Film - What Type for Prints

Old Aug 13th, 2001, 05:22 AM
  #21  
nancy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It could be the developing.
as far as focus, this is an auto focus, and with this "new" camera, I did not think on changed the film speed , like we had to do with our old, manual focus.
Thanks for the advice though.
Gives me things to think on, and try.
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 08:44 AM
  #22  
dan woodlief
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Nancy, without seeing your prints, it is hard to say. One way the skies could be blown out is if you had too much contrast (light to dark) for the film to handle. For example, if your subject is in dark shade, and your camera metered mostly on that area, it could overexpose other lighter areas like the sky. Sometimes also, if you are shooting into the sun, or have atmospheric conditions such as haze, you can get lower color saturation and contrast. I would guess it is a metering or environmental issue if the problem tends to occur in particular types of shots. If it is more general, my first response would be to blame either the printing or a camera malfunction.

Myer, you said you won't be taking a flash. Doesn't the Elan have a pop-up flash? If it works similarly to mine, I can say that it definitely won't compare to an accessory flash for indoor photography (too much red-eye and harsher lighting), but it is fine when you have no other option. However, the pop-up flash is very useful for fill flash in outdoor photography. When traveling, I rarely pull out my accessory flash when outdoors. It is just too much trouble and too much weight to carry around.
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 11:11 AM
  #23  
Myer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
As I have not as yet received my new camera and lense (eta tomorrow 8/14) you may be in the middle of answering one of my questions.
What type of Camera are you using? Of what value will my popup flash be? Will it light up sufficiently half dozen people, indoors at 10 feet? How wide an angle can I expect? Sufficient for 28MM or 35mm, etc? If so, that will do for family functions, etc.

 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 11:36 AM
  #24  
Robin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Since you're all so knowledgeable, does anyone have any experience processing to CD and printing yourself? Is one type of film more or less successful than another? Does the graininess that is visible matter, or do you correct with software? Thanks...
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 11:42 AM
  #25  
Jim Tardio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello Myer,

Yes, your pop-up flash will cover the 10 foot range very nicely, but it won't go much farther than that.

I agree with Dan above. You could probably get by with 100 speed film and I would have to recommend Fuji Reala, also. You probably won't find it in any stores. But you can order from B&H photo at a much cheaper price anyway. If you go with 400, I recommend Fuji NPH...also available from B&H.

You're not really gaining much by using 200. The 400 speed films are just as good these days.

Your greatest concern will be processing. If you can, use a good lab. Places like Costco, or most one hour development places just don't do a consistently good job. I'm sure others have gotten good results from these places, but it's hit and miss. B&H also sells mailers for A&I labs in Los Angeles....one of the best in the country.

Many folks will spend thousands on a great trip but balk when they have to pay a little extra for good processing. Don't skimp here.

I have lots of travel photos on my website along with some technical advice...here:
http://www.jimtardio.com
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 11:48 AM
  #26  
dan woodlief
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I use a Canon A2. It is one step above the Elan in the Canon group of cameras but is an older model than yours. Generally serious amateurs or pros who use Canons will tend to use an Elan or A2 (EOS-5 in Europe), but others will use a Rebel. That is, unless they go up to one of the mostly pro models like the EOS-1N or EOS-1V. The pro cameras tend to not come with a pop-up flash, but the cameras just below that level like the A2 and Elan do come with one. The flash will cover down to at least 28mm (it zooms automatically with the lens), and ten feet should not be too much for it. The big advantages of an accessory flash are more power, the ability to move the flash far away from the lens to avoid red eye and get more flattering lighting, and the ability to use bounce flash (rotating the flash toward the ceiling or a wall to bounce the flash onto the subject and get softer, more even lighting - I almost always shoot this way inside unless the ceiling is high; then I use a diffuser over the flash which spreads the light out and creates a softer light). The pop-up flash will be adequate when you need a flash for family photos.
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 11:48 AM
  #27  
Jim Tardio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Just saw your post, Robin.

