Category Archives: Kodak

The Photo Film I Will Be Using Summer 2018

The films I have used in the last 12 months have all been either Kodak or Fuji.  In my opinion you can characterize products from both companies by just looking at the colors on their boxes.  Fuji – green and Kodak yellow-red.  My overall experience is Fuji tends green, Kodak warm yellows, oranges, and reds.  You can correct much of this in post but it is still there.

If I was to guess why, I would say that Japan is where Fuji is from and it is overall a very green place.  On the other hand the most iconic Kodak shots are of the Grand Canyon and southwest USA.  There is even a State Park in Utah named the Kodachrome Basin.  The color pallet of that park is orange, red, and yellow.

28010018.jpg
Taken April 2018 with Fuji Velvia 50 – edited in Lightroom CC Classic
000418920023
Taken April 2018 with Kodak Gold 200 – edited on Lightroom CC Classic

I will start with lowest price first.

Kodak Gold 200 and Color Plus 200.  I have shot both in the last couple months.  Both basically the same price in California and very similar.

88790007
Kodak Color Plus 200 – edited on Lightroom CC Classic
88790011
Color Plus – Lightroom CC Classic – Color on car is accurate.  I blew the clouds out a little by metering on the car.
Zion with voight mid day K gold
Shot on Kodak Gold with a 1950’s Voightlander – Edited in LR CC
mr clean voight K gold
Kodak Gold 200 in low light no flash old camera.  Edited LR CC
Me next to robot mr clean voight K gold
Kodak Gold 200 indoors, natural light.  Edited LR CC

This is a very good low cost film except you need to be careful of getting too much grain in shadows.  Personally I cannot tell the difference between the two Kodak films on my large monitor except to say that color plus seems a little brighter.  In some cases when I get this film the box says Kodak Gold and the film can says Kodak 200.

Fuji 200.  – This is the Walmart 24 exposure rolls.

80600018
Fuji 200 – Edited very little in LR CC

This is a beautiful detailed shot of my dog on my large monitor.  This hardly needed any editing.

80610002
Fuji 200 – edited in LR CC

This one needed a bit of post to get something I liked, but the Fuji did very well in forest scenes.  Fine grain throughout even in shadows.

80610016
Fuji 200 edited in LR CC

Even in the dark areas there is little grain.  I brightened this quite a bit in LR and still minimal grain.

80610018
Fuji 200 edited in LR CC

This is a beautiful picture of one of my grand daughters with great skin tones and minimal grain in the out of focus shadows.

I bought this roll of film at Walmart for $250 a roll.  Only 24 ex.  There are 36ex rolls for sale at B&H and elsewhere.  I mention B&H because they sometimes have some very good sales on this film.  Currently 36ex rolls are selling for $4.

My comments.  If I was shooting the southwest or the beach I would prefer the Kodak Color Plus or Gold color rendition.  Both almost as good as Kodak Ektar.   Just this morning “The Darkroom” posted on my Facebook a comparison of Kodak Gold 200 and Fuji C200 with two beach shots.  To my eye I preferred the Kodak on their example a lot.  I have to say the Fuji 200 gave a much more elegant rendition of my forest scenes, far less grain, and beautiful skin tones, much better than Kodak.  So which is it?  These are both great low cost films.  I would only remember to buy 36ex rolls so you can save on processing and watch the shadows on the K Gold.

Lomography 100.  Lomography sells 100 speed print film.  It is in the same range of price as the Kodak and Fuji products but a slower speed.  I have been giving some thought to buying a 3 pack and trying it out.  I have looked at the samples on Flickr and they look good.

Kodak 400 and 400 Ultramax 400 & Fuji Superia 400.

I have had very good luck with both the Kodak and Fuji.  Kodak has kept their prices level on this film to the same range as the Kodak 200.  Fuji used to sell at the Kodak price but now is usually about 2 dollars more.  At 2 dollars more I will always buy the Kodak, but this past Christmas I snagged 10 rolls at under the Kodak price.  That said here are some samples.

