Which film would you take to Iceland?

[Deleted member 21335]

Well I have got myself a place on the TP Iceland trip this year and I am considering committing to film 100% for it. I would be taking the Hasselblad 500c/m with 80mm and the Leica with 50mm. I am considering picking up a 50mm F4 for the Hassy beforehand but that's by the by. This is about what film you would take? At the moment I am considering....

Ektar 100, Velvia 50 and some sort of black and white. Possibly FP4 as I have a few rolls of that already. Would welcome opinions from you more experienced filmists.

 

[robhooley167]

Provia 100, Portra 160 and Acros or PanF+ for me.

 

[RaglanSurf]

Provia 100, Portra 160 and Acros or PanF+ for me.

^^^WHS^^^ and maybe something a little quicker like Tri-X as well.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Well I did ask for opinions of the more experienced folk! Is there any reason why the ones I have in mind are a particularly bad idea?

I have no experience of Provia or Portra 160. Only what I have searched on Flickr.

 

[RaglanSurf]

Well I did ask for opinions of the more experienced folk! Is there any reason why the ones I have in mind are a particularly bad idea?

I have no experience of Provia or Portra 160. Only what I have searched on Flickr.

Potra is the only colour negative film I use unless its Agfa Vista which is only used for testing cameras. FP4 is fine but I would choose Acros 100 over Ilford's offering every time. Velvia 50 is beautiful film but needs precise exposure to get the best from it, it's something I'd only use if I was doing some landscape stuff and was carrying a tripod.

 

[freecom2]

The sorts of colours you are likely to encounter will render far better on a neutral palette film like Portra 160 compared to Ektar or Velvia, which definitely suit a different sort of landscape. You'll also get more flexibility and latitude with the Portra.

 

[ChrisR]

All your own suggestions are slowish, not sure what the light will be like, but I'm sure there will be lower light times, so I'd certainly suggest something faster, and Tri-X is a good choice. I would be torn between the Velvia 50 ("best", most saturated etc) and Provia (that little bit easier to expose for and scan). Never used Ektar, but I do like Portra, specially 400 (a more modern emulsion than the 160, I believe).

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Potra is the only colour negative film I use unless its Agfa Vista which is only used for testing cameras. FP4 is fine but I would choose Acros 100 over Ilford's offering every time. Velvia 50 is beautiful film but needs precise exposure to get the best from it, it's something I'd only use if I was doing some landscape stuff and was carrying a tripod.

I've never used acros but definitely happy to try an alternative to the Ilford films, although I have quite a few here that need shooting! Yes, I'll have a tripod for the most part I'd imagine.

The sorts of colours you are likely to encounter will render far better on a neutral palette film like Portra 160 compared to Ektar or Velvia, which definitely suit a different sort of landscape. You'll also get more flexibility and latitude with the Portra.

Thanks, I'll have to do some more research on color films for landscapes.

All your own suggestions are slowish, not sure what the light will be like, but I'm sure there will be lower light times, so I'd certainly suggest something faster, and Tri-X is a good choice. I would be torn between the Velvia 50 ("best", most saturated etc) and Provia (that little bit easier to expose for and scan). Never used Ektar, but I do like Portra, specially 400 (a more modern emulsion than the 160, I believe).

Yeah I love the look of Velvia landscapes which is originally why I bought some. I've shot one roll of Ektar but only 35mm. This is why I asked for some opinions from more experienced folk but of course, a lot of choice is personal and subjective.

 

[excalibur2]

Well Fuji Superia 200 should be on your list as it's a very good general purpose 35mm film...try one roll as let us know what you think.

 

[steveo_mcg]

I like a bit of pan f for B&W landscapes though I generally shoot fp4 primarily because I prefer the look. Technically acros is a far superior film and pan f is much smoother.

Colour, Velvia or Porta. Velvia is the classic for a reason but it takes practice and patience (and bracketing) while Porta has its own lovely gentle pallette and is completely different and basically impossible to mess up such is its latitude.

 

[Strappy]

I would take Velvia to ensure I captured the true orange of Peter Andre's complexion.

HTH

 

[raathistle]

For me on that trip I would be packing Portra 160 over any other neg film; it's beautiful and I find it significantly more stable (that's the wrong word, but I'm not sure what is. It makes the same tones under different circumstances, unlike Ektar which seems to vary a lot more).
For slide I'd be going for Provia 100 as my primary, for all the reasons Steve mentioned above. If you have an additional back I would take a little Velvia and shoot some duplicates. When it's right it's right but I wouldn't bank a whole trip on it

For mono, I guess something in a TMax flavour, I've sort of gone off shooting mono films recently, I can never get the skies I want with Acros

Personally I don't think I could go to Iceland with only normal lenses, I'd want a little wider and the 50 for the 'blad would be a very good choice. The only other thing would be to take more film than you imagine needing, you don't want to be in Iceland and wanting for a roll of neg

 

[osh]

I would take Portra 400. Some lovely examples on Flickr if you search iceland portra 400...

