Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: Which film for good landscape and people photography?

  1. #1

    Default Which film for good landscape and people photography?

    Going on an overseas trip soon. apart from my dslr, i'll also bring my old n trustworthy X-700..

    but i want to know which negative is versatile for both landscape and people? i know i can't get the best of both worlds, but i want to get as close to that as possible!

    Last time i used fuji superia 200, grain is quite obvious in the photos.. now i want a change, for a better one.

    so start recommending!

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    602

    Default

    Hmm, slides wise, try Sensia? Cheap and pretty neutral coloured slide.

    Film....Landscape go for Reala!

  3. #3

    Default

    Velvia 50!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by behyx
    Last time i used fuji superia 200, grain is quite obvious in the photos.. now i want a change, for a better one.
    Superia 200 is grainy? I tot even the superia 400 is quite well in grain control nowadays. When was the last time u shot with Superia 200?

    Just get the superia 400 if you realy want to shoot in negative.
    Last edited by sumball; 16th April 2005 at 09:58 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sumball
    Velvia 50!!!



    Superia 200 is grainy? I tot even the superia 400 is quite well in grain control nowadays. When was the last time u shot with Superia 200?

    Just get the superia 400 if you realy want to shoot in negative.

    hello Sumball!

    Yes i found the superia 200 is a tad too grainy for my liking in terms of color prints. The last time i used it was during a trip to Melbourne in dec '03.

    Wryer, i have 2 reasons why i don't want to go for slides... 1) i want to print it out, thus negative will yield better result. 2) using slides to shoot human (portraits) is quite harsh... [pls correct me if i'm wrong]
    BTW, the reala u recommended is ISO100 is it? and how much is per roll (35mm)?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    It is a misconception that using slides to shoot portrait is harsh. Many pros use slides to shoot portraits depending on the condition. There are a lot of different slides. Those that uses Velvia and Provia is not too suitable IMO, instead Astia 100F or even Sensia 100 is better than Velvia on any day indoor or outdoor as they are meant to render the skin smoother and less sharp generally.


    Back to negative, Reala is very fine grain and I advice you to print optically instead of scanning + print if you want to enlarge to 8R or more. It is about $6.80 per roll. But Reala is not that great for portrait, which the NPC/NPS 160 is better in this case. Moreover, Reala's latitude is not that big so you got to get the exposure right.

  6. #6

    Default

    Thanks for the info!

    Also for B&W films, which one is good?
    try to go this website: http://www.reduxpictures.com/leong

    i like the tonality of the pictures.. which B&W film can do it?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Behind the viewfinder...
    Posts
    5,851

    Default

    Velvia 50 is good

  8. #8

    Default

    My favorite for portraits is Kodak Portra VC 400.
    Not sure for landscape. Good luck on your trip.
    Cheers

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Last planet from the sun
    Posts
    2,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theITguy
    It is a misconception that using slides to shoot portrait is harsh. Many pros use slides to shoot portraits depending on the condition. There are a lot of different slides. Those that uses Velvia and Provia is not too suitable IMO, instead Astia 100F or even Sensia 100 is better than Velvia on any day indoor or outdoor as they are meant to render the skin smoother and less sharp generally.


    Back to negative, Reala is very fine grain and I advice you to print optically instead of scanning + print if you want to enlarge to 8R or more. It is about $6.80 per roll. But Reala is not that great for portrait, which the NPC/NPS 160 is better in this case. Moreover, Reala's latitude is not that big so you got to get the exposure right.
    REALA Latitude not that great? Hmmm....I beg to differ on that.

    I have tested the film on both 35mm and 120mm. It manage to yield to about 10 stops before it starts burn the film border. In fact Reala is one of THE most saturated NEGATIVE film i have use.

    I had a student of mine who expose at 1 stop over. It was still a tad underexposed when it was printed. In fact Reala needs to be exposed at a minumum of 2-3 stops over.

    Fuji NPC/NPS 160 are short exposure films. They are mainly use with studio strobes. Plenty of wedding studios use Kodak 160VC and Fuji NPS 160.

    As for behyx,

    I think if you are looking for an all rounder, go with REALA for landscape. Kodak Portra 160VC is good for Portrait shooting, be it indoor or outdoor.

    Reala is about $6.00 plus per roll if i am not wrong. Kodak 160VC is $5.70 per roll if you buy a pack of 5. If you buy only 1 or 2, it will cost you about $6.20. All prices are from Cathay Photo. Fuji Superia is about $9.00 for 3 rolls.

    Both of this films are expensive. If you are on a tight budget, Fuji Superia 200/400 are the best bet. Grainy? Try to over exposed the films by at least 1 stop more. Come down to my studio and I will ask Joanne to do a print for you. Then you show us the grainy feel on those film you mentioned earlier.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Pro Image:

    Might be my skill in using negative. I take back my statement until I try again with the film and work with a lab (Stanley? hehe).

