New to RF, new to film. Help me pick films for a trip.

[Axot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm buying a RF with SC Nokton 1.4 lens (haven't decided between 35 and 40 mm yet, feel free to cast a vote) for the "classic" look.

 

I'm aware a vacation is not the best setting for learning film, but I don't want to miss the opportunity to take pictures in beautiful France. Will take some digital pics as backup.

 

Help me pick one or two B&W and one or two colour films to take with me. I might have time to run a test roll before departure, not sure (camera will reach my hands just a few days before our flight, late this month).

 

I wish a 50~60s mood in the photos, please take into account the locations:

 

St Tropez

Provence (Luberon small villages and countryside)

Paris

 

Most will be in summertime daylight, but I want to take some night shoots as well.

 

What should I take? Also please comment on filters.

 

Thanks

[DigitalHeMan]

If you want a 50s feel to your images, you could take the route this guy did http://www.themarysue.com/expired-film-photos/

 

Apart from that there is plenty of advice on the forum around this topic, but you won't go far wrong Portra 160 for color. For b+w, for the simplicity of processing, you might want to use a c41 process film such as xp2 or bw400cn (unless you are planning to process yourself). However these are both 400 ISO which might be a bit fast for the French summer.

 

You could also look at some of the lomography films for an antique feel.

Edited August 3, 2014 by DigitalHeMan

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

I agree, not a good time to learn film.

 

In these circumstances, and because of the intense light and colour of the South of France, I would recommend only Kodak Portra as the colour film, and Ilford XP2 for the B&W. Reasons: Both are C41 process, both have a wide exposure latitude, wider than slide film, wider than B&W negative film like FP4, and both could be processed in a fast turnaround local lab or supermarket while you are there, so you will be able to see how you are doing as you go along. As regards XP2 being 400 ISO, and therefore a bit fast for bright light, it can be exposed at 200 ISO, and which gives finer grain, although a denser negative.

 

Steve

Edited August 3, 2014 by 250swb

[Axot]

Thanks for input!

 

I'm not sure about C41, as I wanted an "older" look (not as old as the expired film though!). Think Bardot and Gainsbourg's France.

 

Of course that means shooting in the dark, as I will only know my performance too late, when back home. But C41 might do for a quick test roll.

[NZDavid]

Go for slide film. Slides were around in the 50s and 60s! You can always scan them and change them subtly or not so subtly later on for the look you want. Or just enjoy slides as they are. View them on a light table and through a projector.

 

Choices are fewer than before, but Fuji Provia 100F is a good all-round choice. At f/2 and 1/15 you can even handle fairly low light.

 

For B+W and the chance for high quality enlargements and to get the most out of your optics, get hold of some Ilford Pan F. It can be shot at ISO 50 for standard development or ISO 32 for ultra fine grain.

 

For 50s and 60s photographers slow speed was no hardship. Kodachrome 25 was a favorite.

 

On the contrary, an adventurous trip to France is a great opportunity to try something new. Have fun!

[StS]

Well, Tri-X certainly gives a classic, slightly grainy look (depending on the developer). My suggestion would be a yellow filter to avoid white skies - Tri-X is very sensitive to blue and UV. Are you developing yourself? Otherwise your lab will probably choose a middle-of-the-road developer. I find 400 ISO a good allround speed.

 

My suggestion would be to expose a test film each to make sure the equipment works and the look is as expected.

 

Stefan

[NJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The suggestions of XP2 and Portra are about the only way you could cover day time and evening with one film. I have used both but personally prefer other films, with XP2 the grain is in the dark areas like with digital as opposed to traditional black and white where it is the other way round. Having said that high key shots in the summer will render very clean whites such as clouds and white washed buildings with so it sounds like just the ticket for your use case. XP2 does have very nice tones those who don't see them must be scanning it badly IMHO. As much as I prefer other films XP2 is the closest I have come to finding a universal film.

 

A cheat to manage exposure differences between day and evening with film is to shoot with something like a B&W orange filter on B&W in the day or on colour a polariser, both of those films can be under and overexposed a stop no problem as well which buys more range so you could shoot XP2 in the day at 200 with an orange filter on and 800 without in the evening.

 

BTW if all you have seen of B&W film photography is on the net or in books you can get a piece of that action with XP2, most of the differences between films are way overblown by subjective opinion, is massively influenced by how the film is processed/scanned/printed and none of them look anything like digital photography.

[250swb]

Thanks for input!

 

I'm not sure about C41, as I wanted an "older" look (not as old as the expired film though!). Think Bardot and Gainsbourg's France.

 

Of course that means shooting in the dark, as I will only know my performance too late, when back home. But C41 might do for a quick test roll.

 

Well C41 was introduced in 1972 so it does cover the period. You simply aren't going to find something that pops out of the camera fully formed, so have you heard of scanning and post processing? With a medium film, not overly colourful, not overly grainy (Portra and XP2) you have an ideal point to create the look you want without tripping over the romantic idea that photographs have ever been down to the film alone. Even in the 1960's photographic processing and printing of the glamorous world of stardom was a heavily manipulated art form. B&W silver based film is about the only thing you could use, but that could well be a liability without some knowledge before you jump in with both feet.

