Film for the Greek Odessey - thoughts?

Mr Bump

Mr Bump

From under the bridge
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,944
Name
Sophia aka Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok so the kit for the Greek Oddesey is coming together, quick update I am legging it to Greece for 3.5 weeks in a while and plan on taking the FE2 with a 35mm F2.5 and thats it as my space is limited, apart from a small rocket blower a spare pair of LR44 batteries and a lens hood.

So my thoughts go to Film, I am thinking so far as below which is a general raid on my current stash.

My thoughts are more B and W ?

Black and White

1xKodak Tmax 100 36exp
1x Neopan Acros 100 35exp
1x Ilford HP5 PLUS 400 36 exp (maybe for some evening shots?)

Colour

1 Kodak Ektar 100 36 exp
2x Agfa Precisa 100 Slide Film 36 exp
2x Agfa Vista 100 36 exp
 
Last edited:
Oh just food for thought I got a £25 Amazon Voucher for my birthday so it will probably be spent on the film :-)
 
How about some Adox Silvermax b+w film. Hi silver content, very fine grain and lovely tones.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
How about some Adox Silvermax b+w film. Hi silver content, very fine grain and lovely tones.
Click to expand...

Noted :-)

Could work well that one, as part of the Greek Oddessey I would like to convey old in some of my shooting as I will be seeking out plenty of old/ancient architecture.
 
I would say that was nowhere near enough for over 3 weeks... and it's probably much harder to get more over there than it used to be...

Personally I'd drop the Vista, add maybe another Ektar and a Velvia 50? Maybe a Portra 800 (or perhaps 400, it's flexible) for those evenings... And a PanF could be interesting too. You'll get righter light than you'll see ll year in the UK, might as well take advantage. Don't forget some filters...
 
At the risk of being slightly heretical, I would go for a C41 process 400 ASA film rather than HP 5 unless you want the grain that traditional films give or, of course, if you'll be doing your own D&P. I might even be tempted to forget fast film and take something like a Pod http://thepod.ca/ (which can be emptied of its beany filling for transport then refilled with beans, rice, sand etc at your destination) to allow slower shutter speeds when needed.
As I've said in other threads of yours (IIRC!), film is getting rarer in Greece (or at least it is on Crete!) and probably won't have been stored too well (think several years on a shelf in 30+° temperatures) so take what you think you'll need.
Not sure of your itinerary or route but if you'll be on Crete in mid June (10th - 24th) or late Aug/early Sept, let me know and maybe we could meet for a coffee or something stronger! We prefer the Western end - better scenery (IMO) and fewer "Brits on the p155"!
 
A word of warning on the Agfa Prescia; I shot a roll of this at Westonbirt during the large format meet. On the light box with a loupe, the results are gorgeous with an almost 3D effect on some shots but I cannot get the bloody scanner to give me even a close approximation of them.

Budget for drum scanning or I'd be tempted to switch them out for Portra 160.
 
Thing is I only have one camera so any film loaded has to stay in for a couple of days so I want to avoid to many high ISO 400+ stuff.
I once went to the seaside with my olg FG (max shutter of 1000/1 with 400 loaded, blimmin F11 all day :-(
 
Strappy said:
A word of warning on the Agfa Prescia; I shot a roll of this at Westonbirt during the large format meet. On the light box with a loupe, the results are gorgeous with an almost 3D effect on some shots but I cannot get the bloody scanner to give me even a close approximation of them.

Budget for drum scanning or I'd be tempted to switch them out for Portra 160.
Click to expand...

I have 14 boxes of the Precisa and funnilly enough a roll is going on the Epson V4490 this afternoon, will update.
 
Personally, if I were going away for several weeks with only one 35mm camera, I'd be taking the most versatile films around that could be shot in the middle of the day and in the evening. Those films would be:

  • Ilford XP2/Fuji 400CN (although one says Fuji on the label, these are both c-41 B&W films made by Ilford that can be shot at EIs between 50 and 800 on the same roll without a problem and it even says so in the technical information on both Ilford's and Fuji's websites)
  • Kodak Portra 400

If it gets really bright, use a polariser, a yellow filter (for B&W), or just plain overexpose the film. I overexposed the heck out of my film in China as I shot nearly every shot at f/2.8 with a top shutter speed of only 1/500 and it was fine.
 