If you don't have any experience with a scanner, you can have your slides or negatives scanned to a Kodak Photo CD. This will let you use software, like Photoshop, to alter or enhance, or just clean up your photos.

What type of film doesn't matter that much. Most film 400 speed or less, won't have much grain. And, yes, you can work on this with your software.

http://www.jimtardio.com
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 01:42 PM
  #28  
Diane
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Jim: I just looked at your website. Beautiful photos -- nicely done site.

Question: At what resolution do you scan your photos?
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 03:14 PM
  #29  
Jim Tardio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks for visiting my site, Diane. I have my slides scanned to Kodak Photo cds. They scan 5 resolutions. I usually work from the middle resolution and reduce that even further as I shrink the photos so they load faster on my site.

Thanks again for the compliment.

http://www.jimtardio.com
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 03:34 PM
  #30  
Myer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks Jim and Dan.
My goal is not to produce artistic greatness with the pop-up flash. Since I don't have a flash (and haven't used one in years) it would be nice to be able to get something when the indoor need arises.
In the old days I did use one (bounce and all) but now I'm 80-90% travel and a little of a few other things. I can't see where I would use a flash much for travel.
Like I said the camera eta is tomorrow. We have a wedding to fly to in Toronto this weekend (we live in South Florida). I'll try to get in a roll or 2 before going. The plan is to use a roll each of Kodak 200 and 400. Then when we get back I'll try a roll of Fuji.
I agree the processing is usually much more of a problem than anything else. I can see why people skimp on the developing. They are back. They have already spent their money. They want to see the photos quickly.
In my experience the problem is usually with the printing and not the developing of the film. You've got to have confidence and be insistant. Most people automatically think that bad results are their fault. While that may be the case, more often than not the lab has either washed out the color or their equipment is out of focus.
Make them reprint. The second time they'll look at them individually and you will see a difference.
For those using inexpensive point-and-shoot cameras the problem is two-fold: Firstly the lens being used requires a slow shutter speed. This makes it difficult to have sharp results. Secondly, 1 or 2 focusing ranges also makes it impossible to have sharp results.
Needless to say I'll report the results of my tests.
Thanks. This has gone a lot farther than I expected and some good info is being disseminated. I'm surprised that this has not come up more often.
 
Old Aug 13th, 2001, 08:51 PM
  #31  
Jim Tardio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes, I agree that people want to see their film quickly, and also that they feel they have been nickel and dimed to death already on their trip.

That's why I suggested buying your film from B&H in New York. You can get your film and processing mailers for either Kodak or A&I Labs(better than Kodak), all paid for in advance, and it probably wouldn't cost you more than an extra $40.00 or $50.00 than what you would spend at Costco.

Best of all, you've already paid. I put all my exposed film in one box...one roll per mailer...and Fed Ex the whole package, which usually contains 30-50 rolls of slide film, to A&I. They send it back the same way.

Cheap labs not only print poorly, they scratch your negatives, don't change their chemicals often enough, and generally just don't care about your film.

That little pop up flash is perfect for outdoor fill-flash in high contrast, midday, harsh sunshine. I wish they put them on the pro model cameras.

But it sounds like you know what you're doing, Myer. You've been at it a long time.

Hope you have a great trip and that everything runs smoothly for you.