 

[osh]

Some very nice examples searching for iceland velvia too though! For inspiration, see http://www.brucepercy.co.uk/blog/?category=Iceland

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Well Fuji Superia 200 should be on your list as it's a very good general purpose 35mm film...try one roll as let us know what you think.

I'll look into that.

I like a bit of pan f for B&W landscapes though I generally shoot fp4 primarily because I prefer the look. Technically acros is a far superior film and pan f is much smoother.

Colour, Velvia or Porta. Velvia is the classic for a reason but it takes practice and patience (and bracketing) while Porta has its own lovely gentle pallette and is completely different and basically impossible to mess up such is its latitude.

Thanks. Yes that's why I was thinking Velvia but Portra does look lovely but a little more....muted?

For me on that trip I would be packing Portra 160 over any other neg film; it's beautiful and I find it significantly more stable (that's the wrong word, but I'm not sure what is. It makes the same tones under different circumstances, unlike Ektar which seems to vary a lot more).
For slide I'd be going for Provia 100 as my primary, for all the reasons Steve mentioned above. If you have an additional back I would take a little Velvia and shoot some duplicates. When it's right it's right but I wouldn't bank a whole trip on it

For mono, I guess something in a TMax flavour, I've sort of gone off shooting mono films recently, I can never get the skies I want with Acros

Personally I don't think I could go to Iceland with only normal lenses, I'd want a little wider and the 50 for the 'blad would be a very good choice. The only other thing would be to take more film than you imagine needing, you don't want to be in Iceland and wanting for a roll of neg

Thanks for the details. See, too much choice. From the research I've done, I do like the extra saturation from films like Ektar but have no real experience of it. I have some 120 here so will try some I think.

I would take Portra 400. Some lovely examples on Flickr if you search iceland portra 400...

Thanks. I will be doing that. Searching Iceland followed by some kind of film to see what results are available. Maybe I should just shoot it all on digital! Haha.

 

[RaglanSurf]

Maybe I should just shoot it all on digital! Haha.

 

[raathistle]

I guess my real answer would be to use the films you use the most. If you regularly use ektar, like it and know how it will behave then definitely take that. The recommendations I gave are based on the films I use most often. My real answer for slide would be Astia, it's my absolute favourite, but sadly very discontinued and so out of reach

Maybe I should just shoot it all on digital! Haha.

Nah, why would you want to do that, tis way more fun messing about with the film gear

 

[Deleted member 21335]

I guess my real answer would be to use the films you use the most. If you regularly use ektar, like it and know how it will behave then definitely take that. The recommendations I gave are based on the films I use most often. My real answer for slide would be Astia, it's my absolute favourite, but sadly very discontinued and so out of reach



Nah, why would you want to do that, tis way more fun messing about with the film gear

That the thing, I haven't really shot any colour film 'the most'. But I do love other people's results on Velvia. Provia also looks really nice from searching Flickr for slide. The only Ektar I have used is one roll of 35mm. I think I like how it's more saturated than things like Portra. I know whatever I shoot I'll probably wish I had something else, but I'd like to commit to a slide, a colour neg and a B&W before I go.

 

[steveo_mcg]

Thanks. Yes that's why I was thinking Velvia but Portra does look lovely but a little more....muted?

Yeah it's very muted but it's designed to be scan so if you needed or wanted you could always bump up saturation in post

 

[excalibur2]

Another very good film is Fuji Reala h'mm while it's great for the English countryside in spring, summer or Autumn (or the Brazilian Jungle for greens) I'm not sure it would work in Iceland also it's only 100ISO...maybe think about it for the future if you go somewhere else.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Another very good film is Fuji Reala h'mm while it's great for the English countryside in spring, summer or Autumn (or the Brazilian Jungle for greens) I'm not sure it would work in Iceland also it's only 100ISO...maybe think about it for the future if you go somewhere else.

I have some Reala. Used it before and it is lovely so bought 5 rolls when I found out it was discontinued.

I think I should try and shoot some different rolls over the coming weeks and then decide from that what I want to take!