skysh4rk said:
Personally, if I were going away for several weeks with only one 35mm camera, I'd be taking the most versatile films around that could be shot in the middle of the day and in the evening. Those films would be:

  • Ilford XP2/Fuji 400CN (although one says Fuji on the label, these are both c-41 B&W films made by Ilford that can be shot at EIs between 50 and 800 on the same roll without a problem and it even says so in the technical information on both Ilford's and Fuji's websites)
  • Kodak Portra 400

If it gets really bright, use a polariser, a yellow filter (for B&W), or just plain overexpose the film. I overexposed the heck out of my film in China as I shot nearly every shot at f/2.8 with a top shutter speed of only 1/500 and it was fine.
Click to expand...

+1 a 400 speed film (especially Portra) will give you so much more flexibility, and its well known that you can overexpose Portra by 3 stops and get fantastic images with loads of dynamic range and fine grain. If you've only got the one camera then I might avoid taking the Precisia as slide film is great, but but if you've got to have it loaded for couple of days then you may have to miss shots simply because it has only very limited exposure tolerance.
 
ChrisR said:
Personally I'd drop the Vista, add maybe another Ektar and a Velvia 50? Maybe a Portra 800 (or perhaps 400, it's flexible) for those evenings... And a PanF could be interesting too. You'll get righter light than you'll see ll year in the UK, might as well take advantage. Don't forget some filters...
Click to expand...


Yeah why spoil the ship for a ha'pworth of tar..Vista is good but there are better neg films.
 
If you don't want to go down the C41 B&W route or the grain of HP5+, then I think TMax 400 is a fantastic film with amazingly fine grain. You can also just adjust the ISO between 200 and 800 as you go along, on thr same roll, and just dev as normal, which could be handy. A bit like a B&W Portra! You can do this with the C41 B&W films too mind.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Yeah why spoil the ship for a ha'pworth of tar..Vista is good but there are better neg films.
Click to expand...

I was going to pop a few vistas in mainly to shoot and dev locally in greece just for giggles :-)
 
ChrisR said:
Personally I'd drop the Vista, add maybe another Ektar and a Velvia 50?
Click to expand...
excalibur2 said:
Yeah why spoil the ship for a ha'pworth of tar..Vista is good but there are better neg films.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand why everyone is so negative about Vista; it's simply a repackaged Fuji film that's more than capable of good photographs. I actually really like the colours that the film produces. If they offered it in medium format, I'd be buying heaps of it.

Anytime I've ever seen complaints about photographs taken with Vista, the problem has not been the film, but typically the person operating the camera or the person operating the scanner.
 
skysh4rk said:
I don't really understand why everyone is so negative about Vista; it's simply a repackaged Fuji film that's more than capable of good photographs. I actually really like the colours that the film produces. If they offered it in medium format, I'd be buying heaps of it.

Anytime I've ever seen complaints about photographs taken with Vista, the problem has not been the film, but typically the person operating the camera or the person operating the scanner.
Click to expand...

Vista is good but a bit grainy and have used loads of it, and I don't know what the Portra or Ektar guys think, but if am going to spend money going to exotic places take Fuji Reala and before Superia 200 and I can see the difference.....well if someone can prove there is no difference then I shall fall on my sword ;)
 
excalibur2 said:
Vista is good but a bit grainy and have used loads of it, and I don't know what the Portra or Ektar guys think, but if am going to spend money going to exotic places take Fuji Reala and before Superia 200 and I can see the difference.....well if someone can prove there is no difference then I shall fall on my sword ;)
Click to expand...

It can be fun playing with different gear and shooting different films, but I'm no longer convinced that these are the critical elements for taking good photographs. In fact, I can think of very few situations where my choice of film was ever the problem. My bad photographs have usually resulted from something that I have done wrong, often bad composition, bad scanning, or not really understanding the light in a given scene.

I certainly agree that there are better films than Vista, but I think that photographic skills, technique, scanning, etc. need to be at a certain level before you can even begin to harness the advantages that better films can offer. Sharper films or finer grain mean very little if folks have poor hand holding technique, don't use tripods, don't understand scanning, etc. Some of us may be in a position to exploit the advantages of better films, some of us, however, will not be.

