Advice on film choice for traveling

[YOP92270]

Hi everybody,

I'll be traveling in Indonesia w/i a forthnight and am puzzled about the choice of film (4x5) i should use for color landscape photography over there. Could anyone of you help me in this quest? Thanks a lot.

Brgds
Yann

 

[Athiril]

Cant go wrong with Astia, it handles high saturation well (sunrise, sunset) without balancing out the colours and muting it like colour neg seems to do for me when shooting sunset, wide dynamic range (for an E-6 film), beautiful on people as well, fine grain, brilliant reciprocity characteristics.

 

[Ektagraphic]

If you are looking for a negative film, you may want to give Ektar 100 a try. If you want reversal, E100G and E100VS are superb!

 

[YOP92270]

Thanks!

For a beginner like me: what main difference would it makes between using revesible or negative film nowadays in such case? What is the main advantage/disdvantage of the ones compare to the others?

Brgds
Yann

 

[Athiril]

You can very easily blow your highlights on reversal film (like digital), but exposed correctly, it retains the saturation of sunset and sunrise colours, while negative loses a lot of the colour, appears dull by comparison to what was actually seen, and changes the tone and hue of the colours.

Though you'll have a tough time blowing your highlights on negative film, when there is a lot of difference between the highlights and shadows, negative will capture a greater range of it (as long as you dont underexpose it, overexposing is fine), Astia also has a very good range for this purpose but you need to be careful not to overexpose it still.

 

[jeffreyg]

What is the end result you wish to obtain? For example, will you be making prints yourself or having a lab process and print. Will you be scanning and digitally printing? I would choose a film that suits your intended result. Then again you could take some of both.

 

[YOP92270]

Jeffrey,

I would have them lab processed for the moment (I'll buy a scan at a later stage). The end result I wish to obtain is usually get warm tones contrasts and colorfull detailed pictures.

Brgds
yann

 

[Athiril]

You can shoot with a warming filter or adjust to warm tones equivalent of any filter very easily to a scan its a minor adjustment.

Sounds like you might want to shoot with Ektar though, for any portraits, I'd recommend Pro 160S or Astia, you could kill 2 birds with one stone with the Astia - that can pretty much do everything.

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't shoot 4x5, but I've decided I prefer Portra to Ektar. Go figure. More flexible film, faster, and colors I like more. VC and NC are both nice.

 

[Elchin13]

For negative film i use Kodak Ektar which is a great film with a very wide dynamic range, but recently tested out Fuji Astia 100F and the images came out amazing. The Astia's color where saturated and had a very good dynamic range for slide film. I will be picking up more of this film.

 

[2F/2F]

I'd pick either Kodak or Fuji, and then pick either a 160 high-contrast high saturation film (Kodak VC or Fuji C) or a 160 low-contrast low saturation film (Kodak NC or Fuji S). If you are shooting a hand-held 4x5, I would pick Portra 400NC.

In 4x5, Kodak has:

160NC
160VC
400NC

...and Fuji has:

160S
160C

Both Fuji films are discontinued, but are often still in stock at retailers. It is a shame, because while I prefer Kodak for when the weather is sunny and clear (or with flash), IME the Fuji handles color casts from non-sunny weather much better.

 

[Athiril]

Kodak has Ektar too, Fuji has their range of E-6 in 4x5.

Is there any actual evidence on that discontinuation? I haven't seen any, I've only seen the current line up on the Fuji site stating what films are available in what sizes, and it states Reala, 160NS, 160NC, 800 are all available in various sizes.

Also those films are available directly from Fuji's online shop in sheet sizes.

 

[2F/2F]

I did not mention Ektar for the same reason one would generally not mention Efke IR 820 or Rollei IR to someone asking for a good all-around b/w film for landscapes: because I would only consider it a very special-purpose film, not something to have as my only film on a big trip...but yes, if you want your landscapes to look like a child's Crayola drawings or tempera paintings, there is Ektar as well!

There was a whole giant thread on the Fuji discontinuances. Fuji announced the discontinuation to their U.S. dealers, for sure. (Are e-mails to U.S. dealers enough evidence?) It does not mean that they and retailers still don't have some to sell. S is supposedly coming back after some packaging changes, but not C.

 

[Athiril]

Ektar would be a great film for landscapes, that is one of the things it is suited for.


No they aren't enough, they're not able to be called evidence either, that is hearsay. When you say a film is discontinued, that means its not going to be made anymore, at all, not simply not distributed to the U.S. market, which is what this hearsay suggests.

 

[2F/2F]

Ektar, or any film, is only a "great film for" WHATEVER subject if you are after its particular look for those particular photos. There are no such things as "landscape films" or "portrait films". Only films with certain characteristics, and people who decide what characteristics they want for certain pix. To simply call a film a "great film for landscapes" does the OP and all other films a disservice, and misses the point that we should determine what our photographs look like by choosing a film, not let a film determine what our photographs look like because someone says it is a "landscape film".