Mitchell SD (16 of 33)
Great shot on Kodak Ultramax 400 – a tiny bit of editing on LR CC
Mitchell SD (27 of 27)
The Ultramax shots came out way better than the Nikon digital ones.  At least I like them better.  This shot was slightly edited on LR CC
needles rocks
Kodak Ultramax 400
jeff cathy jon betsy_
Ultramax
83720001
Fuji Superia 400
83730017
Fuji Superia 400
88800016
Fuji Superia 400

In the end I think I prefer the Kodak Ultramax for landscape and Superia 400 for people and green.  The Fuji seems a bit finer grain, but not much.  The issue with Superia is that at $6.00 a roll it is almost up to Ektar 100 price and I think Ektar is one of the two best landscape films you can buy.  And the Superia is also right in the Portra price range.  Portra just outclasses the Fuji on skin shots and anything not in bright desert sun.  But you cannot go wrong on either the Superia 400 or Kodak Ultramax 400, buy on price and depending on subject.  I plan to work through my supply of Superia 400 this summer but since I have several film cameras I can load them with black and white plus some Kodak for punchier “National Park” type shots.

Pro films.  

The ones I have used in the last 12 months are Fuji Velvia 50 & 100, Kodak Portra 160 & 400, Kodak Ektar 100.

Velvia 50 – A classic slide film that is known for highly saturated colors.  If you like this level of saturation it does a great job on landscapes and not good at all on skin tones.  The speed is a slow 50 but in full sun this works fine.  I have used this film often in all of my cameras with built in light meters.  It is somewhat fussy about exposure, but I really have not had that much problem with ruined shots except when I ran a roll through a very old mechanical camera from the 50’s with a slow shutter spring.  The other thing to watch out for is limited dynamic range.  If you average your exposure and have a great variety of shadow and highlight it is easy to underexpose your shadows.  Two summers ago I had problems with the bodies of bison against bright backgrounds.  The animals had mostly blocked shadows which I could not correct well in Lightroom.  Since the big animals were up close and scared me a little I did not change the settings fast enough on my manual Olympus OM 2n.  My more auto Minoltas would have worked better.  I used Ektar 100 shooting bison and had much less problem with blocked shadows due to that film’s wider dynamic range.

000225290018
Velvia 50 shot with Minolta 600si edited in LR CC Classic
000225290011
Velvia 50 & same camera as above
000225290007
Velvia 50 

These were taken a couple of months ago and as you can see Velvia pops the colors but then does not do a great job on the skin tones.

Velvia 100

11960013
This is a bad picture but this is the best skin tone example I could find of Velvia 100.  You can see the 100 does a much better job with it than the 50 but still pops the color of things.  
11960015
This is a good example of Velvia 100 showing this slide films limited dynamic range.  The two people in the foreground a a little under exposed and the highlights in the background blown.  

But on landscape you can’t fault it.

39800010
Velvia 100 using LR CC to edit.  Olympus OM2n & 50mm f1.8 

Ektar considering everything might just be the best overall landscape film available.  It is 100 speed which is about what you should have for daytime landscape shots.  The landscape color is similar to Velvia 50 without quite so much excess.  The grain is very fine.  It handles exposure better than Velvia.  And it costs about half as much as Velvia.  I have shot a lot of rolls of it.

53820013
Ektar using a Minolta 600si.  The best color I have ever been able to get at Zion was with Ektar.  
53050024
Ektar using Minolta 600si and 50mm f2.8 macro
cuyamaca Zoo.jpg
Ektar using Minolta 600si & 50mm f2.8 Sigma macro 

I have had some issues with Ektar going red on skin but as you can see from the next two pictures it is OK with skin.

58830034
Ektar and my very old Voightlander with 50mm f1.5
58830025
Ektar and Voightlander 

This is my favorite film but not if I am shooting mostly people.

