Which film would you take to Iceland?

[Deleted member 21335]

Can you take both? To be honest the first thing I'd ask before even suggesting types of film is why you're limiting yourself to one format and what are you wanting to achieve in doing so? The fact you're after ideas for what films to take suggests you don't have any specific kinds of shots in mind, it would be a great shame to get there and miss out on certain photo opportunities because you didn't have an appropriate type of film so why not take a digital camera as well?

I know I should be hung, drawn and quartered for saying that in here, but I'm fortunate enough to be quite well travelled and I know for a fact I'd have missed stacks of images if I'd limited myself to just medium format film. I always recommend putting a little thought into exactly what it is people are after in their images before limiting themselves so rigidly to a single format.

Thanks for the reply. I will be taking a digital body + 35mm but I am really trying to commit to film for everything that's not wedding photography. It's definitely do able I am sure as when there was only film, there was only film and no digital fall back. It's nice to have and I'll probably use it but will primarily be using film. If I was more experienced with it I would leave all things digital at home.

I have the camera on me today loaded with some Provia 400X so hopefully will finish that and a roll of something else this week.

 

[PMN]

It's definitely do able I am sure as when there was only film, there was only film and no digital fall back.

People back then didn't know any different and the way people take photos has changed a lot since the days where film was the only option, which is why I suggested thinking about what you're wanting to achieve before committing to something 100% that you might regret when you're there.

 

[steveo_mcg]

I'd say the only disadvantage to having the digital kit with you is the temptation just to use it rather than the film gear... that and having to switch systems on the fly can be confusing.

The only two major disadvantages to having the digital kit with you is....

 

[PMN]

I'd say the only disadvantage to having the digital kit with you is the temptation just to use it rather than the film gear

If that happens you only have yourself to blame, there's nothing anyone else can do about that!

The thing for me is I've tried the whole 'sticking to one format' thing and it just didn't work (I'm not saying it won't work for Gareth, I can only speak from my own personal experience but he has come here asking for opinions). The idea of sticking exclusively to film is a nice romantic one but I've found myself in so many situations when travelling where if the only camera I had with me were a medium format film camera then I probably wouldn't have come away with any photos at all due to that format simply not being practical. If a digital camera is going along as well then you have the best of both worlds available to you, I'm just thinking Iceland is a long way to go arrive and find your gear is inappropriate for the situations you find yourself in.

All that said, if I were heading on that trip I'd probably just take two types of film, one colour and one black and white. Portra 160 and Acros would be my choices.

 

[Lemaildetom]

When is your trip? Any northern lights spotting? I would be interested to know of a very high iso and colour film. Next time I go watching northern light I would like to take the digital but then when I know the right exposure I'd like to try a roll of film. Anyone know if it's possible to find it will have to be iso 1600 at the mimimum...

 

[Deleted member 21335]

People back then didn't know any different and the way people take photos has changed a lot since the days where film was the only option, which is why I suggested thinking about what you're wanting to achieve before committing to something 100% that you might regret when you're there.

And you're totally right. I'd love to have the confidence to leave the digital at home but I'm definitely not there yet!

I'd say the only disadvantage to having the digital kit with you is the temptation just to use it rather than the film gear... that and having to switch systems on the fly can be confusing.

The only two major disadvantages to having the digital kit with you is....

Yeah I would agree but as above, I'm not totally confident yet to leave it behind.

If that happens you only have yourself to blame, there's nothing anyone else can do about that!

The thing for me is I've tried the whole 'sticking to one format' thing and it just didn't work (I'm not saying it won't work for Gareth, I can only speak from my own personal experience but he has come here asking for opinions). The idea of sticking exclusively to film is a nice romantic one but I've found myself in so many situations when travelling where if the only camera I had with me were a medium format film camera then I probably wouldn't have come away with any photos at all due to that format simply not being practical. If a digital camera is going along as well then you have the best of both worlds available to you, I'm just thinking Iceland is a long way to go arrive and find your gear is inappropriate for the situations you find yourself in.

All that said, if I were heading on that trip I'd probably just take two types of film, one colour and one black and white. Portra 160 and Acros would be my choices.

Hey I totally am grateful for all opinions and that's why I posted. Thanks for your detailed response and your film suggestions.
It is purely a photographic trip and I will have the Leica as well and some 35mm.

 

[skysh4rk]

When is your trip? Any northern lights spotting? I would be interested to know of a very high iso and colour film. Next time I go watching northern light I would like to take the digital but then when I know the right exposure I'd like to try a roll of film. Anyone know if it's possible to find it will have to be iso 1600 at the mimimum...

