what print film to buy

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by jbmidnight, Sep 4, 2006.

  1. jbmidnight

    jbmidnight Member

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I have a Nikon F100 and a underwater Nikonos V. The question is i am going on a Great White Shark expedition and was wondering what print film would be the best. I use to always use Fuji E6 (Sensia and Velvia) but now that i want to have prints im unsure of what would be the best. ISO range from 50-200.

    As Aways Thanks in Advance

    John
     
  2. L Gebhardt

    L Gebhardt Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,769
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Location:
    NH
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    For things above the water I have recently started using Fuji Pro 160S and think it is best print film I have used. I like the saturation, small grain, contrast and overall color balance. I have a feeling it will replace much of the E6 that I shoot. The only underwater shots I have made were from a disposable camera and they needed more contrast, so maybe try Pro160C (I haven't but I hear it is similar to Pro160S, but with more contrast).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2006
  3. jbmidnight

    jbmidnight Member

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks so much.
     
  4. Anupam Basu

    Anupam Basu Member

    Messages:
    504
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Now that commercial labs print from scans anyway, the print vs. slides might be a moot point. More important for what I assume is a one-off shoot is to use film you know - so I would stick to slides.

    Just my opinion.

    -a
     
  5. frugal

    frugal Subscriber

    Messages:
    150
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Location:
    Halifax, NS,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'll second the vote for Pro 160S (formerly NPS), I shot about 30 rolls of NPS in SE Asia and was extremely happy with the results, I've only tried a few rolls of 160S but it seems just as good if not better.
     
  6. Claire Senft

    Claire Senft Member

    Messages:
    3,242
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Location:
    Milwaukee, W
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Make that a third vote.
     
  7. PhotoJim

    PhotoJim Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    Regina, SK,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I shoot boring old Superia (100, 200 and 400). They are all nice films and they are very inexpensive.

    Reala is a good film if you are shooting in strange lighting. Underwater might qualify; I've never shot underwater, but Reala would be the one I'd try unless you will be shooting predominantly with flash.
     
  8. jd callow

    jd callow Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    8,003
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Milan
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I've shot about 20 rolls of 160s and I am not nearly as impressed with it as others here. On the plus side it has similar saturation to NPC, but far better shadow detail. It has slightly more contrast than NPS. It is not a 160 film (by my metering), but closer to 160 than NPS or NPC. So good saturation with moderate contrast (a nice, and somewhat rare, to me, combination). On the down side it builds density in the highlights too quickly and and has a fairly narrow (for neg film ) exposure lat.

    I would take Kodack's 100UC over 160s. 100uc has everything 160s has plus better highlight management (you can increase exposure without blocking up highlights as quickly), comparable saturation, comparable contrast and a wider exposure lat. They both do well at an exposure of 100. 100uc may even be better at 160 and is far better at slower iso's.

    My opinion is based upon usage with my equipment, shooting style and requirements -- YMWillV . I generally don't look at curves and there are those here who do and are better suited to general recommendations then someone like me who has specific needs.

    FWIW I also prefer the pallette of 100UC. If you scan your negs this is less important.
     
  9. frugal

    frugal Subscriber

    Messages:
    150
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Location:
    Halifax, NS,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Yes, I should've mentioned that I always rated NPS and 160S at 100. I've only shot a few rolls of 160S and haven't taken as much time to do a proper comparison with NPS.
     
  10. Soeren

    Soeren Member

    Messages:
    2,436
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Fourth or fifth on the 160S vote.
    Just be sure to use a lab that can handle it. I did some shooting in 120 which I had to deliver to a pro lab. I was amazed by the quality I recieved from them. I then tried the film in 135 and had it processed by the local lab :sad: I never knew colors could be off that much. It's a great film when handled well.
    Cheers
    Søren
     
  11. BrianShaw

    BrianShaw Member

    Messages:
    6,660
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I like 160S also. But for underwater, wouldn't faster be better?
     
  12. frugal

    frugal Subscriber

    Messages:
    150
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Location:
    Halifax, NS,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Was it just the prints or the negs as well? I've pretty much given up on getting prints from negs because the digital processors do such a horrible job. With my local pro lab, I get good colour but I still get a lot of digital noise in the prints that drives me nuts.