I know for myself personally, my scanning skills were so poor for a very long time that, looking back, I now realise it was pointless to spend money on Portra, Ektar, or any other pro film, as I was the limiting factor in the photograph, not my gear or my film.

Obviously the choice between B&W, colour negative, and slide film can have a big impact, but after that, there are more similarities between films than differences.
 
skysh4rk said:
It can be fun playing with different gear and shooting different films, but I'm no longer convinced that these are the critical elements for taking good photographs. In fact, I can think of very few situations where my choice of film was ever the problem. My bad photographs have usually resulted from something that I have done wrong, often bad composition, bad scanning, or not really understanding the light in a given scene.

I certainly agree that there are better films than Vista, but I think that photographic skills, technique, scanning, etc. need to be at a certain level before you can even begin to harness the advantages that better films can offer. Sharper films or finer grain mean very little if folks have poor hand holding technique, don't use tripods, don't understand scanning, etc. Some of us may be in a position to exploit the advantages of better films, some of us, however, will not be.

I know for myself personally, my scanning skills were so poor for a very long time that, looking back, I now realise it was pointless to spend money on Portra, Ektar, or any other pro film, as I was the limiting factor in the photograph, not my gear or my film.

Obviously the choice between B&W, colour negative, and slide film can have a big impact, but after that, there are more similarities between films than differences.
Click to expand...

Well I agree with what you have said but also it's all about the right tools for the job and for me I like scenery shots with minimum grain and IMO Reala is great...maybe it's possible to turn a Agfa Vista shot to look like Reala in Photoshop, but I know to reduce grain or noise from a scanner (in Photoshop) then it starts to look digital :eek:
 
TBH, since the advent of the lightroom (as opposed to the darkroom) which made conversion to B&W easier, I haven't shot any B&W. It's so much cheaper to shoot colour then convert in PP than it is to shoot B&W film unless you D&P your films yourself. Hard to get the right look but it can be done with practice.
I also switched from negs to slide when I could do my own scanning to get prints from the trannies. Spent several Greek holidays playing with assorted films before switching to digital and ended up using Sensia 200, mainly so I could bulk buy and use it here as well! I played with a few rolls of Velvia but found the 50 too restrictive and made the D switch just as 100 was arriving.
Now I'm recovered and self mobile, I have plans for more film use - I have several rolls in the fridge and a few bodies kicking around waiting for some exercise!
 
That's the spirit Nod...film ver digi can be like comparing climbing a mountain or going up by cable car, the view at the top is the same but what is more satisfying :D
 
Appreciate the point about scanning technique, but if the photo is taken on better film it will have better potential once your technique improves or if it's done professionally.

I like the colours of Vista too but it is a bit grainy and doesn't have the latitude of Portra. It likewise doesn't have the pop of well-exposed Ektar. Given the amount most of us spend on lenses, cameras, scanners, developing and so on, it just seems to that it's usually worth spending a couple of quid more on the film too, for important stuff you're taking time over. I do regularly use Vista for snaps or test shots though, and am usually very pleased with the results.
 
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Appreciate the point about scanning technique, but if the photo is taken on better film it will have better potential once your technique improves or if it's done professionally.

I like the colours of Vista too but it is a bit grainy and doesn't have the latitude of Portra. It likewise doesn't have the pop of well-exposed Ektar. Given the amount most of us spend on lenses, cameras, scanners, developing and so on, it just seems to that it's usually worth spending a couple of quid more on the film too, for important stuff you're taking time over. I do regularly use Vista for snaps or test shots though, and am usually very pleased with the results.
Click to expand...

I defo think it seems better film than an people give it credit for and maybe it suits different kit, i get awful results from it in my oyl trip 35 but recently the stuff from my F2 was mint so i am confused.
 
Mr Bump said:
I defo think it seems better film than an people give it credit for and maybe it suits different kit, i get awful results from it in my oyl trip 35 but recently the stuff from my F2 was mint so i am confused.
Click to expand...

With Vista it depends on the subject and it can give very good results as shown in the Vista thread, but for landscapes (for me) Reala or even superia 200 are better especially for greens and less grain in the sky.......anyway if you are going to spend over £1000 on a holiday why not spend a couple of quid extra getting say Portra instead of Vista.
 
Mr Bump said:
I defo think it seems better film than an people give it credit for and maybe it suits different kit, i get awful results from it in my oyl trip 35 but recently the stuff from my F2 was mint so i am confused.
Click to expand...
May also be cos the F2 exposes it more accurately.
 