Provia 400X pushed two stops.

 

[PMN]

And you're totally right. I'd love to have the confidence to leave the digital at home but I'm definitely not there yet!

My comments weren't actually in relation to having the confidence to only shoot film (you're an experienced photographer, you'll be just fine on film), the point of regretting it was finding yourself in situations you want to shoot where using a medium format camera or the films you have simply isn't practical or even possible. Again I can only base it on my own experience, but on my travels I have had many situations where I've wanted to shoot and such a camera would have made it pretty much impossible (or at least very difficult). That said, my MF camera is an RB67 which is somewhat heftier than the 500!

It looks like you have all the bases covered anyway though so it's all good.

 

[steveo_mcg]

If that happens you only have yourself to blame, there's nothing anyone else can do about that!

Easiest way to resist temptation, put your digital weapons beyond use!

 

[PMN]

Easiest way to resist temptation, put your digital weapons beyond use!

Or just be disciplined enough to not use film if you think film is going to work better. I know this is a bit tongue-in-cheek but I really don't see why having a digital camera there would lead to the temptation to not use film, I also don't see why it *has* to be one or the other.

 

[steveo_mcg]

Or just be disciplined enough to not use film if you think film is going to work better. I know this is a bit tongue-in-cheek but I really don't see why having a digital camera there would lead to the temptation to not use film, I also don't see why it *has* to be one or the other.

You're right, mostly , though there is the issue of chopping and changing between systems. Forgetting to stop down the RB after firing off the D3100, for something moving or forgetting how to use the view camera completely (that happens anyway though) after taking some storyboard shots with an OM.

 

[StephenM]

Swapping cameras isn't my problem - I'm happy with that. It's swapping between thinking in black and white and thinking in colour that throws me. Colour is so much more difficult.

 

[RumpFace]

hate to be thread stealer but where's the thread for the trip? any room for a little un?

 

[RumpFace]

but to add to the thread, i love film and i use digital, i recently shot hand held at night in the snow with the iso bumped up to 6400 on my 5D mk2 and a fast lens with very acceptable results, i don't know of a colour film that would have been as good, and i must have processed every major neg film out there. Also, many DSLRs have video. That is a nice function too.

 

[excalibur2]

but to add to the thread, i love film and i use digital, i recently shot hand held at night in the snow with the iso bumped up to 6400 on my 5D mk2 and a fast lens with very acceptable results, i don't know of a colour film that would have been as good, and i must have processed every major neg film out there. Also, many DSLRs have video. That is a nice function too.

Well filmies would just have to use a tripod.

Easypeasy with Jessops 200 ISO film

 

[joxby]

Lol @ Brian

I remember that digi v film thing, couldn't just leave digi at home for a long while, film was a tag along for sh1ts and giggles while digi was the primary weapon.
Slowly it changed, now, I don't give it a second thought, I only shoot film, if there's something awkward to shoot with film gear, its a challenge, if it can't be shot with film gear, so what.....

 

[skysh4rk]

I don't give it a second thought, I only shoot film, if there's something awkward to shoot with film gear, its a challenge, if it can't be shot with film gear, so what.....

This is exactly where I am; I shoot everything with film. If I ran into a situation where it was impossible to use film, then I just wouldn't bother photographing it. No biggie.

 

[thorton]

It's all about Portra 400 rated at 200 for travelling.

 

[excalibur2]

This is exactly where I am; I shoot everything with film. If I ran into a situation where it was impossible to use film, then I just wouldn't bother photographing it. No biggie.

And why not as for most of us photographers is just a hobby...same as I won't ride a motorcycle in the rain or if the roads are wet.
I sometimes even think there is not much point taking a film camera to a wedding or parties etc as every one has at least a digi compact or mobile that give very good results, and in the old days people looked forward to seeing my shots, but now don't bother.

 

[Mr Bump]

one thing i would say is all that way with just one blad body?

its bloody cold there. Spare body for sure.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

one thing i would say is all that way with just one blad body?

its bloody cold there. Spare body for sure.

Well, I only have one Hasselblad body, but I will also be taking the Leica M2 and a DSLR just in case.

Also, many DSLRs have video. That is a nice function too.

Not mine. It has never really interested me to be honest but I do plan on taking some 8mm video hopefully.

 

[RaglanSurf]

Well, I only have one Hasselblad body, but I will also be taking the Leica M2 and a DSLR just in case.