Portra 160 and 400

Portra tends to be most peoples favorite film.  Here are some of my results.  It is one of mine too.  I find both 160 and 400 to be great with 400 having a touch more saturation.

50790002
Portra 160
76890019
Portra 160
76890034
Portra 160
000210280005
Portra 400
000210280030
Portra 400

Portra 160 or 400 are both very forgiving of exposure error.  They both have tremendous dynamic range.  I do prefer Ektar for landscapes, but if you only want to take one film Portra is a better choice.  Very fine grain.  Much lower price than the competing Fuji product.  Only slightly more money than Fuji Superia 400.

Ektachrome.  I had planned to shoot some Kodak Ektachrome this summer.  The problem with that is I have not been able to buy any yet.  Ektachrome is not Kodachrome, but if I do see some Ektachrome soon I will buy some.

Black and White.  

I usually shoot color, but recently have used some TriX and Tmax.  I have beautiful results with both.  These are both gorgeous films and here are some recent shots.

29180009
Tmax 400
29180015
Tmax 400
29180016
Tmax 400
30850009
TriX
30850014
TriX
30850036
TriX

If I had to pick only one of these I would take TriX, but both are sure to give you B&W results you will like.

So what am I taking with me this summer on our long trip?  All of the ones mentioned with a couple of rolls of Ilford black and white.  I have just looked up the price of Velvia 100 and Provia 100.  They seem to be about $7 a roll.  I will call to see how long to expiration before I buy, but that seems like a good price.  I have never shot Provia and would like to try it.  I usually take about 5 camera bodies with me and I load them up with different films and take what I am in the mood for that day or fits the likely subjects.  If I shoot any new films before we leave I will update this post.

  • All around films.  Any of the ones mentioned in this post Kodak 200 or 400.  Fuji 200 or 400 will work well and not cost a lot.  But if you have to pay $6 for a roll of Fuji 400 I would pick the Fuji 200 for $4 or either Kodak for $4.
  • Higher end film.  I will not pay $15 for Velvia 50.  But Kodak Portra or Ektar make great images at about $6.50-7.00 per roll.  Fuji Velvia 100 seems like a good buy at $7 but I have to check the expiration.  Don’t forget that slide film is harder to shoot and costs about $3 extra to develop.
  • Black and White.  I love both Kodak TriX and Tmax.  Both run about $6 a roll.

 

Travel Photography – What To Take

We usually travel by RV in the USA and deciding on what camera gear to take is easy, Take everything you want.  But in 10 days we are going overseas by plane and if you take more than you need then you have to lug it around.  So for the last few weeks I have been trying to decide what should go.  At first I watched Rick Steve’s video and he is a minimalist and says, “1 compact camera”.  I have a very good recent compact that is a Sony super zoom.  It does a good job and critically, has a viewfinder.  For sunny days viewfinders are a must.  But here is the thing, I asked myself, “when you are taking pictures of the Parthenon in Greece is a small Sony enough plus an iPhone 7+”?

Parthenon in Athens, Greece-Parthenon ruins tourism destinations
These are likely conditions in mid day, difficult.  Bright sun and blown highlights.

Travel pictures always seem to run into the “mid-day” problem.  Even though for best photos you are always supposed to go out before dawn and an hour before sunset, the reality is that this is not always possible, or something you want to do.  Last night I listened to a very popular and very good you tube couple talk about what they do when traveling and they said, “take pictures early morning and the golden hour before sunset, and spend the rest of the day in museums”.  (Tony & Chelsea Northrup). Thing is if you are on a tour you go when your tour goes.  Or maybe you want to have breakfast and a shower before going out.  Faced with the fact that many of our best shooting opportunities in our upcoming trip will be between early morning and late afternoon I have been testing my cameras to see (once again) which handle bright sun in mid day best.  The contestants were iPhone 7+, Sony HX80, Nikon D5500, Olympus OM2n (film), Minolta 600si (film).

Sailing on San Diego Bay
iPhone 7+ with significant time spent editing.