I maintain that Ektar's characteristics make it a special-purpose film only.

Read that thread. All Fujicolor Pro films are gone except for 400H. This is old news now.

 

[Athiril]

You must have a different definition of evidence than me.. to me the definition of evidence includes some kind of proof to ascetain the truth or facts of a matter.

If you are going to make such claims, then provide evidence for these claims, or retract those claims. Hearsay is not evidence.

Ektar is a general purpose film, well suited to landscape and nature photography. You can use whatever reasoning you want to disclude it as a recommendation, but it seems to me that is simply a device for you to discredit and not include it because you don't like it for your work, or are set in your ways.

What you're saying about Ektar, is the same rubbish people say about Velvia, which is totally crap, there are plenty of neutral and natural looking Velvia images.

I wonder what Kodak was to say about their own film Ektar, which they should know better than anyone.. hmm,
"Recommended applications:

* nature
* travel
* outdoor photography
* fashion
* product photography "

That almost sounds... very diverse and general purpose, and especially suited to what the OP wants.

I disagree that is a "special purpose only" film and say its very general purpose for almost any subject, who are you to define that it is a "special purpose only" film for anyone other than yourself? Trying to argue such a point on usage for other people is absolutely ridiculous.

Furthermore, I define how my work looks, not the film I shoot it with, my tools and medium do not define my work like you suggest it does, only I do that, one film or not. I choose my look with composition, perspective/lens size, lighting, exposure, filtering, etc, I also choose my look through the various things I can do in processing, and by choosing my contrast, among other things.

I can totally see how you could confuse the two, and think the second was shot on Ektar and the first image was drawn with crayons.

 

[2F/2F]

Letters to vendors from Fuji are not hearsay, nor are press releases, nor are interviews with Fuji employees. All of these sources are the only things that have provided the information on the discontinuances. You should talking about it as if it is a rumor, because it definitely is not one.

You have to be joking quoting a manufacturer's recommended uses for their film as an argument. This is like people who quote camera instruction manuals for rules on photographing.

Take a picture like the digital thing you posted, on a day with similar weather as the kid depicted, and compare to a real crayon or tempera picture. Subtract for the element of exaggeration, and you will see the similarities.

Nobody is saying it is a bad film. Just that it is not anywhere near middle of the road, which is what a general-purpose film is. If the OP had specified certain criteria, such as intense saturation, then I would have included Ektar in my list. My list of films was only meant to cover what I had suggested in my previous paragraph, and that it did.

 

[Athiril]

That is exactly what hearsay is. You have not provided any bit of evidence, only third hand hearsay.

Again, I refute that, it is an excellent general purpose film, you have no business in deciding it is not for others.

My local Fuji place told me the exact same thing about discontinuation about the same products over a year ago.

 

[Q.G.]

You must have a different definition of evidence than me.. to me the definition of evidence includes some kind of proof to ascetain the truth or facts of a matter.

[...]

I can totally see how you could confuse the two, and think the second was shot on Ektar and the first image was drawn with crayons.

Well sir, i put it to you that neither of the images you have shown the jury was drawn using crayons, and that neither of the two is an image that could be regarded as representative of an image 'shot' on Ektar.

I put it to you, sir, that you have fabricated proof. And that you are misleading the jury by showing a scan, alledgedly of an Ektar negative, on a computer screen.

 

[Athiril]

A backlit display is just as misleading as a reflective display.

And crayons or not, it shows the same intent that he was describing is respresentative of Ektar.

 

[wblynch]

For Southern California I prefer Ektar. On the beach or in San Diego, with Ektar I get bright strong colors.

Fuji Pro160 S/C, along with Portra 160NC give me very washed out, pastel looking pictures. I depend on commercial labs for my prints since I have no darkroom at home.

I also found the Portra 160 and Fuji Pro160 films very dissatisfying in Florida, the Caribbean and Mexico. Those are all places I see with strong colors and Portra does not give them to me.

I have even scanned all those rolls and attempted color correction on the computer. They still don't represent what I saw in real life. It is disappointing to come home from an exciting, colorful trip only to get soft, pastel photos.

Maybe Pro 160 and Portra are great in a studio or for controlled lighting. Certainly a wedding where you want to control skin blemishes and shadows. (even then, the bright purple bridesmaids dresses came out soft lavender).

I am only an amateur photographer, so for traveling, I will use typical consumer grade color films from Fuji or Kodak but I especially like Ektar. No more Portra.

-- I missed the OP's requirement for a 4x5 film. Sorry, my comments are for 35mm, so consumer film will not apply.