Not mine. It has never really interested me to be honest but I do plan on taking some 8mm video hopefully.

Do you mean 8mm film?

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Do you mean 8mm film?

Yes.

 

[RumpFace]

You best check the carry on weight restrictions.

 

[droj]

Well Fuji Superia 200 should be on your list ...

Utter crap. Forget that one. I say that analytically - it's beyond the subjective. In no way can it compare with the likes of Provia 100 or Portra.

If you can use a tripod routinely whilst there, I like the idea of a 100 ISO film like Provia. You would improvise the balance of shutterspeed / aperture accordingly, restricting the dof to favour the shutterspeed, or going for increased dof whilst allowing a modicum of motion blur well short of the clichéd effect of a ten-stopper.

 

[Steve Smith]

I really don't see why having a digital camera there would lead to the temptation to not use film, I also don't see why it *has* to be one or the other.

Whilst this is correct, I often take out two cameras. Either film and digital or just two different film formats, and in nearly every case, I wish I had only taken one.

I tend to take enough equipment to cover every eventuality whereas it would have been better to take just one body and one lens.

Obviously this is just my view of what I do and you would think I would learn from it but I'm sure that when I pack stuff to go out with next weekend, it will be a big bag of stuff again!


Steve.

 

[droj]

Discipline (in terms of what you take with you) could be thought of as constrictive. But on the other hand, it can confer a certain freedom. Fewer choices. A concentration on essentials. A leaner economy of firing that shutter.

 

[excalibur2]

Utter crap. Forget that one. I say that analytically - it's beyond the subjective. In no way can it compare with the likes of Provia 100 or Portra.

If you can use a tripod routinely whilst there, I like the idea of a 100 ISO film like Provia. You would improvise the balance of shutterspeed / aperture accordingly, restricting the dof to favour the shutterspeed, or going for increased dof whilst allowing a modicum of motion blur well short of the clichéd effect of a ten-stopper.

Come on.... I've got through about 110 rolls of Superia 200 in 5 years which is about 4000 frames and one of my shots of my grandaughter is on a wall on a print at about 12" X 16".....also plenty of landscapes etc. It's all about horses for course with film and Superia 200 is a good general purpose film that suits many subjects and that's why I said try a roll in Iceland. At the same time Kodak gold could liven up a dull subject and some subjects seem to suit some film and light conditions and I'm always surprised with the results I get using many types of film from Konica 3200 ISO to Jessops diamond over the years, also in 120 Vericolor to Reala.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=f...rce.com%2FSOFT%2FFP3%2Ffilmpack-3.htm;550;400

 

[RaglanSurf]

Yes.

I look forward to seeing your 8mm film, I'm a great fan. It's such a shame that Kodachrome is no longer available not only in Super 8 but in 35mm too.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

You best check the carry on weight restrictions.

Will do but should be ok I think. I have taken more than that on an Easyjet flight before with no problems.

Whilst this is correct, I often take out two cameras. Either film and digital or just two different film formats, and in nearly every case, I wish I had only taken one.

I tend to take enough equipment to cover every eventuality whereas it would have been better to take just one body and one lens.

Obviously this is just my view of what I do and you would think I would learn from it but I'm sure that when I pack stuff to go out with next weekend, it will be a big bag of stuff again!


Steve.

Good points Steve and I wholly agree. I wish I could commit to just 1 camera/lens combo but I know it just won't happen.

Discipline (in terms of what you take with you) could be thought of as constrictive. But on the other hand, it can confer a certain freedom. Fewer choices. A concentration on essentials. A leaner economy of firing that shutter.

Again, I agree. Wish I could commit to it but I doubt I will.

I look forward to seeing your 8mm film, I'm a great fan. It's such a shame that Kodachrome is no longer available not only in Super 8 but in 35mm too.

Thanks, me too. I haven't shot any yet so not expecting a lot unfortunately. I only got the camera from eBay a few months ago. I put some AA batteries in to check the motor runs, and it does. I have some Wein cells for the meter but haven't tried them yet as I don't want them going flat too quick, and at around £60 for film including develop and digital transfer, it's not like I can stick a quick test film of rubbish through it like you can with a £1 roll through a new 35mm camera.

 

[Nod]

VERY brave to be even considering coming with only film! (IMO, of course!!!) But for most of the sights, it should cope well enough as long as it doesn't get cold enough to cause excessive brittleness. From what I can gather, you'll only really need very fast stuff for the AB shots (if the buggers show up!) since the ice cave and ice lagoon ice is slow moving (hopefully imperceptibly moving in the cave!) and we'll be using tripods. Of course, the plus side of less battery reliance is that you won't need to worry as much about their limited charge holding at low temperatures!

Provia 400X pushed two stops.

Not a bad shout, 1600ASA should be fast enough for even the Aurora. I would suggest a 120 roll (or 2!) so there are fewer exposures to get through at the faster speed rather than 220 (if the Hassy can take it?)

hate to be thread stealer but where's the thread for the trip? any room for a little un?

In the meet area, it's the March trip that Gareth is coming on IIRC and I'm pretty sure it's full at the moment (3 cars, 4 seats in each) but you could always express an interest on the thread in case anyone has to drop out.

ETA a link to the thread. http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/iceland-again-march-2015.549235/

You best check the carry on weight restrictions.

I think we're all flying with EasyJet so the restriction is size rather than weight.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

VERY brave to be even considering coming with only film! (IMO, of course!!!) But for most of the sights, it should cope well enough as long as it doesn't get cold enough to cause excessive brittleness. From what I can gather, you'll only really need very fast stuff for the AB shots (if the buggers show up!) since the ice cave and ice lagoon ice is slow moving (hopefully imperceptibly moving in the cave!) and we'll be using tripods. Of course, the plus side of less battery reliance is that you won't need to worry as much about their limited charge holding at low temperatures!

I agree, which is why I will probably pack a DSLR too but I am hoping to shoot mainly, if not totally film. May get the digital out IF we see the Aurora. Will only be using 120, not 220, although I have never really researched if the Hasselblad takes 220?

The plan to rip through some film before hand isn't going well this week. I just don't work near anything remotely interesting!

 

[skysh4rk]

I agree, which is why I will probably pack a DSLR too but I am hoping to shoot mainly, if not totally film. May get the digital out IF we see the Aurora. Will only be using 120, not 220, although I have never really researched if the Hasselblad takes 220?

The plan to rip through some film before hand isn't going well this week. I just don't work near anything remotely interesting!

As far as I'm aware the 500c/m requires separate backs for 120 and 220. At any rate, the only fresh films that are still readily available in 220 in the UK are Portra 160 and Portra 400.

There are a few more emulsions to choose from if you order from Japan or scour eBay, however. I've got a bunch of Portra 400VC, Portra 400NC, Portra 160VC, and Fuji 160S in 220 that I need to shoot.

 

[thorton]

As far as I'm aware the 500c/m requires separate backs for 120 and 220. At any rate, the only fresh films that are still readily available in 220 in the UK are Portra 160 and Portra 400.

There are a few more emulsions to choose from if you order from Japan or scour eBay, however. I've got a bunch of Portra 400VC, Portra 400NC, Portra 160VC, and Fuji 160S in 220 that I need to shoot.

Yup, you need a 24/a24 back to shoot 220 on a Hasselblad.

 

[ped]

Personally, given the opportunity to go to Iceland (and I may be later this year) I'd take one camera.

You'll adjust your shooting style to that camera, it'll remove any element of indecision when shooting (you'll forever be thinking 'maybe I should get this on digital too just in case') and you'll be less conflicted. You'll enjoy the experience and taking pictures will add to it, not detract from the opportunity.

I had the same dilemma when I went to Italy a few years ago when I first started using film. I ended up taking both and for the first couple of days I took two rangefinders (digital and film) out each day. Apart from the weight I wasn't comfortable using either, all I could think about when taking the picture was 'would this look better on film?' or 'I better get a digital one too' and it became a faff.

The last few days I left one camera at the hotel and concentrated on either film or digital each day. Honestly, when I look back at the pictures, the film pictures mean more to me because I was more immersed in what I was doing, where I was, and I guess the satisfaction of working with the images to the final product makes me feel like I 'crafted' them to a larger extent.

Whenever I think about travel now, I imagine myself with one camera around my neck, normally film but often digital, getting lost in the experience and taking pictures as I go - not the other way round!

Sorry I haven't answered your question have I?? Well I don't do MF or colour (often) so for me wit would b Tri-X and PanF

Cheers
ped

 

[excalibur2]

Well what works for me going to Ibiza every year is two film cameras the same (Canon T70s) must have one for a backup, and the same film either superia 200 or usually Reala, a flashgun and if possible a tripod (I have one parked there). And I've never been stuck so far for a shot inc night or sunset shots or fast Humming bird moths.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

As far as I'm aware the 500c/m requires separate backs for 120 and 220. At any rate, the only fresh films that are still readily available in 220 in the UK are Portra 160 and Portra 400.

