film speeds and brands - what i learned!

Old Dec 17th, 2004, 04:11 PM
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
film speeds and brands - what i learned!

i wanted to post this for anyone still in the dark ages of good ole fashioned film.

i learned a valuable lesson about brands having just received my pics back this afternoon.

kodak beats fuji hands down for richness of color. how do i know?

i acidentally bought 800 kidak and since i had opened the box could not return it, and, for the first time since i'd heard fuji 400 was good for low light (night drive/dawn drive) conditions, i bought tons of fuji in many diffreent speeds. instead of "wasting" safari pics on the "bad kodak" film, i blew all the rolls on my first days in mauritius and madagascar.

well, the pics just arirved back fromj developing and the difference is staggering. the colors on those kodak pictures- where the chameleons are incredibly diverse and bright- is unbelieveable. so so rich and clear and exactly as i remember it.

as for the "great" fiji 400 low light and the 200? everything looks two dimensional and washed out. even amazingly close animals pics look flat- like i was not there.

i am not whining because someone in the safari truck took digital and i'll get my photos from him- but i would highly encourage anyone going to someplace lush with lots of greens and browns to check out the kodak 800 film. i used it in two different cameras- one crappy and old and one better and new and the results have to be attribited to the film itself. the lighting conditions ran the gamut from a blazing hot beach to a dank dripping dark forest and every single shot is a winner which is a first for me.

sorry, kodak, i will never stray.

kerikeri is offline  
Old Dec 18th, 2004, 08:07 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for taking the time to feedback.
I'm so surprised to hear about your results because I always found the opposite when using film and gave up on Kodak for the very reasons you are giving up on Fuji! My Fuji film pics were always better saturated with lovely detail but my Kodak film pics were washed out and dull.
Perhaps it depends whether the processor one uses to develop the films is geared towards Kodak or Fuji? I don't know.
I particularly love the richer greens that Fuji has always given me!
Isn't it strange?
Now I'm mostly on digital I don't have the same dilemma about which brand to bye, how many to take and what ratio of the different speeds I might need... and it's certainly a dilemma I don't miss.
Really sorry to hear the Fuji didn't work out for you.

Kavey is offline  
Old Dec 18th, 2004, 12:07 PM
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It IS mostly dependent on the film processor/printer you use. Some are calibrated for only one brand of film, and you'll get worse result when using a different brand.
rkkwan is offline  
Old Dec 19th, 2004, 05:09 AM
Posts: n/a
It all depends. I've used both Kodak and Fuji as has a friend who has traveled with me on many of my trips. We both have our film developed at the same processor, and sure enough the color is different for each of our photos. I think it might be the camera!

Another friend was using a fine Canon EOS on our very first trip to Africa and got the most beautiful colors while mine taken with a Ricoh, were okay, but not nearly as bright.

And then when this same friend started using his digital and printing his own - well that was a different tale altogether... my 140zoon Olympus produced sharper photos and better color. He had printed a set of photos himself, and also sent them out for printing - both completely different.

I think there are too many variables - film, camera, processing. Believe all information is good to have, but think each of us has to find that film which works best for our particular camera in all types of light and a good processing plant who produces prints from digitals.
Old Dec 19th, 2004, 06:55 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep, absolutely right - there are SO many variables.

Another thing people may not be aware of about digital cameras:

Some digital cameras are designed to perform some processing on the image IN camera - processing to sharpen the image, to saturate the colours a touch and to auto adjust the levels/ contrast/ brightness.

Other digital cameras are designed not to do ANY of this stuff in camera because there are many digital users (myself included) who prefer to do this ourselves. Disadvantage - they are not good to print straight from camera. Advantage - you have more control on post processing if you do it yourself. Disadvantage - it takes time to learn and time to do.

Sometimes when people are disappointed with their digital results it's because they are using a camera aimed at those who want to do all their processing themselves and therefore the images as they are straight off the camera just aren't ready for printing.
Kavey is offline  
Old Dec 20th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thanks for that insight everybody.

the paper the photos were printed on was fuji! but on the computer (they kindly made me a disc) the photos all look great- so clearly it has to do with the processing machines. oh, well i thought i had the answer!
kerikeri is offline  
Related Topics
Original Poster
Last Post
Mar 18th, 2007 09:02 AM
Africa & the Middle East
Aug 12th, 2004 06:57 PM
United States
Jul 20th, 2003 12:00 PM
May 10th, 2002 03:59 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell My Personal Information