Re: what film to use?

["M. Denis Hill" <Denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Lee, Martin (Ex AS01) wrote:
> 
> Can anyone advise on what a reasonable film is to move onto after
> beggining on the cheap stuff... or is the cheep stuff ok?

Yes, the cheap stuff is ok. At least the consumer Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa
are. Cheep film works best for avian photography. ;+)

> How much difference do the different films make if you are not making
> super-duper enlargements etc. just shooting for the fun of it!

Pro film is supposed to be aged for better color and consistency. This
is why refrigeration is recommended, so it does not go past its peak.
Amateur film goes into the distribution chain "green," on the assumption
that it will spend more time in the camera bag, and in the camera before
it is exposed then processed. So, depending on how you treat your film,
pro film could theoretically turn out worse for you.

In some cases, like Kodak E100/E200, new manufacturing processes are
designed to give better batch-to-batch consistency that was previously
possible. In others, such as Velvia and E100SW, the film is tuned to
give greater saturation and/or warmer color balance. With Fuji NPS, an
extra emulsion layer improves color accuracy even under fluorescents.
Then there is that new Fujichrome MS 100/1000 specifically designed to
be pushed without excessive contrast gain. Or Agfa Portrait 160, with
it's moderate contrast (I like it with flash). Other films, like Kodak
Max (consumer) are designed with extreme exposure latitude. BTW, my
experience with Max is outstanding saturation for its speed, but poor
sharpness.

IMO, one of the major advantages of pro films is those specialized
emulsions available for difficult shooting situations. But since Ektar
is history, Kodak's finest grain film is Royal Gold 25 ... a upscale
consumer film.

> also do you have to print higher quality film on higher quality
> photo-paper or is the normal stuff that a good print shop uses ok (ie
> Kodak Royal??)

Is the normal stuff ok? Sure. Is it possible to achieve different/better
results with specialized paper? Absolument, mon ami! A print on Fuji
Crystal Archive is going to look different from one on garden variety
paper. An Ilfochrome Classic print from your favorite slide will look
different from a generic Type R print. Whether it is better will depend
on your printer's ability to print your neg the way you want to see it.
But these papers do have to potential to produce significantly superior
prints.

> is the processing for slides cheeper than negitives (excliding the
> printing cost)?

Maybe. In my experience, slide processing is more expensive than neg
processing. This may depend on the type of lab. Processing a roll of
transparency film without slide mounting is probably less expensive than
neg processing. I just paid $6 for 36 slides, $4 for a 36 exposure roll
shot in my Noblex. Both E6. Of course, your prints from slides will cost
more, and may have excessive contrast.

If you've been shooting negs only, you'll find less exposure latitude
but more control in transparency film. 

My advice is to read film reviews in consumer and pro photography
magazines, visit film manufacturer Web sites to read about the
characteristics of different films, then try the ones that sound right
for your shooting.
-- 
M. Denis Hill	mailto:denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Hill Group	http://www.thehillgroup.com
Marketing communications: writing, editing, photography
949-366-1641 San Clemente, California, USA