The picture above was taken with my iPhone 7+.  It was taken last weekend at mid day with mostly bright sun.  I spend a lot! of time trying to get this picture into any kind of decent shape.  The result is OK.

gaves overlooking coean
And this was a couple of days later with better color.

I then shot some photos a few days later with the iPhone and the colors were much better, but this required some work in Lightroom to get this shot to come out.

big yacht SD harbor
Sony HX80 in full sun.

The Sony HX80 to me is a slightly better camera than the iPhone.  It still struggles with mid day photos.  I spent some time trying to get anything out of the above shot that was passable.

DSC00651
This was taken on the same day but came out better.

The above shot was taken with the Sony while I was sitting in the shade and at a different angle to the sun than the yacht shot.

Yesterday I went down to the same general area and got this shot with my Nikon and just the kit lens with a polarizing filter.

fog with graves leading to trees
The difference here is the polarizing filter and mostly the fog.

I like the above shot.  It is lightly edited and pretty much just came out of the camera this way.  I was just shooting aperture priority and fine – jpeg.  The key difference in this being a good shot is the fog.  So no bright mid day sun.

DSC_3427
Nikon same aperture priority and Polarizing filter.  And this is after editing.

Shortly after the cemetery shot the sun came out and the Nikon failed to take memorable pictures.  I got so frustrated with the color in this group I turned most of them into black and white.

bird on the cliff
Nikon shot with B&W filter.

The reason I was so frustrated is that I went to the same location the day before with one of my old film SLRs, a Minolta 600si, some inexpensive Kodak 400 negative film, and an Quantaray 50mm f2.8 lens.  I had this film locally developed and they fouled up the scan and only gave me tiny files.  But the fact is that this lower end film with poor scans gave a much better balanced color result, by a wide margin than any of the three digital cameras I have used this week.  Imagine if I had shot Kodak Ektar 100 and had a fine scan done.  The film would have won by a wider margin.

So after all this work, what is the best camera gear for me to take?  Very likely I am going to duplicate last year and take the Nikon DSLR with the 18-55 P kit lens & 35mm f 1.8 for low light, iPhone, & Olympus OM2n with my 50mm f 1.4.  I will likely add the Sony too as it is small and could fit in my pocket on the flight over.  We have booked a number of tours in places we are going to and many of these will be during mid day and sunny.  If I was to lighten this up just a little I would leave the Nikon home and add a couple of lenses to the Oly kit + a flash.  I would likely take the 28 mm f 2.8 and the 135mm f 3.5.  The flash is a T32.

I don’t know why I keep needing to re-affirm the fact that in natural light film usually gives a far superior result to digital.  If it is dark digital works better.  The iPhone 7 plus is a very good low light shooter.

6 Days later —–  OK, I just could not let this issue rest.  So I went down to the same beach cliff location today and shot my Nikon D5500 with raw and my iPhone 7 plus with Adobe camera raw in the iPhone.  The results from the two digital cameras was the closest I came to the film.  Of the two I have to say I preferred the results from the iPhone to the Nikon.  I edited both as with Lightroom as best as I was able and the color was just a bit more pleasing from the Apple.  But it does not change the fact that an 15 year old Minolta camera with and off-brand (but very good) lens and low cost Kodak print film gave superior results.  I am so disgusted with the whole effort I don’t even feel like posting samples.  If you want to see some write me a comment and I will do so.

Bottom line.  Digital daytime still shots suck compared to film.  Sure digital is better for more difficult lighting and interior shots, but in typical vacation type family shots film still rules.  I guess that is why more and more people are going back to film.  The scary issue for the camera makers is that this means for most snapshot /family shot shooters they don’t need a fancy digital.  Sure if you make your living with a camera you should get a high quality rig, but if you are a family shooter an iPhone (or better Android) smartphone camera is fine.  If anything my recommendation is for family shooters to consider a film camera, maybe an instant.  Polaroid is back with a new camera and Fuji Instax ones are all over the place.  Analog rules.  Digital is mostly for convenience not quality.  I am writing this as I listen to a 45 year old LP record on my good quality Hi-Fi system.  Analog music is easily superior to any digital I have heard.  Analog music is just not nearly as easy to use.  Same with photos.  Digital is easier and analog is better.