There are a few more emulsions to choose from if you order from Japan or scour eBay, however. I've got a bunch of Portra 400VC, Portra 400NC, Portra 160VC, and Fuji 160S in 220 that I need to shoot.

Yup, you need a 24/a24 back to shoot 220 on a Hasselblad.

Thanks chaps. I thought it might be the case. I have no desire to shoot 220, quite happy with 120.

Personally, given the opportunity to go to Iceland (and I may be later this year) I'd take one camera.

You'll adjust your shooting style to that camera, it'll remove any element of indecision when shooting (you'll forever be thinking 'maybe I should get this on digital too just in case') and you'll be less conflicted. You'll enjoy the experience and taking pictures will add to it, not detract from the opportunity.

I had the same dilemma when I went to Italy a few years ago when I first started using film. I ended up taking both and for the first couple of days I took two rangefinders (digital and film) out each day. Apart from the weight I wasn't comfortable using either, all I could think about when taking the picture was 'would this look better on film?' or 'I better get a digital one too' and it became a faff.

The last few days I left one camera at the hotel and concentrated on either film or digital each day. Honestly, when I look back at the pictures, the film pictures mean more to me because I was more immersed in what I was doing, where I was, and I guess the satisfaction of working with the images to the final product makes me feel like I 'crafted' them to a larger extent.

Whenever I think about travel now, I imagine myself with one camera around my neck, normally film but often digital, getting lost in the experience and taking pictures as I go - not the other way round!

Sorry I haven't answered your question have I?? Well I don't do MF or colour (often) so for me wit would b Tri-X and PanF

Cheers
ped

Whilst you may not have answered the original question directly, you have made some great points and at the same time confirmed the reasons why I am trying to shoot more with film. I can see me doing just as you describe if I take both. There is a big part of me thinking that I have been wanting to go on a trip like this for a long time and I don't want to shoot loads of rolls of film and come back extremely disappointed that I have got nothing decent, but then it is a learning curve and I know I will have more failures than success so I am tempted to just jump in with both feet and have a go and see how I get on.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Quick little update, I have just ordered a pack of Portra 400 to try in the Hasselblad. I still haven;t shot much since starting this thread. The weekend weather has been terrible to be honest and with the day job during the week, I am finding it hard. I have been in communication with a superb landscape photographer who uses Velvia 50, although he also used LEE ND filters and has a proper 'landscape' setup. I am not a landscape photographer by any stretch and have no real desire to be, so I think the outlay on a full kit such as that would be a waste of money for me, however I am worried about returning with regrets and wishing I had done it differently.

Part of me (and some of my friends who don't get film) tells me to just take the nikon DSLR. But I really, really want to soot the whole lot on film, for a lot of the reasons mentioned by some folk above. I have spent most evenings searching the web for images of Iceland and other locations shot on film to try and put my mind at rest that it's the way to go. At the moment, I am not convinced either way. For me, I want it to be about the journey and the things you see and people you meet along the way, as well as the photography.

Then there's the whole, 'light meter' thing. So far, I have been using an app on my phono to meter with decent results. Can you use something like a Sekonic-308s for landscapes or do you need something more advanced with a spot meter like for example the L-558. As someone coming from digital, this is the bit that;s frying my brain a little.

I'll try and shoot this pack of Portra over the next few weeks and see how I get on and will report back.

 

[Lemaildetom]

Other members on the trip are likely to take 1000s pictures which I'm sure you can copy from them in exchange of letting them see you results after the trip!

If you want to go with your film gear just get your film gear out! Keep the pleasure of having developed negative when you get back! And you probably take more in from the experience that other folks screw onto their liveview screens. On my last holidays in Paris I only took my OM-1 and I was so pleased by the results, much less frame but better selection of shots. When I'm in holiday I find DSLR quiet obstructive.

But then if you are in holiday with 10 folks with a DSLR taking thousands of picture. You might get bored...

 

[stevelmx5]

I've spent quite a bit of time shooting landscapes (digital then film) and have never invested in a Lee system. Whilst they're generally accepted to be, "what the pros use", there are cheaper alternatives which are probably 95% there in quality.

I've always used generic "Cokin P style" holders and filter rings along with Cokin or Kood filters. I've always just used a Circular Polariser, ND2, ND4 and ND8 solid and Grad filters which has covered all bases. In total I've probably spent less than £50 on filters/holders and have been happy with the results.