 

[excalibur2]

I have some Reala. Used it before and it is lovely so bought 5 rolls when I found out it was discontinued.

H'mm looks like 120 has followed 35mm and gone too h'mm makes you think what are all the MF film guys around the world buying\using...that Fuji would do this.

 

[joxby]

Delta 100 & 400

Velvia 100F for........I dunno, sh1tz and giggles

 

[skysh4rk]

What do you want? High contrast? Low contrast? Subtle or very saturated colours? Positive or negative? Will you be using a tripod or doing a lot of handheld work? How big do you intend to print these photographs?

Once you start answering these sorts of questions it will slim down your film choices considerably. When you have narrowed it down, I'd buy a few rolls and test those emulsions out before using them on holiday to avoid any nasty surprises.

 

[RaglanSurf]

Another very good film is Fuji Reala h'mm while it's great for the English countryside in spring, summer or Autumn (or the Brazilian Jungle for greens) I'm not sure it would work in Iceland also it's only 100ISO...maybe think about it for the future if you go somewhere else.

A classic Brianism. Good to see you're starting 2015 the way you finished last year. Just spat half my beer all over the keyboard.

I vote we have a monthly vote for the forum's most valuable contribution and I give up because I can't compete with that

 

[Deleted member 21335]

What do you want? High contrast? Low contrast? Subtle or very saturated colours? Positive or negative? Will you be using a tripod or doing a lot of handheld work? How big do you intend to print these photographs?

Once you start answering these sorts of questions it will slim down your film choices considerably. Once you have narrowed it down, I'd buy a few rolls and test those emulsions out before using them on holiday to avoid any nasty surprises.

Oooh some good points there. I'll have a tripod but wouldn't mind being able to hand hold also. I've hand held Velvia 50 before in good light. I do love the saturated, high contrast. I don't mind positive or negative, but I want a B&W negative also. I have loads of Delta & FP4 so will probably just go with that I think.

You say how big would I print? Hopefully pretty big if I get anything decent enough. I'd like the option of 40 inches perhaps.

 

[skysh4rk]

Oooh some good points there. I'll have a tripod but wouldn't mind being able to hand hold also. I've hand held Velvia 50 before in good light. I do love the saturated, high contrast. I don't mind positive or negative, but I want a B&W negative also. I have loads of Delta & FP4 so will probably just go with that I think.

You say how big would I print? Hopefully pretty big if I get anything decent enough. I'd like the option of 40 inches perhaps.

Forty inches? How are you planning to scan these? Do you usually print at 300dpi? If so, you would need a very large scan. For something that big, I'd be looking to use a very fine grained film, which would really narrow down your choices.

I usually print 8" x 8" or 12" x 12" though for my 6x6cm, so someone who has more experience with larger prints from film might be able to provide more appropriate recommendations.

 

[steveo_mcg]

Forty inches? How are you planning to scan these? Do you usually print at 300dpi? If so, you would need a very large scan. For something that big, I'd be looking to use a very fine grained film, which would really narrow down your choices.

I usually print 8" x 8" or 12" x 12" though for my 6x6cm, so someone who has more experience with larger prints from film might be able to provide more appropriate recommendations.

Who does your scanning?

I'd like to get bigger prints done. The biggest I've tried from my v500 is 8x10 but I'm not sure how big I can realistically go.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

Forty inches? How are you planning to scan these? Do you usually print at 300dpi? If so, you would need a very large scan. For something that big, I'd be looking to use a very fine grained film, which would really narrow down your choices.

I usually print 8" x 8" or 12" x 12" though for my 6x6cm, so someone who has more experience with larger prints from film might be able to provide more appropriate recommendations.

Who does your scanning?

I'd like to get bigger prints done. The biggest I've tried from my v500 is 8x10 but I'm not sure how big I can realistically go.

Well, if I ended up getting anything that big, I would be sending away for a drum scan. For normal, digital use, I scan myself using a V550. The biggest I've printed from that is 12x12 and I think it looks pretty good to be honest. That was from I think Portra 400. To be fair, I just picked 40" at random as it's pretty big. I'd love a photo good enough to print that large at some point. For normal looking through, I'd go for 12x12.

I know it's not the same as scanning film, but I recently had a 28" print done from a 3000px jpg as I lost the original file when my HD went down. It looks fine.

 

[Kevin Allan]

First, I'm dead jealous of you going to Iceland. If I could afford it, here's what I would take.

I'd take the Hasselblad and get the 50mm lens you are thinking of. I know this may be an unpopular view, but I can't see why you would take landscape shots in Iceland with a Leica if you already have a Hasselblad with you. You don't really need quicker handling in this scenario as the landscape isn't going anywhere (except very slowly down to the sea) and I assume you will be using a tripod. The bigger negative of medium format, combined with those excellent Carl Zeiss lenses, will provide far greater possibilities for producing big prints than any 35mm system.

With regards to film choice, it is true that Velvia is capable of producing stunning images, but for every great portfolio on Velvia produced by an experienced photographer, you can also find ten portfolios on Velvia with blocked out shadows or burnt highlights because of the limited dynamic range. After you've spent thousands on your Iceland trip, do you really want to come back with sub-standard images ? So only take Velvia if you are already absolutely comfortable with metering for it and aware of its limitations.

I definitely recommend Portra 160 as the choice of colour film; consistent and natural colours which you can adjust with more or less saturation as you desire in post-processing. Ektar can produce great colours on some shots then on the same roll, produce some awful colours which are difficult to adjust.

For black and white, I'm a bit less opinionated . I think you should be able to manage with just an ISO100 film assuming you will be using a tripod. My choice would be TMax 100 but anything which doesn't scratch easily or curl should be fine - so stick with Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.

Have a great time !

 

[unclened]

I've not shot a lot with Velvia, but I imagine the scenes will be fairly high contrast and Velvia probably won't cope very well.

 

[Deleted member 21335]

First, I'm dead jealous of you going to Iceland. If I could afford it, here's what I would take.

I'd take the Hasselblad and get the 50mm lens you are thinking of. I know this may be an unpopular view, but I can't see why you would take landscape shots in Iceland with a Leica if you already have a Hasselblad with you. You don't really need quicker handling in this scenario as the landscape isn't going anywhere (except very slowly down to the sea) and I assume you will be using a tripod. The bigger negative of medium format, combined with those excellent Carl Zeiss lenses, will provide far greater possibilities for producing big prints than any 35mm system.

With regards to film choice, it is true that Velvia is capable of producing stunning images, but for every great portfolio on Velvia produced by an experienced photographer, you can also find ten portfolios on Velvia with blocked out shadows or burnt highlights because of the limited dynamic range. After you've spent thousands on your Iceland trip, do you really want to come back with sub-standard images ? So only take Velvia if you are already absolutely comfortable with metering for it and aware of its limitations.

I definitely recommend Portra 160 as the choice of colour film; consistent and natural colours which you can adjust with more or less saturation as you desire in post-processing. Ektar can produce great colours on some shots then on the same roll, produce some awful colours which are difficult to adjust.

For black and white, I'm a bit less opinionated . I think you should be able to manage with just an ISO100 film assuming you will be using a tripod. My choice would be TMax 100 but anything which doesn't scratch easily or curl should be fine - so stick with Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.

Have a great time !

Thanks for the detailed response. The Leica will be among for the trip but I think my main body will be the Hasselblad.

Some good points about the Velvia which I already knew but should probably consider them a little more, as I don't want to come back and regret it. I do have two backs though so could take a few with both and bracket the Velvia.

That's interesting about Ektar producing varying results.

I've not shot a lot with Velvia, but I imagine the scenes will be fairly high contrast and Velvia probably won't cope very well.

Depends on the light at the time I guess but definitely something to keep in mind.

Will try a few different types over the next few weeks that I already have in.

In my searching, I have just found this post using a Nikon F3 and Velvia. The colours are just beautiful.

http://lucidlandscape.com/secret-life-walter-mitty/

By the way, this has become an interesting thread so thanks for the replies so far. It's all a big learning experience.

 

[excalibur2]

A classic Brianism. Good to see you're starting 2015 the way you finished last year. Just spat half my beer all over the keyboard.

I vote we have a monthly vote for the forum's most valuable contribution and I give up because I can't compete with that

Well hands up who has been to Iceland and knows the best film to use from geysers to snow to Volcanoes to what ever greenery stuff is around

 

[StephenM]

On print size, I only print A4 as a test print; A3 standardly, and A2 on occasions. I've been happy with A3 prints from my RZ67 which pass my test of seeing more with a magnifier on the print than I can see with my naked eye, and the scanner used has been an Epson 3200/4990/v700 as the models rolled out. I'll add a serious caveat - my prints have been from black and white film, and the reduced resolution of colour compared to black and white makes it more limiting for me. And, to claw back even more, most of my photography is done with 5x4, so the degree of magnification isn't great (A2 is equivalent to 6"x4" from 35mm).

