Photography advice

Just taken the plunge with some uW photograhy equipement (Sea & Sea
MMII-Ex plus s50 TTL Strobe) and was wondering if anyone out there had
words of advise over which make / variety of 35mm film to use?

Thanks

Ron T <ombligo@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> "Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > <philip_amswych@lineone.net> wrote ...
> > > Just taken the plunge with some uW photograhy equipement (Sea & Sea
> > > MMII-Ex plus s50 TTL Strobe) and was wondering if anyone out there had
> > > words of advise over which make / variety of 35mm film to use?
> >
> > Kodachrome 25, of course... Best film ever made...
>
>
> Actually Kodachrome 64 is widely considerd to be the best film base ever
> produced. It was the film of choice for Life and National Geographic
> photographers.
>
> But that is not what Phillip wants to use.
>
> I woud suggest a good color neg film in the 100-200 ISO range. My
> personal choice would be Fuji 200 speed film.
>
> Some will say to shoot transparency (slide or E-6) film...
>
> The downside is those film require almost a dead-on correct exposure.
> The have very little latitude and are unforgiving of mistakes. It is
> also more costly to have prints made.

For UW, I shoot slides almost exclusively, but then again, I'm not using
a Sea&Sea MMII-Ex.

If its macro, I'll shoot Fuji Velvia (the "old" ISO 50 stuff only...the
new stuff that's ISO 100 isn't as good). However, ISO 50 is harder to
work with for non-macro UW stuff.

For general "clear warm water" work, I'll use Fuji Provia 100F, or the
consumer version (Sensia; both are ISO 100), and for "not as clear"
water, Provia 400F (ISO 400)

Yes, there's the narrow exposure lattitude problem. I merely live with
it and bracket, as this is easily done on a Nikonos V.

> [From Slides] It is also more costly to have prints made.

Agreed, although it also depends on the interest for the primary
application, as digital scanning is pretty cheap these days, and once
its digitized, the cost for an inkjet print is the same regardless of
the original's source.



I'd probably not recommend slides for a Sea&Sea MMII-Ex because I don't
precisely recall how easy/hard it is to bracket with this camera, but I
don't think its particularly easy: I do know that since it has Auto-DX
coding, you can't fool the camera's TTL system shot-to-shot (by changing
indicated ISO) in order to manipulate strobe output control. This is
the traditional old Nikonos "trick" to avoid overexposing highly
reflective fish such as Tarpon & barracuda.

Overall, I'd recommend a print film. I'd suggest:

Kodak Ultra 400UC 135-36 Professional Color Print Film (ISO-400)

Kodak Ultra 100UC 135-36 Professional Color Negative (Print) Film
(ISO-100)

Both are very high saturation professional print films that try to mimic
Fuji Velvia slide film. Because they're professional films, you won't
find them in Walmart shelf, or even most typical camera stores. They're
around $5/roll from B&H and other professional service retailers. Go
online and buy a 5-pack for $25 and give it a shot. If you like it,
plan for your needs and place another order...FWIW, my orders usually
run somewhere between 30-60 rolls, and I keep it all in the 'fridge at
home so as to prevent any concerns about film expiration dates. With
refrigeration, don't worry if you go a year or two beyond expiration.


> The down side of print film is getting it processed on liveaboards
> or at resorts.

Regardless of slide-vs-print, film is now at a disadvantage versus
digital for delivering prompt feedback on how you're doing. IMO, its
generally a good idea to get at least one roll of film developed while
still on vacation when its a new, untested camera system and new,
untested UW photographer...far better to get "ripped off" for $40 or
whatever for a single roll developed than to get back home and discover
that you had your snorkel blocking all of your shots on all of your
rolls, or similar correctable problem.


-hh

"Ron T" wrote ...
> Actually Kodachrome 64 is widely considerd to be the best film base ever
> produced. It was the film of choice for Life and National Geographic
> photographers

Only because they weren't willing to wait around for the supernova that was
necessary for fill light for Kodachrome 25... <grin>

Kodachrome 25 had a finer grain that 64... The colors from either were so
much more billiant than what you see these days with the current crop of
films... I mean, really, who is gonna write a song about FujiColor?

http://www.verticalwind.com/k-25.html

In article <nwCRd.2815$vz.1132@fe07.lga>,
"Grumman-581" <grumman581-YYYY-MM@charter.net> wrote:

> <philip_amswych@lineone.net> wrote ...
> > Just taken the plunge with some uW photograhy equipement (Sea & Sea
> > MMII-Ex plus s50 TTL Strobe) and was wondering if anyone out there had
> > words of advise over which make / variety of 35mm film to use?
>
> Kodachrome 25, of course... Best film ever made...


Actually Kodachrome 64 is widely considerd to be the best film base ever
produced. It was the film of choice for Life and National Geographic
photographers.

But that is not what Phillip wants to use.

I woud suggest a good color neg film in the 100-200 ISO range. My
personal choice would be Fuji 200 speed film.

Some will say to shoot transparency (slide or E-6) film. That base was
primarily used by professionals shooting for publication. Dive resorts
and liveaboards settled on that film for processing simply because it
gave a positive image to view without the need of a print.

The downside is those film require almost a dead-on correct exposure.
The have very little latitude and are unforgiving of mistakes. It is
also more costly to have prints made.