http://www.jimtardio.com
 
Old Aug 14th, 2001, 10:25 AM
  #32  
Christina
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'm very impressed with all the photo experts on here so maybe someone can help with my problem. I have an automatic-focus builtin flash Olympus Stylus with zoom lens (some automatic features can be overridden, espec flash, but I usually dont); it's about 10 yrs old and wasn't that expensive then ($90) but was not the lowest-level Olympus. My recent rolls of Kodak 200 or 400 have about 25% of the photos with some red blotches on the photo--usually a kind of red bar on one side, although sometimes these red blotches turn up in random spots on the prints. This has been happening over the last couple of years, but usually only 1-2 prints on a roll, now it's a lot worse. At first, I thought this was the processing, but now I'm wondering if it's the camera, and I need a new one? (I've used the same processor during this time). I asked one guy who looked at them and he said something about a "light leak" but did not go into details as to what that means. Is this some hole in the camera that's letting in light? The odd thing is it's random, as I said, not on every print and not on ones taken right after another. I know the film was not exposed accidentally to light before being rolled up internally. I also have the problem of washed out skies sometimes when they were blue; I thought this had to do with too much contrast (when I use autofocus) or too much light or something, maybe the direction I was facing? I use Kodak 200 or 400 (400 when I know I'll be inside and want to turn off automatic flash) and have used Fuji in past but thought colors didn't look natural. Maybe I should try it again. Thanks for any tips on the red blotches on my photos.
 
Old Aug 14th, 2001, 06:45 PM
  #33  
Jim Tardio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello Christina,

My first guess would have to the processing. Since you've always used the same person, try someone else and see if it improves. If it doesn't, I would have to venture that you do indeed have a light leak. Most likely, the back of your camera has old seals. I'm talking about the door you open and close to load the film. Open it when there is no film inside, and put your finger on the rubber, sponge-like coating around the edge of the door. If it's stickey, I would say that is your problem.

On your type of camera, it's cheaper to just buy a new one rather than get it repaired.

Hope this helps.
 
Old Aug 14th, 2001, 07:07 PM
  #34  
dan woodlief
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I am not much of an expert on the mechanics, but a light leak sounds quite possible. I had a camera once that started leaving one side of the frame dark, and that was diagnosed as a shutter problem, but your's sounds a little different.
 
Old Aug 14th, 2001, 07:08 PM
  #35  
Eos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Try the 100 speed Fuji Reala for print film. I've tried most of the above listed films, it has the best eye popping color of any of them. Slide film is a different ball game. Fuji Velvia is one I like the best, or Kodak Ektachrome. If you use the 100 speed, you will likely need a tripod. This is a good idea anyway, since it will improve your photography immensely.
Try ordering film from one the big photo retailers out east. May be gray market, but it works the same.
Happy travels.
 
Old Aug 15th, 2001, 12:49 PM
  #36  
Christina
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thank you very much, Dan and Jim, for your comments. I will check the seal next time it's empty, but it does sound like maybe it could be a light leak in that manner, that would make sense. I just wasn't sure how light would be getting in. I like my processor's quality and price in general other than that, so I hate to switch, but maybe I'll give the next roll to someone else to see. These red blotches are now on several pictures of every roll. I know it is not just in printing as they are on the negative, also, so I can't give the negatives to someone else to see what they do with them. I like my Olympus Stylus and would like another or something similar (I like their clamshell design)--maybe 10-12 years is lifetime of a camera like that?
 
Old Aug 15th, 2001, 04:40 PM
  #37  
Jim Tardio
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I would say that 10-12 years is excellent for that camera, Christina.

After you said you had the red blotches on your negatives, that pretty much suggests a light leak.

Olympus makes several models with the clamshell design. I carry an Olympus Stylus Epic. It doesn't have a zoom lens, but it does have an excellent, fast f2.8 35mm lens. The last I looked, it only costs $79.00.

I'm not sure what the zoom models are going for. I also have a Minolta Freedom Zoom Explorer which has a 28-70 zoom lens that's very good quality. And the somewhat wide 28mm end is very useful on the narrow streets of Europe.

Lots of choices.
 
Old Aug 16th, 2001, 10:59 AM
  #38  
chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Try some Kodak Supra. It is in Kodaks professional line and comes in 100,400,and 800. I was recently in Kenya and SA shooting a lot of animals at dawn,dusk and midday with a 28-200 lens using the 400 & 800 and it produced excellent results. I did some research beforehand and this film received high scores from many users. It is a bit more expensive but still reasonable. I will be using only Supra 100, & 400 in Europe this September. For 400 & 800 film the grain is extremely fine - the 100 even finer. The colours are well balanced.
 

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 - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

FODOR'S VIDEO