negative and I'll enjoy immense latitude - much greater than any slide film. Anyone got a favorite to suggest?? Darren, I'll give the new Ektar a try!

I hope to take the 6x6 chasing next spring. The SQ is an awkward studio biased camera, but with a speed grip+winder and low contrast film it should be reasonably field capable.

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ is a good place to save some money. I've never had any trouble with their outdated stock.

FWIW, I scan everything and send it through the computer for tweaking and touch-up. In that light, color response becomes much less of an issue. That leaves sharpness, grain, latitude, and shoulder/toe response to differentiate the various films.

-Greg

 

[Cris Schroeder]

Are you scanning the negatives/slides to work with it in Photoshop? Curious what slide scanner you use.

I scan with an Epson V750 Pro flatbed scanner and tweak the images with Photoshop CS3.

My biggest reason for shooting with film is simply that I enjoy it. Using film also forces me to slow down a little and think about what I'm doing. I found myself banging out 150-200 frames with the XTi without taking much time to think about what I was doing. With film, I pay more attention to each shot because it costs more. I've noticed my number of keepers has gone up substantially since I re-started using film as I am spending more time looking over the scene and picturing what I want to do; i.e. quality over quantity. I also find it interesting to learn how people did things "back in the day". I taught myself Ansel Adams' Zone System and use it for my B&W photography.

I think I'll stick with Provia 100 for now, as I just picked up a few rolls for the Mamiya. I'll also check out the new Ektar 100 stuff. I've been considering running some exposure latitude tests on a number of different films so maybe I'll put something on my website when I'm finished.

Good luck with the 6x6 Greg. I'm planning to shoot with the RB67 next spring but I have a lot of practicing to do until then!

 

[David Wolfson]

I've been settling on Provia, and got to love the high-speed version after using it for a macro class some years ago. At the time it was marketed as Provia 1600 with an implied two-stop push; now the same film is Provia 400. It has a manageable and pleasant grain even shot at 3200 and pushed 3 1/2.

Attempts with my Bronica this May were very frustrating with almost no opportunities to shoot safely outside the vehicle in decent lighting. I have a speed winder and hang in on my neck when there's no time for the tripod (get the wide, stretchy rubber neck strap -- heavy!). Since the lenses only stop to f4 or so and the wide angle is 50mm, there's where the Provia 400 comes in to get exposure times that are somewhat less than geological. Going to keep at it though....

I've used Kodak Portra for prints. The problem is that getting wet color prints of any size either requires a pro lab (and pro prices), or the negative ends up getting scanned and digitally printed anyway; and they just seem to lose something in that translation compared to reversal film.

 

[John Wetter]

I still have a good stash of Velvia in the freezer. Can't beat it for the saturation that I think drives me to over-saturate on digital. If I'm shooting a wildflower landscape, or a storm in a landscape that really has color, you can bet I'll take the time to pull out the film and snap a few frames.

 

[Stephen Locke]

film gear

Interesting to see people still using film cameras. I've got a closet full of RZ/RB 6x7 (Mamiya) gear that I no longer use. If anyone wants to add to their inventory of medium format film equipment let me know. I can vouch for the care it has received. Can't have too many backs loaded and ready to go . . .

If it is a breach of etiquette to make this post here let me know and I'll stay closer to topic in the future

 

[Bill Hark]

From my film experience, I really like Velvia. Unlike some folks, I enjoy the extra saturation. Being a slow film, storm use is somewhat limited. For lightning, I prefer Kodachrome 64. I am not impressed with any print film for storm photography.

Bill Hark

 

[Jeff Richardson]

I've yet to make the transition to digital with the exception of a point-and-shoot Nikon. Fuji Velvia has been my film of choice since the mid 90's. Before that, I started using Kodak Kodachrome in 1982. Overall, the Velvia has rich colors and great saturation and I can't recommend it highly enough.

 

[Dan Robinson]

I was always happy with Fuji Sensia 100. Less expensive than Velvia and I always liked the colors that I got using it with lightning. I still have a few rolls in the car, and even though I've gone DSLR I will probably break it out again sometime.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I second Fuji Velvia. Excellent, excellent slide film. If you want to shoot negs, Fuji Reala (100) is a very inexpensive and high quality film.

 

[Jason Branz]

I've found Sensia to be good for the higher contrast storm shots, but for the most part, I'm a Velvia shooter. It takes a bit of practice, but once you've gotten the exposures right, Velvia produces amazing results. The eye-popping colors have really caught the attention of the patrons at my recent art shows as well. Velvia is getting more pricey, but it's well worth it.

 

[Cris Schroeder]

I'll have to load up on Velvia and give it a try. I have a roll of Reala print film to try, along with my usual Provia. Unfortunately I bought it all in 120 size, and my RB67 is in the shop.

I saw a story that Kodachrome may be out of production forever. I may pick up a few rolls just to say I used it before it was gone. I think I shot some storms on Kodachrome 64 many years ago.

 

[Greg Campbell]

I'll have to load up on Velvia and give it a try. I have a roll of Reala print film to try, along with my usual Provia. Unfortunately I bought it all in 120 size, and my RB67 is in the shop.

I saw a story that Kodachrome may be out of production forever. I may pick up a few rolls just to say I used it before it was gone. I think I shot some storms on Kodachrome 64 many years ago.

A few years ago the corner Walgreens liquidated their recently expired Kodachromes. (At $1.50 a roll, I was set for some time!) Evidently, retail sales are all but nonexistent.

I suspect that Kodak will pull the plug within a few years - the loss of Kodachrome will be a shame. While you can always tweak a given image to produce 'the Kodachrome look,' the loss of a fairly constant standard will be missed. When the day arrives, I'm sure the digital fanboi crowd will make a big point to bray and spew about how film has finally 'died.'

Recent emulsions have remained largely unchanged for years/decades, but early versions of Koadachrome, introduced in the 40's, were an entirely different animal. Check out http://www.openmyeyeslord.net/ALookBackInHistory.htm
A few of the scans need a blackpoint tweak. Otherwise I really like the tonal scale and muted color. The Roundhouse shot is fantastic.

-G

 

[David Wolfson]

Way back when I shot many a roll of Kodachrome II on my parents' summer trips. One of my to-dos is going through and scanning some of those slides from the 50s and 60s. The ASA 25 (best shot at around ASA 32 as I remember) was very sharp and luminous due to Kodachrome films' unique non-substrate structure.

Be aware that it's developed with the K-14 process, which is very different from the E-6 used today for reversal films. I think that processing is very hard to come by nowadays.