Print film has wide exposure latitude therefore is far more forgiving of
your mistakes. You can get prints made easiy and cheaply. This is
usually what most photographers desire for an end product.

The down side of print film is getting it processed on liveaboards or at
resorts. Even if you can, you get a strip of negs that are hard to
decipher without experience.

I would still recommend it over slide films though for you.


>
>

Thanks for the advise; I found it an interesting debate! I'm no
professional, but having gone through close to 100 dives thought it
about time to bring home proof positive to the wife to explain annual
trips to Thailand !

Anyway, slides are not what I'm about, plan to have the photos produced
as prints and digitised by the processing lab to take away the pain of
scanning myself. Once on board the PC, I'll play around .....! So it
looks like Kodak Ultra for me.

Thanks again.

"philip2711" wrote ...
> Thanks for the advise; I found it an interesting debate! I'm no
> professional, but having gone through close to 100 dives thought it
> about time to bring home proof positive to the wife to explain annual
> trips to Thailand !

Yeah, we wouldn't want her to find out that those were really "sex
vacations"... <dirty-old-man-grin>

> Anyway, slides are not what I'm about, plan to have the photos produced
> as prints and digitised by the processing lab to take away the pain of
> scanning myself. Once on board the PC, I'll play around .....! So it
> looks like Kodak Ultra for me.

The digitizing is done from the film, so whether that is from slides or
print film, it doesn't make a difference... When shooting film, I prefer
slides since they are easier to store... These days, I've kind of gotten out
photography as a form of art and just use a digital camera since I'm only
putting the photos on web pages... Putting images larger than 1024x768 on a
web page makes most people end up scrolling the image around to view it
all... Thanks to aging eyes, a lot of people still use the lower resolution
settings on their video adapter even when it supports a higher resolution...

philip2711 wrote:
> Thanks for the advise; I found it an interesting debate! I'm no
> professional, but having gone through close to 100 dives thought it
> about time to bring home proof positive to the wife to explain annual
> trips to Thailand !
>
> Anyway, slides are not what I'm about, plan to have the photos produced
> as prints and digitised by the processing lab to take away the pain of
> scanning myself. Once on board the PC, I'll play around .....! So it
> looks like Kodak Ultra for me.
>
> Thanks again.
>

you want to take a look at AGFA Ultra 100 as well.

far better to get "ripped off" for $40 or
> whatever for a single roll developed than to get back home and discover
> that you had your snorkel blocking all of your shots on all of your
> rolls, or similar correctable problem.
>
>
> -hh

Or buy a c-41 hobby kit and process a roll or two yourself

When you order your film from B&H, add a Photocolor C41 Press kit for
$8.50.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...w=PHPK&is=REG&
Q=&O=productlist&sku=243257


You'll need a few one-time buy basic pieces of equipment:

- A reel and tank (stainless steel is best but for beginners I'd suggest
the Paterson 35mm Tank with Reel, $22 from B&H, it is far easier to
learn on if your not doing it everyday).

- A thermometer that is accurate in the 90F to 130F range

- A changing bag, plenty of choices, plan about $20



anything else is optional depending on your needs. just make your first
roll a test toprocess and throw away. To keep it, you need a way to dry
it in a clean environment, store the negs, etc...

Your total investment is maybe $60 the first time and less then $10
everytime afterwards.

"Art Greenberg" wrote ...
> I found that getting decent (as in 8x10 and larger, hang-on-the-wall
quality)
> prints from *any* film to be difficult and expensive.

I've had a couple that were acceptable to be blown up into poster size
(20x30 or so)... They were done with Kodachome 25... One was even a night
photo with no flash...

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:24:19 GMT, Ron T wrote:

> Some will say to shoot transparency (slide or E-6) film. That base was
> primarily used by professionals shooting for publication. Dive resorts
> and liveaboards settled on that film for processing simply because it
> gave a positive image to view without the need of a print.
>
> The downside is those film require almost a dead-on correct exposure.
> The have very little latitude and are unforgiving of mistakes. It is
> also more costly to have prints made.

I was taught to use transparency (slide) film *becuse* of its narrow latitude.
Its pretty hard to learn about exposure when the film you're using covers up
your mistakes. OTOH, if the camera ihas automatic expsoure control and doesn't
provide a means to tweak the exposure, then you probably have little choice
but to shoot reversal (print) film.

As far as the live-aboard situation, its pretty tough to print from negatives
without taking up a lot more time, space, water, and power aboard the boat.

> Print film has wide exposure latitude therefore is far more forgiving of
> your mistakes. You can get prints made easiy and cheaply. This is
> usually what most photographers desire for an end product.

I found that getting decent (as in 8x10 and larger, hang-on-the-wall quality)
prints from *any* film to be difficult and expensive. Not that I tried all
that hard, but after using a number of local and mail-order labs and burning
over $500 in experiments, I gave up. (That was 3-4 years ago.) I've had much
better luck scanning slides and printing myself on an inkjet printer. YMMV.

> The down side of print film is getting it processed on liveaboards or at
> resorts. Even if you can, you get a strip of negs that are hard to decipher
> without experience.

Film processing on live-aboards is probably going away. In November on the
Kona Aggressor, they didn't even have a fresh supply of chemicals, or a drum
that could hold more than one roll. The crew, and their cusomtomers, are going
digital. I'm a dinosaur, shooting film, it seems.

--
Art Greenberg
artg AT eclipse DOT net