Confused with camera fim

Posted by: Haroon on 06 February 2004

There are just so many out there now and im finding it difficult to wittle it down to a few.

Like whats the difference between fuji NPC, NPS and NPC? Any idea what the letters stand for?

Then there is Fuji Reala and Superia - why?

Kodak is at it too with their Portra range - arrrggg. They also got these new High Definition films they better or worse than the Royal range? Royal range any less sharp/detailed?

Kodak have about three C41 B&W films - why? Fuji have two! The mind keeps boggling with all the choices.

Slide im okay with just about every pic i see in a mag/recommendation is for Fuji Velvia.

I cant possibly test out all these different films, just want to get it down to a few. Like top 3 for 100 asa and top three for 400 asa. Most of my photography is travel - portraits and lanscapes. Im not into architecture, wildlife or sports.

Im also concerned about skin-tones, are most film optimally balanced for lighter skin-tones? Its often said in the magazines for instance that certain films are used for portraiture/wedding photographers - this makes me inclined to think the skin tones is balances for western (us/eurpean) world. How well would these films cope with darker skin-tones - as i do much of my travelling in developing world were there are a multi-range of skin tones from the very dark to light browns. Also clothing is often bright colours - bolivia and india. I dont think the magazine reviewers take this into account when reviewing portarit films. I could be wrong on this though, any insight really welcome.

Posted on: 06 February 2004 by DJH

Haroon,

There's a good guide to films here.

Everyone will have their own likes and dislikes. My favourite colour film is probably Fuji Astia, which is specifically designed to reproduce skin tones accurately, closely followed by Fuji Velvia - I have a box of the new Velvia 100F to try out over the next few weeks. I haven't used any Kodak colour film for years. I think that a number of photographers have switched from colour transparency to negative film as the latter is easier to scan.

In black and white, the best advice is to find one film/developer combination that works, and to stick to it. I particularly like Kodak TMax100 / Rodinal, and Ilford Delta 100 or Fuji Acros in PMK Pyro - I seem to be using more Acros these days as it is available in Quickload format which is convenient when you are backpacking with a large format outfit.

Regards

David

Posted on: 07 February 2004 by Steve G

quote:
Originally posted by DJH:

Everyone will have their own likes and dislikes. My favourite colour film is probably Fuji Astia, which is specifically designed to reproduce skin tones accurately, closely followed by Fuji Velvia

Or alternatively Provia if you want something mid-way between those two.

Provia is the slide film I mainly use and Astia I use for portraits. I haven't used Velvia for years but I think I'll try the 100F version as it could be ideal for some of the outdoor stuff. I recently switched to using Jessops mailers for developing and they've been fine so far and much cheaper than the pro-lab I was previously using.

I don't shoot much colour print but when I do it's usually Reala although I do use Superia occasionally.

For B&W I use loads of different films although I've only tried the C41 versions a couple of times (and I wasn't all that impressed although much of that may have been due to the minilab I used to develop and print them).

Regards
Steve

Posted on: 07 February 2004 by Rockingdoc

Thanks for the link DJH, I found it fascinating. Interesting that he feels my beloved T-Max 100 is superceded by the C41 T-Max400.
I have also used C41 200 asa in my point-and-shoots in the past, but will probably just use 400 asa in future.
I thought the point that labs will have more experience, and hence more consistent results with Kodak Gold was relevant too.

Posted on: 07 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz

I just could not get that 35mill into the bastard till me mate Dave said Digitals didn't need it, now he bloody well tells me, innit !

Fritz Von 12x12inarightole2&8

Pst: Linda Mac was an Eastman

Posted on: 07 February 2004 by count.d

Haroon,

Film choice can be made to sound complex, but it's relatively easy. The best advice would be to stick to a small selection and don't be tempted to try different makes. You need to get to know your films in photography and after a while you will know exactly how lighting conditions and subject matter will affect the end result.

Basically, I would stick to Fuji. Their NPS (160asa) is suitable for most neg situations. It has low contrast to help shadow/highlight detail. The NPC is a high contrast version which is only suitable for creative, colourful shots.

For transparency stick to Fuji Provia III 100. It is the best all round film. Avoid Velvia, it's far too saturated and contrasty for general images.

Fuji sent me a sample of the new Astia to test, but the under/over exposure characteristics are not as friendly as Provia.

Your single biggest problem is how you're going to get the films processed. Use a pro lab only.

Also make sure you get the exposure spot on. This is so important.

Posted on: 07 February 2004 by Haroon

quote:
Originally posted by count.d:
Haroon,

Basically, I would stick to Fuji. Their NPS (160asa) is suitable for most neg situations. It has low contrast to help shadow/highlight detail. The NPC is a high contrast version which is only suitable for creative, colourful shots.

There also seems to be NPL and NPZ and NPH

Like I said in my original post im looking for a film that wil deal with bright colours and the multitude of skin-tones found in developing countries. So would that mean for my purposes NPC is better than NPS?

Anyone with experience of kodak Royal Supra and the new kodak high def films?

Cheers

Posted on: 07 February 2004 by count.d

quote:
There also seems to be NPL and NPZ and NPH
Like I said in my original post im looking for a film that wil deal with bright colours and the multitude of skin-tones found in developing countries. So would that mean for my purposes NPC is better than NPS?

Anyone with experience of kodak Royal Supra and the new kodak high def films?

You might be better reading the Photo.net forum. It seems geared up for you.

Posted on: 07 February 2004 by Haroon

Hmm dont know, seems a bit too scary in there

Posted on: 08 February 2004 by count.d

"You might be better reading the Photo.net forum. It seems geared up for you".

Haroon,

I must apologise. After an evening of wine, a little devil sat on my left shoulder whispering "be sarcastic, you know he deserves it"

Photo.net is 99% bollocks. It's full of contradictory information written by camera collectors.

I had given you the films you will generally need for your purposes in my previous post.

NPL = tungsten film
NPZ = 800asa film
NPH = 400asa film - this is a superb fast film.

Posted on: 08 February 2004 by Haroon

Hmmm been reading the photo.net site last night, it has helped me to get to a somewhat of a shortlist including the ones you've mentioned, thanks. One thing i did find out from there was that Kodak Royal Supra and Kodak High Definition are pretty much the same film, Kodak Portra UC400 also has similar qualities, but must of them reckon it edges ahead of the previous two.

Still, you did not indicate whether NPC would be better for me than NPS

im gonna give them both a try anyway

Which lab do you use? I've been told that fuji frontier/crystal archive give best results, but dont know which labs use them.