dwoodliff

I have a 20+-year-old 35mm Canon EOS Rebel SLR with a telephoto lens. I get pretty good pictures inside and excellent ones outside with 400 speed film. My question is: for pictures that will probably never be enlarged, is there any discernible difference between using (cheaper) Fuji brand and (more expensive) Kodak film? Would I notice a difference with Kodak High Definition? I usually use Kodak 400 Max, and find indoors photos are often not quite true to color, with backgrounds that are a little dark. Any recommendations?

Donna

bookhall

I've always had an unconcious bias against Fuji film. Stems from seeing some ugly prints about 25-30 years ago. However, in recent years, I've seen some nice stuff.

Were it me, I'd take a roll of Kodak, and a comparable one of Fuji. Take a dozen shots on each of the same subjects. Get the rolls developed and compare.

I'd also throw in a roll of Kodak 200, do the same thing, and see if that makes a difference.

Maggi

For outdoor pictures you will get the deepest colors with 100 speed film. We have the Canon Rebel SLR also and I am currently taking a photography course. The first thing the instructor told us was that 400 speed covers up operator error, but using a 100 speed when there is sufficient light outdoors, or indoors with a flash will give you superior color. In low light use 800 or 1600. I realize everyone has their opinion, but he rated Kodak as best for regular film, Fuji for slides and Ilford for black and white. He said NEVER buy store brands (i.e. Focal from K-Mart) and for the best possible developing use a professional photo lab rather than a 1 hour or 24 hour drugstore lab. I've been an avid photographer for over 30 years and since I've followed these guidelines my photos are better than ever. When it comes to photos, the price of film and developing is definitely worth it.

As far as the dark indoor photos you may have to adjust the shutter speed and use a tripod, or use an 800 speed film. Depending on how far away your subject is, your flash probably is not adequate to do the job.

dwoodliff

Maggi: Can you further explain what you mean by "400 speed covers up operator error"? What kind of errors?

Also, if 100 speed gives the most vivid color outdoors, that must explain why the sky and water are never as blue in my panoramic pictures, as they are in my other photos? Those disposable panoramic cameras are pre-loaded with 800 speed film, aren't they?

Donna

Loki

Just my opinion/experience:

1) The name of the brand on the film should be the least of your concerns (read on).

2) The speed of the film should be matched for the lighting condition you have (dose) and the effect you want on the film (grain).

3) The chemistry of the film should be matched for the exact application: what you will be photographing and what you will be using to illuminate it.

If you are shooting indoors and there will be lights on, you'll get a yellowish tint to your photos unless you get film balanced for tungsten lighting, fluourescent lighting will give you a blueish/green tint. Also, what will you be shooting? THere are certain films which are great for skin tones (Porta is one of them).

All my color stuff is done on chrome so I really can't recommend from experience but go to a local mom n pop camera shop, describe what you're shooting and they should give you an accurate recommendation. Having the proper chemistry of film can make a big difference.

If you consider going chrome, my "bread n butter" film is Kodak Elitechrome 200, it handles everything except indoor lighting farily well. For B&W outdoor, I'll use Kodak Tri-X 400 (negative film). If you're shooting stuff with bold greens, blues, reds, give Fuji Velvia (chrome) a shot (no pun intended) sometime, the saturation is awesome.

rkkwan

For travel, especially with a telephoto lens, 400 film is your best bet. Don't go slower, or else you'll find yourself limited to the largest aperture or a very long exposure (read - SHAKE).

Modern 400 film has pretty low grain, and really isn't much worse than 200. The Fuji 400 has consistently rated as good as Kodak's or slightly better by magazines; and at slightly lower price. I have used them forever, and like it for travel/casual shooting.

Also, for the most part, color of print photos are dependent on the lab that prints your film, and not the film itself. If you find your pictures' color not correct, the first thing to do is to switch minilab. Some labs machines are more correctly calibrated to one brand of film than another.

What you can do is buy a roll of Fuji 400 and then shoot the same subject indoors and outdoors with a roll of Kodak 400. Develop and print them at the same minilab, and see which film is better for this specific application.

Gretchen

When I shot film I loved Fuji for its color saturation. I think the T grain of the Kodak Max films is good however. If you aren't enlarging I don't think there is much difference to be seen. As for speed, I was always able to hold my telephoto still enough to use 100 or 200 ASA.
The darkness in your indoor flash pictures has to do with the foreground you are shooting--the flash unit is told to turn off by the light coming back from your foreground subject. Otherwise the foreground will be over exposed.
As for chrome film that was mentioned, I believe that would be slide film and while I have shot my share of it it is VERY unforgiving. You can always get some sort of a print from print film by manipulating but what you have on a slide--over exposed, under exposed--is all you will ever have. And getting a print is expensive.
And as someone said, if your prints aren't good in their color, have them re-done, either at the same place or another.
Also if you are shooting on a cloudy day and want the illusion of sun (taking a picture of a person or a flower, etc., for example), use your flash.

jor

I could go on and on about which film brand and ASA,ISO is better with 30 years of experience with SLR's, but I think there is more of a difference in which photo processing dealer you use. Some dealers can't process and develop good photos if their life depended on it.

Maggi

Donna, you are probably getting way more information than you are able to understand or digest without more experience. I know I feel overwhelmed by all the choices out there. What I think our instructor meant was the 400 speed will minimize errors in shutter or aperture settings. The comment about chrome (slide) film being unforgiving was correct. That is precisely we are using it in our class, so we can see the mistakes we are making.

The disposable cameras are, as you said, usually 400 speed, or 800 speed used by wedding guests since they are inside reception halls.

Again, if you are looking for a bluer sky and richer outdoor color in general use a 200 or 100 speed film and a polarizing filter. This filter reduces glare much like polarized sunglasses do. A polarizing filter is the most productive accessory that a photographer can have, second only to a decent tripod and head.

Read more about it at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...larizers.shtml

rkkwan

Let me go back to the original post and say one other thing.

If you're using flash for indoor pictures, and the backgrounds are too dark, it's because you're using the "Green" or "P" mode, and the camera is choosing a short exposure time with full-powered flash to get the subject to light up properly, but ignored the background.

To get a more brightly lit background when using flash, you should use Tv or Av mode. More ambient light will be collected, and the flash "power" reduced. The subject will still be properly lit, but background will not be as dark.

It's a little more complicated than that, but don't want to get too detailed here. Try using the other modes - but watch the shutter speed. You don't want it to end up too slow and produce shake.