Re: Auzzie.rail catching up.

[James Brook <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au>]

maikha_l@hotmail.com wrote:
> 
> <snip film comparisons>
>
> ===
> 
> So there's my recall of Film.
> I'm a little confused here though.
> Fuji 200 isn't capable of action of partly sunny. Wouldn't Fuji 800 be
> better (For taking pictures of moving trains)?
> And anyone here using Kodak?

In general you only need a 100 speed film. The lower the speed, the
better the image quality. High speed films have larger grain than low
speed films. This reduces the quality of the image, especially when it
is blown up to something like an 8x10. I have found that 100 speed film
works fine whenever there is direct sun, or between about 0900 to around
1530 on a heavily overcast day. In heavy rain you may need something
faster, but generally not.

This photo was taken on Fujichrome Sensia II 100 (slide film) and this
is exactly as the slide appears. Polished black steam locomotives are
the worst for dull days, but as you can see they come out nicely.

http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/pics/robinvale/k190_d3639_dtgully.jpg

BTW, the settings for this exposure were f3.5 at 1/125. I have a 28-80mm
zoom lens which seems to reduce some of the light level. With my old
camera (with a normal 50mm lens) this would have been f5.6 at 1/125. I
have tried a 50mm lens on my new camera and it does seem to let more
light in. However, I prefer the versatility of the zoom lens. The only
problem is that you have to be a little more accurate with the
focussing! :-)

One thing you should be aware of is that prints will not work in dull
conditions if your photo lab is dodgy. I have found that most tend to
expose the print based on the average of the image. If there is a fair
bit of sky, the foreground will be underexposed in the print, even if
you have exposed the photo correctly. My Dad took three photos of a
stationary train in very low light last year on Kodak Gold 200. One was
exposed correctly, another was heavily underexposed and the third was
heavily overexposed. When he got the prints back from Kodak they were
all identical, even though the negatives were not.

Basically, this is what my opinions are of different films that I have
tried:

1. Colour print film (eg. Kodak Gold 100, 200, etc...):

I find print film the easiest to use as you can underexpose it or
overexpose it by a pretty big amount and the photo labs will correct for
these errors, therefore giving you a good quality print. However, I
think colour print films are the worst quality as far as the image is
concerned. I haven't seen a colour print film yet that can produce
colour equal to any colour slide film. The shadow areas never seem to
show any detail in the prints and the colours are much flatter. As I
said previously, photo labs can often underexpose the subject of a print
if the rest of the image is overexposed. I also find that colour print
films tend to have a fair bit of grain in them (even 100 speed films).
Basically, if you are looking for a good general purpose film that is
easy to use, prints are probably the best option. If you want quality,
forget colour prints at a photolab.

2. Black and white print film (eg. Ilford FP4 125, etc...):

I have found that black and white print films are fairly similar to
colour print films, but in my opinion they seem to be a bit sharper and
I think they show the detail a bit better. They also have the advantage
of being much easier to process yourself. This gives you much greater
flexibility for the final print, eliminating the problem of underexposed
prints. If you are looking to make your first step into a more
specialised area then black and white may be a good thing to try. It
will also last much longer than any colour film if it is developed
properly. However, with digital imaging the fading of colour films is
becoming less of a problem as you can now get scanners that scan
straight from the negative or slide at resolutions up to 4000dpi.

3. Colour slide films (Kodak Elitechrome, Fujichrome Sensia, etc...):

For quality you can't go past slides. The colour is amazing and it
doesn't have the grain problems associated with print films. This high
quality does come at a cost. I find that slides have the steepest
learning curve of all film types. Back in 1995 I changed from print film
to slide film and it took me six months to start getting consistently
good results. With slides the exposure must be perfect, ie: there is no
margin for error as the developed film is what you are looking at when
you put it in the projector. There isn't another process in the middle
to correct for any mistakes (ie: developing prints from the negatives).
However, personally I find that slide film is the most rewarding film to
use. The final product is far ahead of prints in terms of quality and
when a slide turns out, you really know you have done a good job and not
just relied on the photo lab correcting for your errors. BTW, I also
like seeing my pics on a big screen :-)
   
Of course, the quality of your photos will also depend on your equipment
and your level of skill. You can't hope to achieve extremely high
quality with a wide angle compact camera. Personally I think SLR's are
the only cameras worth considering for high quality photos. However,
they are also the hardest to use for a newcomer to photography. As with
all things, it is a trade off between quality and ease of use.
  
Note: Any photos linked to in this message are copyright and must not be
used for anything other than personal non-profit use without my
permission.
  
-- 
- James Brook -

----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:     
mailto:ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au
Victorian Railfan Web Site:    
http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/
----------------------------------------------------------------