Photography on a Shoe String Budget

Choosing Film

Despite the growth of digital cameras, film still sees a lot of use. You only need to look at any photo magazine to tell that; they are always running tests and comparisons, and evaluating new film types. While there are real differences in film, it sometimes reminds me of the days before audio CD's. There were endless discussions about which cartridge, arm, stylus, turntable, and so on worked better on records. To a few with the time (and money) to pursue that sort of thing, there were said to be better results. It is the belief of the POASSB crew that, while you can save a lot of money by talking endlessly about photography rather than practicing it, such behavior defeats the purpose of owning a camera. So we will begin a venture into film.

We should first say something about black-and-white film. "B&W" was the original photographic medium. It still exists, and is even becoming more popular, something we'll explore in another column. Most of the points noted here about color print film apply to B&W. There are two major differences. First, if you're interested in B&W, there is pretty much only print film available. A difficult process which made black and white slides was never very popular, although it's still around. Second, there are two ways to process B&W film. This depends on the film, so you must make a careful choice. Traditional B&W film requires chemicals (developer, optional stop bath, and fixer) that are specific to B&W. There are also chromogenic B&W films which can be run through the C-41 process commonly used to develop color negatives. In the age before color copiers, this provided an easy way to get good photos into newsletters. Now it continues for those who don't need color newsletters, and because most chromogenic films have wide latitude--they're great for night shots because they don't wash out the lights.

There are two very different kinds of color film: prints and slides. When print film is processed, it is developed into a negative. If you look at a negative (top image), the colors are strange, because they are the reverse of what you saw. The negative is then printed onto paper (a print, which looks like what you saw, center), and both the negative and print are returned to you. When slide film is processed, it is developed and put into a cardboard or plastic mount (typically), and returned to you. If you look at the slide, it is basically a small representation of the scene you photographed (bottom).

The chemicals and procedures used for negatives are different from those for slides. If you look on your print film cartridge, you'll probably find "Process C-41" somewhere; on slide fillm you'll find "Process E-6", or, if you have Kodachrome, "Process K-14." If you want to use slide film, make some effort to find a lab that does the process on-site or uses a courier to send the film out (Kodak's network is one, but labs in larger cities may have them). Most minilabs do not process slides. While minilab training always includes "do not run slide film through your machine," it's your film that is lost if there's a lapse of memory, so be careful.

If you want to spark a debate, ask an avid film-using photographer if he or she uses prints or slides. You will soon become enmeshed in a discussion that is seemingly without end. One way to approach the choice of slides or prints is to think about showing your photos. A slide looks best when projected, and that means setting up a projector, screen, finding a good room, and so on. At the least it means finding a light and a magnifier. A print can be put in an album or envelope and passed around to others. Since you are not showing the negative, it can remain safe, away from spills and whatever else.

Another angle of the debate is "sharpness." This term usually includes contrast, color balance, and a host of other factors besides resolution, all of which point to how good a picture looks. Traditionally, slide film produced "sharper" results than print film. However, in the last ten years, print films have improved rapidly, closing the gap. Today, you would be hard pressed to find a difference under typical conditions (note this carefully before you slide-lovers scream). To project well, a slide must be focused precisely behind a good lens. A slide must also be flat. When you drop a slide (which takes on a curve in the typical mount) into the wide gate of a projector with a $40 plastic lens, you are not doing any of those.

One area that should draw more concern than it does is exposure. Slide films are persnickety about exposure, and many in-camera meters cannot handle them properly. If you are going to use slide film, you need to develop a good sense of exposure. The overwhelming majority of film used is print film, so naturally, that's what cameras are going to be adjusted for. So it doesn't hurt to have a hand-held incident light meter (the kind with the white half ball on the end). These meters measure the light falling on the subject). Because a slide is viewed by light projected through it, it will look better when exposed for such light. A print is viewed by light that is reflected off a print, and thus, an in-camera meter, which measures light that is reflected off the scene, will work better.

All film suffers greatly when underexposed (not enough light on the film). Unfortunately, it is very easy to underexpose! In previous columns, we've covered some common problems that lead to underexposure (and we're not done). With slide film, if you overexpose, you wash out the brighter, lighter colors, and they are lost. However, print film can stand several stops of overexposure. As do many people, when I shoot print film, I routinely overexpose it a little, because it produces better colors. Some print films are now even rated at a lower speed than they would have been several years ago: Kodak 400 is widely reported to actually be a 500 speed film. I find this believable, because (to me) it does work best at 400. Kodak 200 works well at 160, Fuji 200 at 120-160. If you have a "DX" camera that sets the film speed automatically, you can make these changes by setting the exposure compensation dial to +1/3 or +1/2.

As long as film exists, we'll never resolve the slide vs. print debate. It's something you have to decide for yourself and your situation, and keep an open mind to those who've chosen otherwise--because you might someday change your mind, too.

Another debate that won't be settled any time soon is which brand to use. The big names in film are Kodak and Fuji. You'll also hear from Agfa, Konica, and private labels. Kodak was long the leader, but a combination of cheap imports and apparent shortsightedness (probably the source for a lot of Dilbert cartoons) has eroded that. You're just as likely to find Fuji at the big stores these days. The other brands tend to stay with specialty stores or smaller chains. The scene here changes too rapidly to try and put anything into print (although we'll probably have our own reviews from time to time, and photo magazines always cover new films). You'll find what works best for you by trying several kinds, and then choosing a primary group and staying with it. Don't experiment with a new film on a once-in-a-lifetime trip or other event. If I'm trying something new, I try to shoot a known film in another camera at the same time, not just for back up, but for a better comparison.

Free Web Hosting Since 1996. Join & Become Part of the TrainWeb's Railroad Community.