At 19:38 12/9/00 , Enrique Cabrera wrote:
>Dear Zuiks:
>
>Continuing with my boring series of beginner-questions (better than
>the bodily functions introspective given recently), here's an easy
>one for you people:
Ummmmm this is not as easy as you think!
>What film do you recomend to shoot? (normal equipment, even some
>*sigh* non-zuiks). I've read some odd (sorry, for me they are) brands
>in some list mssgs that seem to be more serious than the off-the-
>shelf 3x2 Kodak offers at K-mart -or its Spanish equivalent-. The
>most "authentic" brand I've seen here is Ilford for B&W -I used it
>not long ago, even fooling some people on my skills- ;) but do I get
>any other choices for shooting paper in color? slides?
>
>Be gentle on the Spaniard.
I promise to be gentle.
Film choice is a very personal one that should help provide your vision for
the final image. I strongly recommend you try several different color
negative and transparency films, and make your own choice on what matches
your vision for your own images.
I will give some objective subjective observations about a few Kodak color
films. Yes, they will contain my choices among them with the rationale for
it. My own vision is for accurate color rendition with neutral or very
modest saturation at most. This will not match others' choices among the
very same films. Their vision might desire high saturation and not demand
high color accuracy. Neither is right or wrong . . . its matching your
vision for your images that counts. As you read the subjective remarks,
take in what is said about color accuracy and saturation . . . and try what
you think will suit you.
1. [objective] The line of Kodak's "Royal Gold" consumer films have finer
grain than the the line of Kodak's "Gold" consumer films. It is
significant enough in the ISO 100 and 200 speeds that I gave up using Kodak
Gold entirely and will use Royal Gold 100 exclusively *if* I select Royal
Gold for the task.
2. [subjective] Kodak's consumer Gold and Royal Gold are general purpose
consumer color negative. They are a saturated film, although not
super-saturated. This has bothered me about the times I've used Royal
Gold. My use of color negative film is typically for portraiture, formal
and informal, indoor and outdoor. Consequently I prefer a film that has
very neutral saturation and very accurate color rendition. I've switched
to using Kodak's Portra 160 NC, and will occasionally use 160 VC if a very
modest saturation is desired. The grain structure of the ISO 160 is
comparable to consumer ISO 100 films. It is a very consistent, predictable
performer and has a smoothness of tonal gradation in its color response
unmatched by a consumer film. It also has an unmatched rendition of skin
tones. I've gotten some excellent comments from people about prints I've
done using Portra. I'm very, very glad I did the wedding shoot recently
with mostly Portra NC (one roll of the nine shot was Portra VC).
3. [objective] In consumer color slide films, there is Kodachrome and
Elitechrome. Kodachrome 200 and Elitechrome 400 are significantly grainier
than Kodachrome 25 or 64, or Elitechrome 100 or 200. Enough so that it
becomes noticeable with slides projected to a 50 inch (~1.25 meter) screen.
As a consequence I stick to the slower Kodachrome and Elitechrome speeds.
The difference between Kodachrome 25 and 64, and Elitechrome 100 and 200 is
very slight by comparison. I use Kodachrome 64 and Elitechrome 100 as a
result.
4. [subjective] My preference is for Kodachrome. Seems that Kodachrome
has either lovers or haters. It has very accurate color rendition, and it
does not highly saturate bright colors. I will use Elitechrome 100 in my
cameras with slower lenses because it is 2/3 EV faster than Kodachrome 64.
Elitechrome 100 has moderate saturation and is not as accurate in color
rendition. Both produce very acceptable skin tones. I do not care for
Elitechrome 100 Extra Color, although some apparently love the stuff for
scenics and landscapes. It is a super-saturated film, similar in this
respect to Fuji's Velvia, which some prefer for its green rendition. I
don't recommend using either for shooting people; the super-saturation can
(will) screw up skin tones. All that said, publishers used to love
Kodachrome for scenics and landscapes. There seems to have been a shift
recently to the super-saturated stuff that leaps off of a page at the
reader . . . color accuracy be damned. A lot of these are Velvia or E100VS
(E100VS = pro version of Elitechrome Extra Color). I am now trying some of
Kodak's professional Ektachromes, E100S and EPN, as an alternative to
Elitechrome 100. I expect that E100S will be similar but am hoping EPN
will be a little more neutral with more accurate color rendition. The jury
is still out on a comparison of Elitechrome 100, E100S and EPN.
Hope this provides some information you were looking for.
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|