Since I am only really B&W, my choice would be PanF is using 120 and FP4 is using 5x4. PanF is reputed to be a love it or loathe it film which some people just can't get on with. I've used it since the 1960s, when it wasn't "Plus" (and FP4 Plus was FP3). I like Acros, but don't like the hole in the corner in the Readyloads which is how I used to use it (5x4 only). As you can see, my choices are extremely limited, since it's always the slowest black and white film I can conveniently get.

I've only been to Iceland once, and that was in my 35mm Kodachrome days, so my actual experience is irrelevant. One practical point if you have this funny autofocus stuff: Sue did lose some photos of geysers erupting because the camera detected a new object in the focus area and locked the shutter until it had focused (and the geyser had stopped). So depending on your camera, you may have a problem.

 

[skysh4rk]

Who does your scanning?

I'd like to get bigger prints done. The biggest I've tried from my v500 is 8x10 but I'm not sure how big I can realistically go.

Who does my scanning? For most of my colour negative photos, it's UKFL, but I scan my own black and white and transparency film usually. I've printed up to 12x12 with my own scans though using my Epson 4490 and they look pretty good to me.

 

[joxby]

Never been to Iceland but tbh, I'm B/W only, cos I want to print optically......but.......for the fun and beauty of it, I'd shoot some 100F if I was going

 

[steveo_mcg]

Who does my scanning? For most of my colour negative photos, it's UKFL, but I scan my own black and white and transparency film usually. I've printed up to 12x12 with my own scans though using my Epson 4490 and they look pretty good to me.

Cool, that's pretty much what I get from my V500.
Do you think the ukfl scans would print bigger?

 

[skysh4rk]

Cool, that's pretty much what I get from my V500.
Do you think the ukfl scans would print bigger?

The UKFL large scans are 3600x3600, so they'd also be 12x12 at 300dpi for prints. It's entirely possible that their scans are still more detailed than my own Epson scans of that size, but my reason for using them is more to do with colour and highlight detail (not to mention the time saved!) than image sharpness, so I can't say I've really compared them in that way.

That the thing, I haven't really shot any colour film 'the most'. But I do love other people's results on Velvia. Provia also looks really nice from searching Flickr for slide. The only Ektar I have used is one roll of 35mm. I think I like how it's more saturated than things like Portra. I know whatever I shoot I'll probably wish I had something else, but I'd like to commit to a slide, a colour neg and a B&W before I go.

I'm not saying not to do it, but I would be careful about taking many different types of film with you. Switching between a large number of emulsions increases the likelihood of mistakes that could potentially cost you precious holiday photographs.

I'd also be very careful about judging any film based on what you see on Flickr or anywhere else on the internet. The person operating the camera and the scanner will have a huge impact on the look of the photo, arguably much more so than the type of film. Take a peek at this thread and see if you can really tell the difference between many of these film stocks: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/can-you-guess-the-film-stock.558053/

 

[Deleted member 21335]

The UKFL large scans are 3600x3600, so they'd also be 12x12 at 300dpi for prints. It's entirely possible that their scans are still more detailed than my own Epson scans of that size, but my reason for using them is more to do with colour and highlight detail (not to mention the time saved!) than image sharpness, so I can't say I've really compared them in that way.



I'm not saying not to do it, but I would be careful about taking many different types of film with you. Switching between a large number of emulsions increases the likelihood of mistakes that could potentially cost you precious holiday photographs.

I'd also be very careful about judging any film based on what you see on Flickr or anywhere else on the internet. The person operating the camera and the scanner will have a huge impact on the look of the photo, arguably much more so than the type of film. Take a peek at this thread and see if you can really tell the difference between many of these film stocks: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/can-you-guess-the-film-stock.558053/

Thanks, I'll take a look at that later. That's why I wanted to narrow it down between one or two films before I go. I will hopefully try a few over the next couple of months to see what I want to do. Easier said than done mind as I don't shoot as much as I would like at the moment.

 

[PMN]

Maybe I should just shoot it all on digital! Haha.

Can you take both? To be honest the first thing I'd ask before even suggesting types of film is why you're limiting yourself to one format and what are you wanting to achieve in doing so? The fact you're after ideas for what films to take suggests you don't have any specific kinds of shots in mind, it would be a great shame to get there and miss out on certain photo opportunities because you didn't have an appropriate type of film so why not take a digital camera as well?

I know I should be hung, drawn and quartered for saying that in here, but I'm fortunate enough to be quite well travelled and I know for a fact I'd have missed stacks of images if I'd limited myself to just medium format film. I always recommend putting a little thought into exactly what it is people are after in their images before limiting themselves so rigidly to a single format.