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pro Image
    REALA Latitude not that great? Hmmm....I beg to differ on that.
    Personally I'd agree with ITGuy, Reala's latitude for underexposure isn't good. Just 1 stop under and the colours will turn horrid.


    I had a student of mine who expose at 1 stop over. It was still a tad underexposed when it was printed. In fact Reala needs to be exposed at a minumum of 2-3 stops over.
    Hmmm...I don't quite get you here. How can it look underexposed if it was exposed at 1 stop over? And what do you mean by "it needs to be exposed at a minimum of 2-3 stops over"? You mean exposing it at a EI of 25?

    Behyx: Superia 200 has fine grain for most purposes. Actually the current version of Superia 400 and Superia 200 have the same granularity which makes the Superia 400 one of the finest 400 speed films around. Only the portraiture films like Kodak Portra and Fuji NPS have finer subjective grain appearance in the midtones to flatter the skin. If you are getting grainy looking shots from Superia 200, it might be your lab performing excessive sharpening or simply a case of underexposure. As for using slides for portraiture, it all depends on how well you control your light.

  12. #12

    Default

    provia 100f or 400 is quite good.

    u can scan it first and print.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Scanning slides are pretty expensive and really no point. Total costs for a roll of slide to print and negative to print will be about 3 to 2.

    Provia 100F == $8.70
    Development + Scan + Print (KT w/ FDI) == $6 + $5 + (30c x 36) == $21.80
    Total Cost == $30.50

    Or

    Provia 100F == $8.70
    Development + Print (KT w/ FDI) == $6 + (60c x 36) == $27.60
    Total Cost == $36.30

    Or

    Reala == $6.50++
    Development + Print (Stanley w/ Optical) == $3.50 + (30c x 36) == $14.30
    Total Cost == $22.80


    Please note that the reason I add the "Scan" fees of $5 is that in future reprinting of it will be cheaper as it is a digital file already. Direct print (they still scan it but you do not get the scanned copy) is 60cents unless they changed it.


    Actually I would prefer to go to Stanley to print my negatives as Joanna will get the colour close to what I want. Best thing is can chit chat there. Of course I am not one of their students or related to them. I think I went there 4 times only so far.

  14. #14

    Default

    Aiz... Since no one commenting in my other thread regarding films also... behyx, i'll just piggyback here hor...


    What about reciprocity failure?
    Which film best for landscape only?

    ITguy: What's the diff between the 30 cents & 60 cents print? Is the output noticibly different if slides/negatives are used?

    .

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Areality, when you print slides, most labs will probably scan and print digitally. There is no difference between the 2. If you see my calculations, basically the first set of numbers is to develop the slide with a scanned copy. So you just send in to the lab to print digitally, therefore 30cents.

    For the 2nd set, you are paying 60cents to just print a frame of your 35mm slide, but you do not get a scanned copy. Of course this practice of charging extra might be changed since it was a long time I last went to KT (I heard there are charging 80cents from one guy in the last slide gathering).


    Lastly, I want to say that slides are not that great to be scanned and print digitally, unless using drum scan or really high end scanner with a good operator. MF or large format users of slides are better positioned to make use of slides when scanned (35mm slides drum scanned certainly not worth it 99% of the time IMO).

  16. #16

    Default

    So negatives will be better if the final output is intended to be in digital la?

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AReality
    So negatives will be better if the final output is intended to be in digital la?

    Neither, it also depends on the operator. But negative is cheaper (scan a copy in CD or not also 30cents) and you can go to Stanley to print optically without getting grain aliasing from scanning when you do big prints. In fact for 35mm, digital is still better for overall control and you get the consistency much easier IMO.

  18. #18

    Default

    Cannot.
    My digital have crop factor. Using film to get the widest angle possible.
    Scanning for neg & slides same cost? Where u recommend scanning?

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    In this small world
    Posts
    3,142

    Default

    I would say try yourself at Kex's shop in Bedok, Konota, FotoHub and KT. To me may be good, but to you may not be affordable etc, a lot of factors to consider. To travel to that place, or nearby.

    It is like saying "I know 35mm is overall not as good as MF's 6x7, but because I am poor I have to continue using 35mm slide, yet I am still happy as I can still take pictures I like to".

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theITguy
    I would say try yourself at Kex's shop in Bedok, Konota, FotoHub and KT. To me may be good, but to you may not be affordable etc, a lot of factors to consider. To travel to that place, or nearby.

    It is like saying "I know 35mm is overall not as good as MF's 6x7, but because I am poor I have to continue using 35mm slide, yet I am still happy as I can still take pictures I like to".
    Hi. What's the name of the shop in Bedok and where exactly located? Thx

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •