Hello all,
I've just recently, within the last year or so, gotten into nature photography. I have a Canon Rebel TI 35mm camera with a Canon 75-300mm zoom lens at the moment. I was wondering what my best bet for better color saturation in my photos would be. I just tried Kodak Ultracolor 100 speed for some wildflower pictures and did like that a lot, but it doesn't seem that I'm getting the same level of impact due to color as some of the photos I've been seeing online. I am curious if I'm doing something wrong with my aperture (Days have been a little windy here in Western North Carolina so I didn't have much choice)? Lens? Do I need a filter of some sort? Does anyone have a film recommendation for 100 and 400 speed film that would suit nature photography best? I'm just new to this and would love some assistance from some pros! Thanks everyone.
Yeah, I'm wanting to go to digital, but the Digital SLR cameras are big bucks for me. I'm still in college so I don't quite have the funds to do it just yet. Would the Provia work well for landscapes/wildflowers/animals? I realize 400 speed is probably better suited for shots of animals due to movement also, would provia 400 speed work well or should I use another film in the 400 speed range?
If you are shooting negative film, one of my favorites for saturation and fine grain (before I went digital) was the Kodak Portra VC. You should be able to find it in most camera stores. Some post processing after scanning, such as added contrast, saturation, also helps.
There are two print films that are ISO 400 that I think will give you what you want. One is Kodak 400UC (comes in a black box) and the other is the new Fuji True Definition. Best part is that both are available at Walmart and are fairly inexpensive. Both are in three packs--Walmart doesn't sell single rolls any more.
Most of the images you see on the intenet or in print were shot on slide film (saturated) or with digital bodies (where saturation can be cranked up as much as you wish). Print film is flatter and less saturated. Filters? Yeah, and all sorts of other tricks like reflectors, diffusers, and translucent tents. I like Fuji RVP and RVP100 films best, but I'd recommend you start with some reading. An excellent older book, still available from www.blacklockgallery.com is Photographing Wildflowers by Craig and Nadine Blacklock.
Personally, the last few years that I used film, slides were my choice for saturation, clarity and depth
(maybe it's just me that noticed the last two ). The slide film I used was Kodak E100VS and Elite Chrome.
Slide film is easier to proof - you can see exactly what you got without wondering what the lab changed in prints. This is also why most publications that use film prefer slides as well. With the aid of a loupe and light table you can also make better decisions about which images are worth keeping (sharpness, composition etc.) that may be difficult to do based on negs.
On the other hand there aren't any 400-speed slide films I would consider good. If you need high speed, Provia pushed 2 stops will be my choice.
"Best color" is a subjective designation. My personal favorite is Velvia 100F (not the plain 100).
A photograph displayed on a computer monitor is more like a slide than a print. Done well, slides (and images on a computer monitor) have a vividness that is hard to approach with a print, especially a machine print (as opposed to a cu$tom print).
Because you have a film camera, I would suggest trying a roll of slide film. ISO 100 is a good place to start - try Fuji Sensia or one of the Kodak Elitechrome emulsions. I think you will like the litte gems you get back from the lab.
What you record the photograph on is only part of the whole process. Fortunately, it is a lot of fun working to learn all the things you need to produce a good photograph.
Kyle, there really is no good way to compare a given film with any random digital SLRs. The workflows are different and there are different ways to achieve a desired result (color, contrast etc.) using either technology.
Whether or not it's worth getting a digital SLR depends mainly on how much you spend on film and processing and on how you plan to use your images.
I just want to take some high quality pics for enlargement for personal use. Might do some selling on the side if they are good enough. I would like 16 x 20 or so in size. Does that help? I'm not out taking pics all the time, but when I do I want them to be the best that they can be. I backpack a lot, which is what got me into nature photography.
From my personal experience, images captured with 10+ megapixels digital SLRs will be equal to and usually better than 35mm when printed at 16x20.
Of course a lot will depend on how good you are (or plan to be) in preparing your files for print, but that should also apply in the case of film scans.
I've been taking my film to a professional developer "Ball Photo" in Asheville, NC. No enlargements as of yet so I don't really know what they will turn out to look like. I'm only basing my photograph quality off of 4x6 photos at the moment.
Posted by Toni Lankerd on May 22, 2006 at 10:29 AM
I had 16x24's printed from slides with no problems whatsoever.
Could I just think that my photos aren't as good since they are still so small? I took some pics of the same flowers with a Digital 5mp camera and they look very good, but they are the size of my computer screen as my film photos are only 4x6. I know that I took the pictures right with my film camera, in focus i mean, so could the smaller size of the photograph be the issue?
Kyle: I'm still a predominantly 35mm film shooter. My workhorse film is Fuji Sensia 100 (slides) and on the rare occasions I shoot prints I use Fuji Reala. I get spectacular results from the slides BUT I also have a 4000 dpi film scanner. At the time I bought it it was $1500, an ammount that will buy you a fine DSLR now. I do plan to get a DSLR in the very near future but because I'm married to Minolta (small fortune in lenses) my choices are pretty limited. One thing I like about slides is that they are unforgiving. I learned a lot about proper exposure from the slides that found their way into the trash. One last tidbit, if you want the best saturation in slide film I think Fuji Velvia 50 is still the standard but it is going to be increasingly less available. Hope my random ramblings help. >=))>
So I used some Fuji slide film (velvia 100 I think) but when it was developed I got 4x6 photos and a bunch of negatives back. Should i request slides back for enlargement? Sounds like a dumb question, but I'm new to this. How much more should this cost if it's the case. I'm not quite into the game enough yet to develop my own film or make my own enlargements as of yet. Thanks.
Quote: "Could I just think that my photos aren't as good since they are still so small? I took some pics of the same flowers with a Digital 5mp camera and they look very good, but they are the size of my computer screen as my film photos are only 4x6. I know that I took the pictures right with my film camera, in focus i mean, so could the smaller size of the photograph be the issue?"
Size may be a slight problem, but more importantly these are almost surely "machine prints." Say you have a flower against a dark background. The automatic printer may try to lighten the background, overexposing the flower. Much better with print film is to get a contact sheet printed that shows every image at its original 36 x 24mm size. Then get custom prints made only for the images you like. Works the same with slides. Pitch the bad ones, print only the good ones, if you print any at all--with slides, you evaluate the images with a loupe on a light table; you can stop there, or can print the ones you like or scan them for digital uses, including printing at home on Epson, etc., printers. All that (scanner, home printer) costs money, so I'd say the first step is to get contact prints or slides, then have good prints or scans made of the ones you like. Almost every local photo lab does scans and digital prints now--they'll even crop, clone, and improve images if you want them to.
Kyle, I prefer slide film too. Colors are richer, and show better detail under the loupe. A lot of factors contribute to better color saturation. Not the least of which is the actual light conditions in which you are shooting. Note the warmer hues on the landscape when the sun is low to the horizon. For correct exposure, slide film allows very little room for error. But we all learn through practice. So don't limit your shooting to just backpacking.
Find a photo imaging lab that caters to professional clientele as well as the enthusiastic amatuers (like myself). I do and I have profited from their expertise. I learned from them that for a 16x20 print you would have to go to a higher resolution scan. A size up to 74 MB (4096 x 6144 pixels) would give you a sharp, pleasing 16x20 print.
As a landscape photographer I would not be without my polarizer filter and my 1 and 2 stop graduated neutral density filters. I have never been without my tripod. Do you have a tripod?
So Ball photo.....http://www.ballphotosupply.com/.......printed out my 4x6 photos. It says on their website that they have a 4000DPI High Resolution Scan for enlargements. Would a photo done with this scan be of better quality than my 4x6 prints? Would I just take them my negatives to get the enlargement made whether I used color negative or color slide film? I don't understand why color slide film would have negatives if anyone can enlighten me on that as well, what's the "slide" terminology for?
Reading through all the posts I can see the level you are at.
Your orientation and experience is with negative film just like most people. With slides, don't waste your money having a set of small prints made from all your slides. Such prints come from dumb machines often with mediocre ability to even produce something that minimally represents what you shot. Instead what folks shooting slides do is look at the slides on a light table with say an 8x loupe or via a slide projector. A lot of shots will often not be worth printing at all and ought to be tossed. For those that are of interest, you can then have those slides scanned and placed on CDROM media. Back on your computer, look at the images and edit and crop them as is appropriate and save those you wish to print out in the correct profiled format for printing or web use.
As some suggested you could probably gain considerable awareness by reading any one of the simple cheap photography introduction books. Pretty important to get grounded in a few basic concepts. Otherwise asking a lot more questions here will likely just result in confusion from getting fragments of information. Behind each of the questions you asked are several more that are otherwise likely to scroll up. Best of luck...David
David,
So when I take a roll of slide film to a professional photo lab what should I expect to get in return from them? Slides for a projector? Should I look into getting a light table and an 8x loupe? How much does that stuff run money wise? I was thinking of just getting a digital slr camera to avoid all of this stuff? Thanks.
Kyle, color slides do not have negatives. For a slide show you need transparencies which you load into a carousel or tray which guides the transparencies (slides) through the projector. Hence the name slides. The film is called "chrome" as in Fujichrome or Kodachrome. I have been using chrome film for all of the years I enjoyed nature photography. I don't have a projector. I store them in transparent sheets which hold 20 each. if you want to show a slide show with a projector use duplicate slides instead of the originals.
