Hello fellow Leicaphiles, Thanks for much helpful advice for my last posting. I am an amateur. I currently use Kodak Royal gold film. Is this a good choice for someone like my who shoots for fun? Your thoughts are always appreciated. Here are some of my favorite shots. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=187441

-- John Abela (jamriman@yahoo.com), April 13, 2002

Answers

John, the Royal Gold films are among the best color neg films around in terms of grain and sharpness. The 100-speed was my neg film of choice for a long time, until Portra 160VC came along. With about 1/2-stop more speed, less contrasty and a wider tonal range and more saturated colors, this is now my main C-41 film in 35mm. Since I rate my C-41 1/3 to 1/2 stop under box speed (EI 80 for 100-speed and EI 125 for ISO 160)to tighten the grain, and this causes a slight increase in contrast, the lower contrast of Portra becomes "just right", plus it affords me a faster shutter speed. For enlargments up to 11x14, the Portra 400VC is superb (I rate it EI 320) and up to 8x10 the Portra 800 is the cleanest ISO 800 film I've found to-date. I rate it at 800, since I only use it where maximum speed counts.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 13, 2002.

John, it depends on some degree to your way of shooting and enviroment etc. Some people love to shoot wide open for instance so a 100 speed film may be fine. I tend to shoot at around F5.6 using hyperfocal focussing and find (especially in frequently dull light of the UK) that a 400 speed film is necessary.

I also rarely have colour prints larger than 7"x5" so any gains in resolution/fine grain are hard to spot. I now universally use Fuji NPH 400 - it has excellent contrast and minimal grain but also more realistic less "enhanced" colours than other Fuji/Kodak films.

A 400 speed film will allow you to go from the bright sunny city street into the dreary dark cathederal or museum with handholdable speeds all the way (with a 35mm F2 lens).

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 13, 2002.

There is no real "general" film...it really depends on ones needs. Living in Toronto,where the weather truly dissapoints all the time, 400 speed my normal like the other photographer in UK.Saying that one really fine day,after a snowstorm,used 100iso film,Fuji,the results were breath-taking in sharpness,contrast and color.I rate all my color negative films at lower iso;100=64;200=125;400=250/320.I've used the Fuji 800 and found for decent negatives a speed of 500~650 about right(for me).I only use "amateur" films even for pro jobs.No point in having lower contrast and weaker color.My opinion.Unlike some pros who only shoot photos when "hired",I make photos constantly.Some films I've enjoyed-Konica 100 and 200;Fuji 100/400/and for really warm,sort of romantic colors the 800.I use supermarket films such as Loblaws sell at their "photolab" sites,its usually Fuji.In b/w use Kodak Tri-x and Agfa 400.I find HP-5 ok but tempermental,affected by the local water supply...same problems Southern California,South Africa and Toronto...In a sense I am still an amateur.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

I like the 'new' 4 layer Fuji Superia. I used the 1600 variant to do some indoor/no flash shooting. Excelent results and hardly any visible grain on 10x15cm prints.

-- ReinierV (rvlaam@xs4all.nl), April 13, 2002.

My vote goes to Kodak Royal Gold 400. I live in the boonies of Arizona. It is readily available. You have one hour processing at Wal-Mart. It is versatile and capable of great results. I have a ND .6 filter if I need to shoot slower speeds. The grain, even at 8x10", is negligible.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), April 13, 2002.

It is a bit like asking,how long is piece of string.It very much depends on the photo situation.Slow film (100/200)are better for lack of grain.Kodak Royal is good,i prefer Fuji Superia for more natural prints.It gives natural skin tones and is also handles fluorescent lighting well.It is a case of trying different films to see what works for you.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 13, 2002.

Fuji NPH shot at 320 and processed on a Fuji Frontier machine is hard to beat.

-- Steve Rosenblum (stevierose@yahoo.com), April 13, 2002.

Fuji NPH also a great film.Unless careful printing is used,can cause a green/yellow cast in fluorescent lighting.Can go on for ever.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 13, 2002.

The best general-purpose film is that which is on sale at your local photo supplier. If you have paid more than $3/roll, you've paid too much . . . ;>)

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 15, 2002.