Kodak Gold 200

Over the last couple of years one of the films I have used with good results is Kodak Gold 200.

Ennis businesses vioght kodak gold
Taken with Kodak Gold 200 – Voightlander Prominent 35mm & 35mm 3.5

This shot was taken last summer with my Voightlander and a 35mm 3.5 lens.  We just walked around Ennis MT and took in some of the local town sights about an hour before dusk.  To my eye Kodak Gold provides with good color saturation and has a pleasing white balance for landscape and people.

Me next to robot mr clean voight K gold
That is me standing indoors in a brightly lit entry way to the museum of clean in Idaho.  Same Voightlander camera but with a 50mm 1.5 Nokton

Gold has a fine grain if you don’t underexpose.  I have run into a few difficulties in the shadows of some shots with Gold.  You can get rid of most of the unpleasant grain with noise reduction in Lightroom, but better if you just expose for shadows and then turn the highlights down a bit.  One thing to keep in mind is that this is an inexpensive film and it is 200 speed and not 100.  Ektar has less grain but costs about 50% more and is 100 speed.

Zion voight mid day K gold 2
This is also Kodak Gold using the Voightlander and 50mm lens.  
Zion canyon minolta ektar_
Here is a shot of the same location but with Kodak Ektar 100.  This photo is pretty much right out of the camera with very minimal editing.  The shot above it with Kodak Gold had more editing.  

I find both of the above two shots to be quite attractive but the one shot with Ektar is just magic on a big high quality monitor.  I took a series of about 15 of the west side of Zion National Park with Ektar and when I got them back from the developer I just went “wow”, the best shots I have even taken of Zion with regards to the red rock color.

Ennis sculpture trailer voight kodak gold
Shot at an RV park in MT. with Gold
Ennis door voight kodak gold
Shot in Ennis Mt with Gold and 35mm lens.  This camera is an antique BTW.  From 1953.  The lenses are just beautiful.  So is the camera body for that mater.  
Pocatelo chief neon voight kodak gold
Shot at dusk with Gold.  This is the shady side.  
the chief neon from sunny side voigjt K gold
Here is the sunny side taken about a minute after the above picture.  No settings were changed between the two shots on this old manual camera.  

As I said, Gold can go grainy on you when underexposed as you can see in the sky on the above two shots.  But then the shot above that of the door is very sharp with little grain and the only difference is lower contrast in the scene and correct exposure on the door.

Gold can still be bought at just over $4.00 US in 36 exposure rolls here in the US.  It is a good general all around film that does very well on skin tones.  Ektar is a finer grain and is beautiful for landscapes, but puts red into skin color.

58830006
This is Ektar showing skin tone 

And here is Fuji Superia 400 for comparison.

Liz & Pey 2
Fuji Superia 400 shot on a Minolta 600si with 50mm 2.8 lens with flash.  

To me Superia goes green and that is hard to control, and Ektar goes red and that can sometimes be a problem.  Gold is more in the middle but you have to watch the grain.

jeff cathy jon betsy_
Kodak Ultramax 400 shot with Minolta 600si 50mm 2.8 lens.  

And finally Kodak Ultramax 400.

All four of these are very good films.  They have to be to have survived the purge of the last 10 years.  Here are some tips.

Kodak Gold is a very stable film that is very versatile.  It is not fussy at all but I would recommend no underexposing it too much or grain could become an issue.  I prefer the Kodak Gold color rendition to Fuji.  Fuji Superia has less grain and 400 speed.  But it is also 50% more expensive on 36ex rolls.

Right now Kodak has two very good lower cost films in the color negative category.  Gold at 200 speed & Ultramax at 400.