Print Film Selection

Submitted by limegreen on Wed, 2004-11-10 20:53

Ok. So I know there are a few people out there who do a fair bit of photograpy. I'd be interesting to hear other people's thoughts on film choice.

Background. I mostly shoot in colour, and have for many years happily bought Kodak Gold 100. I buy Kodak because I prefer the colour saturation compared with other brands. Now, back in the dark ages, faster films had larger dollops making them more grainy and vice-versa. I've never had much problem (even in low light) using 100, so believing that I was also getting better definition (and saving money), was quite happy with it. So recently I noticed that Kodak 400 was suggested for still life (which I presumed meant higher resolution, but actually means a narrow stop and better depth of field), but it got me having a look through Kodak's website, and it seems that all their films are much of a muchness (regardless of speed), except that their high definition films are better (!).

What are other people thoughts on film speed versus resolution? Has resolution improved to the point that it is now not really dependent on speed?

Comments

Submitted by iluvtheclean on Wed, 2004-11-10 21:54.

have you ever tried Fuji - i always thought there was a good difference, especially in colour and contrast, between their 100 and 400 speed. like, a marked difference. sometimes when you get the focus right, it's painfully crisp and super vivid. i know what you mean about Kodak - i've always found much of a muchness between their 100 and other speeds.

OT i can't remember who made it, but there was a great black and white film by either Fuji or Kodak that really captured Dunners well - wasn't exactly true fidelity, but gave it a real nice atmospheric gloom. but not quite grainy or cheap looking. i took a few pictures of Dunedin hospital with the leave-less trees in winter - fantastic big grey concrete vs twisted wretched nature against overcast seems-near sky. you'd have to do a bit of wangling to get a digital photo to look quite like what i ended up with.

Submitted by limegreen on Thu, 2004-11-11 02:40.

I really haven't strayed from Kodak 100 for years. As I said, the couple of times I've dallied, I've been unimpressed with the comparatively washed out colours....

I'd like to experiment more though...

Submitted by christianity on Wed, 2004-11-17 16:03.

gets my vote for thread of the year.

Submitted by limegreen on Wed, 2004-11-17 16:28.

For what it's worth, I ended up purchasing some Kodak high definition 200. It'll probably be a while before I finish it, but I'll report back then. In unrelated but fucking gutting news, I just lost a roll of what I'd hoped to be fucking amazing pictures because I mis-loaded the fucking film. Fuckedy fuck.

Sorry about the language, but I'm really fucking bitter, and pissed off at myself.

Submitted by jesstherese on Wed, 2004-11-17 16:31.

I can relate... losing a film's worth of pictures is quite upsetting.

Submitted by limegreen on Wed, 2004-11-17 19:04.

It really is. There were pictures of the amazing aurora the other night, plus a bunch I took going through the McKenzie country -- it was late winter, really amazing lights, reflection, snow etc. Can kind of get the idea from the one in my profile.