 

In fact the only thing I can think of that would give a true period effect for a novice would be an instant Polaroid type film, one of those Fuji Instax things would do.

 

Steve

[pico]

I'm not sure about C41, as I wanted an "older" look (not as old as the expired film though!). Think Bardot and Gainsbourg's France.

 

Adox CHS 100 II ISO 100 35x36 exp. | Freestyle Photographic Supplies.

 

Adox CHS 100 film. Develop in Rodinal 1:50.

.

[sblitz]

great b&w film, will use it until winter comes . .. . on the color side, i prefer portra 160 but 400 and even 800 are all fine . . .

[250swb]

A great film, perfect in every way for a novice who has never used film or processed it before.

 

I wonder if on the Ferrari Forum the ideal car to buy for somebody who has just passed their driving test would be a 'LaFerrari'?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaFerrari

 

 

 

Steve

Edited August 4, 2014 by 250swb

[Broadside]

Kodak Ektar 100 & Ilford fp4+ - use your digital for night shots if you don't have a tripod.

[Farel]

Why don't you try a very high iso Film. i did play sometime with it and extra amount of grain give me a good '60y Old look photo in 2014'..

 

ILFORD 3200iso

 

The strong iso will be then a problem for day time with strong light .. but well if is the look you look for ..

 

Ps: i leave 4year in st Tropez, and gas sin so if you want some small corner let me know ..

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Axot]

The look is nice, but 3200 I'm afraid may be too sensitive for the sunny French summer. I'll go with Tri-X and develop in Rodinal, but will save the idea of 3200 for when I'm more experienced.

 

Indeed, about St Tropez, do you know where I can find film there? I'm not intending to take many from home (avoid x-ray damage) and St Tropez is my first stop in France.

 

Tri-X it is, for the grain. I'll stick to 1 film for now, and use my phone for colour. Bought one yellow filter as well.

 

My plan is running ASAP a C41 to test focus of the new gear (r3m + 40 1.4) before trip, and then just shoot Tri-X in the French trip.

 

I'll bring the exposed film back home and store it, then try home developing future test rolls, and will only develop the rolls from trip when I'm confident enough.

 

Thank you all, your help was invaluable. Since (for now) none of my gear is Leica, I'll not be able to post results here, but in a few months they will be available at the rf forum.

[Bobitybob]

Due to the sun (let's hope it doesn't rain) have you considered a variable ND filter to compensate for this and also enable you to use of a wide aperture if required.

[Axot]

Due to my inexperience, I was unable to id which would be an ideal ND filter: there are options ranging from 0.3 all the way up to 3.0... Any ideas?

 

My lens is 1.4 and I'm shooting Tri-X probably at 400, not sure I wanna add one more factor (pushing/pulling) at this early stage, although pushing to maybe 800 for a bit of extra grain is tempting. However, since I want some versatility (maybe use the same roll for mid-day shoots at the beach and later some night shoots of streets) sticking to 400 may be the right thing to do. I understand shooting wide open will be an impossibility if the weather is nice, but I would buy a ND if I knew which one...

[Jeff S]

 

My lens is 1.4 and I'm shooting Tri-X probably at 400...

 

I always ran film speed tests to be sure, but generally found shooting Tri-X at ASA 250-320 better for my print needs. Many variations can be achieved with different processing and printing materials and techniques….including print size.

 

Jeff

[StS]

Sorry, no experience with ND filters from my side.

 

For the first film, my suggestion would be to stick with box-speed and -development, pushing or pulling opens a large parameter room, which takes some time to explore. In case you need more information - the data sheet for Tri-X can be found here. If in doubt, it is better to over-expose negative film (slightly) rather than under-expose.

 

Just for the record - "pulling" film, exposing at higher ISO (more light) and compensating by reduced development adds dynamic range while reducing grain. "Pushing" reduces the dynamic range and adds grain (less exposure, more development). My standard handling is pulling to 320 ISO.

 

Do you have the chance to expose a Tri-X test roll and have it developed in a lab to make sure you get the look you want?

 

Stefan

[Bobitybob]

Due to my inexperience, I was unable to id which would be an ideal ND filter: there are options ranging from 0.3 all the way up to 3.0... Any ideas?

 

The problem is that makers often quote different ways to measure the amount of light that is let through these filters, if you search the forum you will find threads on this. That is why I suggested a variable filter as they go from virtually clear to very dark. In reality it does not matter what the reading is as you can adjust the filter along with aperture, shutter speed to get the exposure you need (with in reason). If you get one you can try this on your camera without a film in and adjust the ISO dial and the filter to get an exposure range you feel will suit your needs. That may be more/less than the 400 you currently feel is best. Alternativly you could take the previous advice and use XP2 which due to its wide exposure range (over/under expose 1or2 stops as needed) may be less complicated and has the benifit of being easily processed virtually anywhere.

 

Either way enjoy your trip

Edited August 7, 2014 by Bobitybob

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[DigitalHeMan]

If you want to use an ISO 400 film all day, using a two stop, or 0,6ND, filter with it during the day would give you the same exposure values as you would get using a 100 ISO film.