Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Affordable multipurpose film

  1. #1

    Default Affordable multipurpose film

    Hi all,

    I've just started shooting film (only 2 rolls so far )
    Been using film sparingly mainly because of the cost (film itself and developing). Mostly I use my prosumer digicam first then if I like the results, then I use my film SLR.

    What I would like to know is what film would you recommend for me?
    My usage would mostly be street (day), outdoor model (day), buildings and landscape (day/night).
    I also rarely use flash (dun have external, only the built in one)

    So my criteria would be affordable (sounds nicer than "cheap" ), versatile (suitable for many situations), and of course acceptable quality (dun need to be best quality, just as long as it is not bad)

    If possible, could you guys let me know the price and where to get your recommended film as well

    Thanks a lot in advance....

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,719

    Default

    haha you are using yur digicam as a polariod

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Fuji superia 200... a color film that works for practically everything i have in mind! You can buy these anywhere, and also in economy-packs of like 4 rolls...
    Probably TriX or Tmax for black-whites, but they'll cost you a bomb to develop... better to use TCN.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tingchiyen
    Fuji superia 200... a color film that works for practically everything i have in mind! You can buy these anywhere, and also in economy-packs of like 4 rolls...
    Probably TriX or Tmax for black-whites, but they'll cost you a bomb to develop... better to use TCN.
    How about Kodak Gold 200? are these any good??

  5. #5
    Senior Member The_Cheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,278

    Default

    Apart from Fuji Superia 200, you may also want to try Kodak High Definition 200 as well. There're slightly more expensive than Fuji film, but the results are better... well, at least it looks better to me!

    As for black and white, do consider developing your own film. They are more economical than sending to labs... furthermore, b/w films are also quite cheap!

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Fuji supreria 200 is my 'default' film in the camera. It's really a compromise between speed and grain, but I've been quite happy with it so far.

  7. #7

    Default

    thanks pple for the reccomendation,

    For those who usually scan their negatives after developing, care to share how much is the cost (develop + scan + cd, no printing) and what is the resolution?

  8. #8

    Default

    Obvious: Fuji Reala. I have heard good things about Superia. Anyway, Don't waste your money on 200 speed emulsions. The grain is no better than good 400 speeds but you lose 1 stop. ASA 100 films are so good that you need not bother with the 1 stop gain. The conspiracy theory is that Professionals use either ASA 100 or 400 and hence kodak and fuji have improved the quality of these emulsions and ASA 200 emulsions have been left behind in terms of technology... Something to think over... hmm...

    Anyway, go with reala. I'd use it anyday when light is reasonably enough.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    1,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RemAcuTetigisti
    Obvious: Fuji Reala. I have heard good things about Superia. Anyway, Don't waste your money on 200 speed emulsions. The grain is no better than good 400 speeds but you lose 1 stop. ASA 100 films are so good that you need not bother with the 1 stop gain. The conspiracy theory is that Professionals use either ASA 100 or 400 and hence kodak and fuji have improved the quality of these emulsions and ASA 200 emulsions have been left behind in terms of technology... Something to think over... hmm...

    Anyway, go with reala. I'd use it anyday when light is reasonably enough.
    Operational word here is 'affordable'....

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justarius
    Operational word here is 'affordable'....
    Justarius: agreed... Reala costs $7+- a roll...

    I wouldn't recommend kodak gold, i personally feel they don't do colors any justice... fuji still seems spot-on where colors are concerned.

  11. #11
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    I bet to differ ... I used to use superias, but somehow got a bit irritated by the "too vibrant" colours...

    Kodak Gold 200 gives much more natural and soothing colours, but its on the warm side.

    Anyway, both are pretty good, so you can't go wrong with either one. Just buy one each and try it out yourself. That's one of the fun thing about using film


    Kodak is a bit more expensive though.. Ard $3.20 at CP?

  12. #12

    Default

    depends...the superia works better for me than gold...did the switch some time back..

  13. #13
    Member patch17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    here and there
    Posts
    728

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon
    How about Kodak Gold 200? are these any good??
    gold 200 is fine. Superia 200 is great too (and cheap). trying out Kodak HD, colours ok, but imho, it doesn't justify the higher price over gold 200 or superia.
    Today is a gift; that's why it's called the present.
    The toys

  14. #14

    Default

    Hmm, I guess I will try both (superia and gold)

    If I use fuji, does it mean I should only develop at Fuji's lab, and similarly for Kodak??

    As for scanning from negative, have any of you tried at any of these labs (usual kodak photo finish or fuji labs found in malls)? How is their rate and result? How mani dpi resolution?

    I hope you guys can bear with my barrage of questions

    Thanks again for all the inputs so far, really appreciate it

  15. #15

    Default

    All color negative film uses the C-41 development process, so techically it shouldn't matter which lab you go to. More importantly is the minilab operator instead as he/she is the one who does all the subtle corrections to exposure and colour.

    If you prefer Fujifilm labs, look for those that sports the Fujifilm Digital Imaging (FDI) signs--they use the digital Frontier machines that is their top-end series.

    I have no idea about Kodak labs. My regular lab is an FDI lab so no chance to check them out. My fav lab (Grace Digital; go search the forum) scans the files at standard 4-base resolution, 1840 x 1232 x 72dpi JPEG. 16-base will cost much more.

    And oh, forget about using Kodak MAX 400, if nobody has told you yet. Go with Fujifilm Superia; you won't go wrong. I've been a loyal user of Kodak MAX 400 but since making the switch a few months back, have no regrets.
    Last edited by Ah Pao; 18th May 2004 at 12:02 AM.

  16. #16

    Default

    Oh come on on prices. I think the money spent on Reala or superia is extremely worth it. I would put my money on these fuji emulsions anyday. Well why don't you work out the costs vs quality and make a decision. Fuji Films printed on Fuji Frontiers, are touted to be state of the art in color rendition today. If I am correct, many good labs here have frontiers. I usually do my processing at the fuji lab in Adelphi and am very happy with their service.

    As Ah Pao mentions, I too do not have any experiences with kodak labs. a couple of dollars on your film is very less when you compare the entire cost of post processing and at this time, I would still stand by Reala as a sensible / cost effective choice.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ah Pao
    All color negative film uses the C-41 development process, so techically it shouldn't matter which lab you go to. More importantly is the minilab operator instead as he/she is the one who does all the subtle corrections to exposure and colour.

    If you prefer Fujifilm labs, look for those that sports the Fujifilm Digital Imaging (FDI) signs--they use the digital Frontier machines that is their top-end series.

    I have no idea about Kodak labs. My regular lab is an FDI lab so no chance to check them out. My fav lab (Grace Digital; go search the forum) scans the files at standard 4-base resolution, 1840 x 1232 x 72dpi JPEG. 16-base will cost much more.

    And oh, forget about using Kodak MAX 400, if nobody has told you yet. Go with Fujifilm Superia; you won't go wrong. I've been a loyal user of Kodak MAX 400 but since making the switch a few months back, have no regrets.
    Kodak Labs uses Noritsu Machines ...... I guess I am a odd ball, I preferred Superia 200 (hey for 8.30 for 3 at Cathay ..... hehehe .... can't get cheaper than that, about $2.75 per roll) printed on a Noritsu machine ..... Frontier is good, but alas ..... the output definitely shows that it is a laser printed output .......

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore - Indonesia
    Posts
    252

    Default

    usually @ KT photo. cost me $6.50 to develop + scan to cd. but don't know whether still apply or not.

  19. #19

    Default

    My place 2xFuji200 sells at $7.60, process @ grace cost $3, scan to CDR $2.50.
    Per roll shoot cost is will be $8

  20. #20

    Default Fuji superia 200 or 400.

    If I want cheap and good film, it's always Superia 200 or 400. These are the best films I've used in this price range. I usually pick up a 3-pack from cathay at $8.30.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •