KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3444 times:
I'm a new aviation photographer and have had 20 successful uploads to a.net in the past month. (you can find my a.net photos here: http://russellfam.us)
Right now I'm using Agfa Optima 100 and 200 films and have also used Fujifilm Super HQ 200. As I'm not very impressed with either I'm still looking for better 35mm film for producing finer grain photos. What 35mm print film have you had excellent results with?
-Benjamin R Russell
Derekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 824 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3418 times:
Benjamin
I use slide film now but I liked using Fuji Reala as a print film . The best used to be Kodak Ektar 25 but I don't think you can get it now.
Derek
IwantaBBJ From Ireland, joined Jun 2002, 770 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
I'm also a big fan of Fuji's Reala... For MY eyes, it produces excellent results, fine grain.... BTW: It's been a while since I saw something lower than a ISO 100-speed film, I was told there are none left on the market now.
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3405 times:
Derek, Mike and Wietse, thanks for your comments, I plan to try out Fuji Reala in the near future. As for higher speed film (400, 800) what can anyone recommend? I'm looking to stop rotor blades and with the best possible results. Thanks.
-Benjamin R Russell
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3395 times:
Are you looking for print film only? I am affraid that there isnt really good 400 asa printfilm out there.. Just go Fuji or Kodak, you cant go wrong there.
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3385 times:
I say, you could stay all the way from ASA 100 to ASA 800 with Fuji. I've tried few rolls of Fuji Superia Xtra 800. That film is just amazing! It's not of course as fine grain as any ASA 100 film, but as for an ASA 800 film, it beats even some ASA 400 films.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 6 days ago) and read 3362 times:
I've used Reala quite a few times in the past, a really nice film. However, after trying Superia 100, that's what I've been using since then when shooting prints. There's really not much difference between Reala and Superia in terms of grain, but I find Superia gives less of a colour cast compared to Reala.
Tried Kodak Royal Gold once, never again.
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3318 times:
I did a search for remarks containing "Reala" and a bunch of photos came up. However, the amount of photos taken with Reala (or claimed to be taken with Reala) has significantly decreased since 2002 and 2001. Does this film produce a sharp enough picture to keep up with a.net's ever-increasing quality standards?
-Benjamin
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3287 times:
Thanks guys, and Derek those are very nice photos. I'll be looking forward to shooting with Reala very soon. I also have a roll of Superia X-Tra 400 I plan to try out.
-Benjamin
KC7MMI From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, RR: 4 Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3279 times:
If I wasn't interested in making prints from my photos, I might use slide film. In the event that I do decide to change, what kind of slide film can be recommended?
-Benjamin
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3278 times:
If I wasn't interested in making prints from my photos, I might use slide film.
You can always scan the frames you want prints of, burn the files on a CD and take it to the closest lab where they make prints out of files. Some labs, however, make prints directly from mounted slides, but the results are not that good.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3273 times:
Joge said: Some labs, however, make prints directly from mounted slides, but the results are not that good.
What??? Nothing could be further from the truth. If the lab does it right, a print made directly from a slide (no inter-neg) will be way way better than anything you could achieve from printing a home-scanned slide burned onto a CD.
But you could do it that way - home scanning, and it doesn't work out too bad with small size prints. Either way, for submitting pictures here, you really need a dedicated film scanner, not a flatbed. Once you've got that, you can as has been said scan print from a scanned slide, or for that really special job take the slide to a lab and get it printed properly.
In answer to what slide film... There's only one - Kodachrome 64!
Joge From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, RR: 47 Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3267 times:
Andy,
Like with the negative scan, the printers attempt to make some kind of (color) corrections with the slides too, but not on file prints, if set so. For instance, the Agfa d.lab machines apply one kind of smart blur filter on the image before the print, if printing a slide. This is to reduce the amount of grain in the picture, but some of the prints look more like a painting!
My point is, that if you scan your slides by yourself, you can do all the crop, rotate, color correction and everything else you want.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3254 times:
And the REAL photographers use black and white
What kind of bs is that? Doesnt matter what you use, everyone is a REAL photographer when he takes a picture.. stop promoting b&w film.. there are new types of photography on the horizon, and just because you dont use any of those methods, doesnt mean that it isnt REAL photography...
Codeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3200 times:
After trying out a few films I stick with Reala, and on occasions Superia 200.
As for slide Provia 100.
I can't wait to try out the Velvia 100, just have to finish the Superia 200 roll.
The Kodak 100GX slide is an interesting one, too. The 100VS came out with dull colours for me.
How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3182 times:
Derek,
My comment was not aimed towards you. Offcourse film is still fine and modern etc.. but the thought that real photographers only use B&W film is just bs..
Wietse
Wietse de Graaf
25 Crank: These days I use mostly Fuji Superia 100, and Sensia 100 when I shoot slides.
26 KC7MMI: Just kinda curious, has anyone had success with Agfa films? -Benjamin
27 Airportugal: I use Fuji Reala. It produces excelent results for us who can't afford digital yet... (at least until November ) Luis G
28 Karlok: Several weeks I had some films left of a wedding. And that was the Fuji NPH 400. Pretty nice film too.
29 Aussie: Tim, you should define that further mate ... Kodachrome 64 ... that's all my camera feeds on !!!! Cheers, Frank Schaefer
30 Timdegroot: you should define that further mate ... ============================== Film implies K64 Tim
31 Aussie: Tim, these are the winning numbers ..... Cheers, Frank
32 Ignat: I use Fuji Superia Reala 100. I think its the best film. All my this year photos were made by this film.
33 KC7MMI: Thanks Ignatiy. I got my Reala roll developed yesterday and was impressed with the results. The colors are great, the shadow areas are nice, and the g
34 Rindt: So far, this post as I can see it is "really" only about 4 replies long. I've spoiled my camera rotten with Kodachrome 25 over the past year, but Koda
35 KC7MMI: I'll make it a point to try K64 IF I ever decide to use slides...but for now I enjoy looking at nice 4x6 prints from quality print film.
36 Staffan: Well, the thread isn't about slide film, so I guess it's more than 4 replies long. I doubt you'll have much luck when shooting K25 indoors with artifi
37 Dispatch: K25 indoors?? No good, just needs too much flash. Just filled 16 rolls under the LAS and LAX sun, now THAT is what K25 is for. Peter
38 BO__einG: For prints I use Fuji Superia 100.. They are cheap. I got away from Reala cuz I found that its scans produced too many grain and noise. I hate that fi
39 Stratofish: I just can't resist to tell everyone here: DO NOT USE VELVIA 100F As much as I love the Velvia 50 I hate the 100F version. That film ruined most of my
40 KC7MMI: This is a similar similar reason as to why I stopped using Agfa Optima. Shaddow areas really looked crappy and grainy. -Benjamin
41 Rindt: Peter, You got any more rolls of Kodachrome 25 available? -Rob
42 KC7MMI: Ok guys...here are some samples of different films I have used... Fuji Reala Fuji Superia X-TRA 400 Agfa Optima 100 I think the Reala was the best so
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 854 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 824 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2002, 770 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From Finland, joined Feb 2000, 1441 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Nothing could be further from the truth. If the lab does it right, a print made directly from a slide (no inter-neg) will be way way better than anything you could achieve from printing a home-scanned slide burned onto a CD.
From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