PMN said:
Or just go exclusively digital like I'm doing on this year's holiday and eliminate such worries!





:exit:
Click to expand...


...but you have to go over the other side to show your shots :D
 
excalibur2 said:
...but you have to go over the other side to show your shots :D
Click to expand...

It'll be a quick in and out, it'll be fine. :cool:

I think I'll actually throw my EOS 10 in my hold luggage as well. Where I'm going is just crying out for some PanF and Acros (maybe some Tri-X too), I doubt I'll be able to resist the temptation!
 
Last edited:
My twopennorth:

- Agfa Vista is surprisingly good in "good" lighting but low lighting or extreme contrast shows up the difference between cheap and more expensive films. I'm still exploiting negs and slides taken thirty years ago and I want any film I shoot now to be worth looking at, rescanning, reprinting, or whatever in another 30 years time. Whilst a £4 film is obviously four times the price of a £1 film, when you measure the percentage of your holiday cost taken up by film purchase, it's going to be pretty small so not worth economising. (I shoot mainly landscapes in the UK and my major photography cost is petrol, not film or camera equipment).

Unless you are developing and printing your own B&W films, then as Nod says, you might as well just shoot colour neg film in your single body (and I think that the 35mm lens is a great choice for a single lens) and convert to mono as required. I love darkroom work but it is easier to get a B&W look that you want in software, by controlling the densities of each colour when converting.

I've only been to Greece once but I suspect that high contrast will make slide film a bit of a challenge.

On that basis I would take just Portra 160, as much as I could afford up to one roll per day - you can always bring it back. That way you can give all of your attention to looking for potential images and coming up with good compositions, without worrying about film choice. If you think that you will be shooting many interiors or low light shots, then Portra 400 is very nearly as good as 160.
 
Thanks folks and lots of food for thought @Kevin Allan you might have a good point at high contrast but I also wanted to catch some of the sea blue in shots and also some sunset type shots and will be spending the first week in Santorini with all the blue houses :-)

However I think the Portra 160 could be a good call, I also will be taking a poloriser and a yellow filter :-)
 
couldn't you smuggle in a folder or some compact? I've got a apsc canon and film I could send you for a few quid, mind no idea how good the film has aged :-O

or just buy another camera there
 
Thanks @pingu666 but I reckon its all good with just the one, I am not planning on taking it out all the time after all it is a holiday and we have the little digital for daily stuff :-)
 
Last time I shot film exclusively on holiday, total photographic cost was around £100 on film. Not sure how much the prints I did after scanning cost me - did them at home and have never costed an A4 (or bigger) print! These days, I take probably 5 times as many shots but print maybe 200 of them at en-print size and about 20 or so A4s. Maybe 10 A3s or wide panoramas (24").
 
Nod said:
Last time I shot film exclusively on holiday, total photographic cost was around £100 on film. .
Click to expand...


Huh £100! Let me think:- 6 rolls of Reala 36exp for 10 days holiday, then dev and scanned to one CD...that would take me 5 years to spend £100 ;)
 
Well I've got my fridge stocked and ready for a week in Scotland, 10 rolls of Portra 160 and 5 of 400, 8 rolls of Acros, 12 rolls of Ektar, 6 rolls of Velvia 100, 3 rolls of FP4, 3 rolls of Pan 50. Should be enough. (y) I'm being good and only taking the big Fuji and my D7100 as back-up.
 
£100 is probably right I suppose 10x rolls assorted film and devving yep :-)
 
It was about 12 years ago IIRC, mainly slide but a few rolls of neg. IIRC, there are a lot of duplicates taken to compare the 2 film types.
 
Andysnap said:
Well I've got my fridge stocked and ready for a week in Scotland, 10 rolls of Portra 160 and 5 of 400, 8 rolls of Acros, 12 rolls of Ektar, 6 rolls of Velvia 100, 3 rolls of FP4, 3 rolls of Pan 50. Should be enough. (y) I'm being good and only taking the big Fuji and my D7100 as back-up.
Click to expand...

That beautiful list is the reason I'm shooting digital on this year's holiday, 3 weeks in the US would cost me thousands on film! Might still stretch to a few rolls of PanF and Tri-X though... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top