Scans are made from slides or negatives depending on the type of film you used. Yes, I believe a 4000 dpi scan will give a better quality enlargement when you go as large as 16x20. Certainly better than from a 4x5 print.
Discussion
29 repliesI've just recently, within the last year or so, gotten into nature photography. I have a Canon Rebel TI 35mm camera with a Canon 75-300mm zoom lens at the moment. I was wondering what my best bet for better color saturation in my photos would be. I just tried Kodak Ultracolor 100 speed for some wildflower pictures and did like that a lot, but it doesn't seem that I'm getting the same level of impact due to color as some of the photos I've been seeing online. I am curious if I'm doing something wrong with my aperture (Days have been a little windy here in Western North Carolina so I didn't have much choice)? Lens? Do I need a filter of some sort? Does anyone have a film recommendation for 100 and 400 speed film that would suit nature photography best? I'm just new to this and would love some assistance from some pros! Thanks everyone.
Kent in SD
(maybe it's just me that noticed the last two ). The slide film I used was Kodak E100VS and Elite Chrome.
On the other hand there aren't any 400-speed slide films I would consider good. If you need high speed, Provia pushed 2 stops will be my choice.
"Best color" is a subjective designation. My personal favorite is Velvia 100F (not the plain 100).
Guy
Because you have a film camera, I would suggest trying a roll of slide film. ISO 100 is a good place to start - try Fuji Sensia or one of the Kodak Elitechrome emulsions. I think you will like the litte gems you get back from the lab.
What you record the photograph on is only part of the whole process. Fortunately, it is a lot of fun working to learn all the things you need to produce a good photograph.
Pete D.
I would go with the Velvia 100 as well. I recevtly heard that Fuji is improving the alreasy very good PROVIA line.
GOod shooting!
Jack
Whether or not it's worth getting a digital SLR depends mainly on how much you spend on film and processing and on how you plan to use your images.
Guy
Of course a lot will depend on how good you are (or plan to be) in preparing your files for print, but that should also apply in the case of film scans.
Guy
velvia, Astia, Provia, Elitechrome100 are nice films with each having its own use.
Size may be a slight problem, but more importantly these are almost surely "machine prints." Say you have a flower against a dark background. The automatic printer may try to lighten the background, overexposing the flower. Much better with print film is to get a contact sheet printed that shows every image at its original 36 x 24mm size. Then get custom prints made only for the images you like. Works the same with slides. Pitch the bad ones, print only the good ones, if you print any at all--with slides, you evaluate the images with a loupe on a light table; you can stop there, or can print the ones you like or scan them for digital uses, including printing at home on Epson, etc., printers. All that (scanner, home printer) costs money, so I'd say the first step is to get contact prints or slides, then have good prints or scans made of the ones you like. Almost every local photo lab does scans and digital prints now--they'll even crop, clone, and improve images if you want them to.
Find a photo imaging lab that caters to professional clientele as well as the enthusiastic amatuers (like myself). I do and I have profited from their expertise. I learned from them that for a 16x20 print you would have to go to a higher resolution scan. A size up to 74 MB (4096 x 6144 pixels) would give you a sharp, pleasing 16x20 print.
As a landscape photographer I would not be without my polarizer filter and my 1 and 2 stop graduated neutral density filters. I have never been without my tripod. Do you have a tripod?
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
And I do have a tripod and a polarizing lens!
Reading through all the posts I can see the level you are at.
Your orientation and experience is with negative film just like most people. With slides, don't waste your money having a set of small prints made from all your slides. Such prints come from dumb machines often with mediocre ability to even produce something that minimally represents what you shot. Instead what folks shooting slides do is look at the slides on a light table with say an 8x loupe or via a slide projector. A lot of shots will often not be worth printing at all and ought to be tossed. For those that are of interest, you can then have those slides scanned and placed on CDROM media. Back on your computer, look at the images and edit and crop them as is appropriate and save those you wish to print out in the correct profiled format for printing or web use.
As some suggested you could probably gain considerable awareness by reading any one of the simple cheap photography introduction books. Pretty important to get grounded in a few basic concepts. Otherwise asking a lot more questions here will likely just result in confusion from getting fragments of information. Behind each of the questions you asked are several more that are otherwise likely to scroll up. Best of luck...David
So when I take a roll of slide film to a professional photo lab what should I expect to get in return from them? Slides for a projector? Should I look into getting a light table and an 8x loupe? How much does that stuff run money wise? I was thinking of just getting a digital slr camera to avoid all of this stuff? Thanks.
Scans are made from slides or negatives depending on the type of film you used. Yes, I believe a 4000 dpi scan will give a better quality enlargement when you go as large as 16x20. Certainly better than from a 4x5 print.
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada