# Is there any difference between film brands?



## keller (Feb 1, 2006)

I read in a book that different brands of film (AGFA, Fuji, Kodak, etc) all have different effects. Is this true? According to the book, AGFA and Kodak gives good overall colour, while Fuji tends to be lighter and has less color saturation.

I've occasionally noticed Fuji does seem lighter, although this could've been due to the lighting conditions at that time.


----------



## Rob (Feb 1, 2006)

There are differences between films in loads of different ways. There are even massive differences between two films of the same manufacturer.

I've always found that Kodak films are a bit reddy, Fuji are a bit green. There are some films I like and some I don't. Fuji Velvia for instance is a super saturated slide film and definitely couldn't be described as a lighter film.

Different films also perform differently according to the type of lens and the type of shot. Some films, like Fuji Reala 100 are almost impossible to mis-expose and are great for strange situations like night photography. Also films which are nasty for portraits, like Kodak Gold 400, can do a great job on something like a sunset or autumnal scene.

Comparing my friend's Canon EOS3 to my Nikon F3 is very interesting. Porta 100 looks great on his camera with a 28-135mm zoom, but on my F3 with a 105mm f1.8 it looks wishy washy. 

You should get a 12 roll of each type of film you think you're gonna like and shoot them on the same day and get them done in the same lab and see which you prefer. It's deadly dull, but the only person who can choose is you!

Rob


----------



## Meysha (Feb 2, 2006)

Ditto to everything Rob has said. Especially about the comment of Kodak being warmer and Fuji being greener.

I always take Fuji out into the rainforest with me... But use kodak in pretty much any other situation.


----------



## duelinthedeep (Feb 2, 2006)

would kodachrome be redder and velvia be greener also?


----------



## keller (Feb 5, 2006)

Something I've also noticed about film is that they say things like "For Sunny Conditions" (ie. Kodak 200 "Sunny").

Does this actually mean anything? Like if I brought a "Sunny" film and used it during night time, will it alter anything?


----------



## Rob (Feb 5, 2006)

keller said:
			
		

> Something I've also noticed about film is that they say things like "For Sunny Conditions" (ie. Kodak 200 "Sunny").
> 
> Does this actually mean anything? Like if I brought a "Sunny" film and used it during night time, will it alter anything?



No, the "Sunny" is there because it'll not be much use indoors. Use the ISO levels as appropriate:

20-50 - very sharp images, probably gonna need a tripod under most conditions as you need a lot of light to expose it.
100 - My personal choice as it's more convenient than 50 especially when hand-holding. It's the next smallest grain size and is generally good stuff.
200 - I haven't even seen a picture taken on 200 ISO film which has looked reasonable. Kodak 200 is my second-least favourite film in the world. Use the more popular and more developed 400 instead. Note there are exceptions, but Kodak 200 (not Kodachrome) is very nasty.
400 - General all-purpose. Works fine in most situations, but noticably grainier than 100. 
800 - Shoot indoors under "normal" indoor lighting. Grainy.
1600 - Same as 800 but even grainier. There are some very nasty 1600 colour films like Fuji Neopan, which look wishy washy. I don't see a situation where you'd ever want to use this film, except maybe pap work.
3200 - So grainy it's black and white time. Great for those awkward moments where flash would ruin things. I use T-Max 3200 quite a lot for moody stuff.
6400 - You can clock most 3200 film up to 6400. The only downside is that a correct exposure will most likely make using the viewfinder impossible - it's DARK.

IMO Kodachrome 25/64 would be more red than velvia and velvia would be more green than kodachrome.

Hope this helps!

Rob


----------



## markc (Feb 5, 2006)

Personally I'd never bother with 200 speed film. I'd recommend sticking with either 100 or 400. 200 doesn't give you the speed of 400, but so often seems to have almost as much grain.

Film speed is different from what they are talking about here. The higher the number, the more sensitive to light it is, but it also has more grain. Higher numbers would be for darker conditions.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Feb 5, 2006)

At the tend of my career I used 200 speed in 35mm weddings, for the tiny extra dof, but I would never shoot it in med format.  Like mark said a total waste.  the 400 doesn't have noticeable grain to me in 12o.


----------



## myopia (Feb 20, 2006)

velvia 100 for color, kodak t-max (100 day, 400-pushed @1600 for night) for blk+wht


----------



## PlasticSpanner (Feb 20, 2006)

Any recommendations for a 100 iso film for outdoor scenic and a 100 iso for outdoor portrait kinda stuff?

I actually use Kodak Ultra 200 iso for astrophotography and I don't know whether it's the long exposures and low light levels but find it quite good with better colours than the 400.  As far a "normal" photography goes though I find both Kodaks 200 and 400 iso quite grainy (as much as each other) and not very sharp, especially when heavily cropped with the enlarger.


----------



## Rob (Feb 20, 2006)

Superia Reala 100 for scenery and Kodak Professional Porta 160NC for portraits. Shoot the Reala at 80 and the Portra at 100. 

Rob


----------

