Mls737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 860 times:
Hey Lanpie!
For slides I was using only Kodachrome 64 until recently. I switched to Fuji Sensia II 100. I hate fuji for prints, but for slides it's excellent. I like the color saturation and it is comparable to K64 for graininess (At least from my experience). I just dislike the colors I obtained with K64. I still use K64 sometimes though, but it's mainly because most people trade only K64/25.
For prints, I like Kodak royal gold 100.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 2, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 858 times:
I use Fuji Reala when possible, but English weather being what it is also use Fuji Superior 200 and 400. Very satisfied with this film - but I scan direct from negatives and never bother getting prints from the processing lab.
Rotate777 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 400 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 859 times:
I usually always use Kodak Gold 100 Speed film. If the weather is a bit cloudy, I use Kodak Gold 200. I don't really like Gold 200 too much, since it produces some amount of grain. I'm satasfied with Kodak Gold 100, and will keep using it. It produces good results.
Speculous From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 853 times:
I've been using Kodachrome 64 for 8 months now with no complaints. I just started using Fuji Provia 100F about a month ago. Most collectors prefer K64, but I do this for no one but myself, and will probably use the Fuji more often because I can get it developed quicker.
For non-aviation shooting... I load up with Royal Gold 200 print film. I can't point out anything exceptional about it. It's just a preference
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 837 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 848 times:
I've tried all kinds of print film, and I've found Kodak Gold 100 to produce the best results. It's amazing though...I hate Kodak Gold 200, as it's too grainy for my tastes.
Oh well...just try 'em all, and you'll know real soon what you like!
Planespotter From Germany, joined Jul 2000, 106 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 839 times:
Hi There!
For planes I use Fuji Sensia II 100. I also tried Kodak K64 sometime, but Fuji has better colors and is much cheaper than Kodak. If I had enough money I'd take slides with Fuji Velvia 50 (the best film I know).
About a year ago I tried a new professional film from Kodak..I dont know its name anymore...Something with "100 SW" (Saturation Warm). I did pretty good shots with that...Does anybody use this film??
For Prints (no planes, but vacation photos, etc.) I prefer Kodak Gold 100. For Prints Kodak seems much better than Fuji.
When the weather is too bad, so that I had to use ISO 200 or higher I better stay at home and dont take pics...
Kasing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 820 times:
Hi,
Here is the "common" film inside my backpack:
Fuji Provia 100F - The major slide provides super fine quality
Fuji Reala & Kodak Royal Gold 100 - I like the color and also super fine quality
Kodak 100VS - Film to produce "saturated" color
Kodak Royal Gold 400 - the only film for supertele and dim day
Fuji NPH - fine grain (as Fuji 200) but in 400 speed
Fuji 800 (Superia or Super-G) - for extreme condition, for example, panning at night
Of course, if the condition is acceptable, please do use ISO 100 film in order to get the fine grain. I highly recommend Fuji Reala and Provia 100F when the light condition is good!
You may see some example on my URL http://w3.to/kasing .
Rindt From Germany, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 930 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 807 times:
Hey
I shoot Kodachrome 64, case closed
I dislike, no, I hate FUJI film. The colours are by far the worst I have seen, very blue in my opinion. When the sky has a "Hollywood-made" looking blue, you know something is very wrong. Sure, you get it back in a day, but you pay a lot for processing. Kodachrome is still a little cheaper, and richer in quality. I don't shoot prints as I trade slides, but I have tried all kinds of Kodak print film... 100 is best. I've used 25 Gold, and it is AWEFUL. If you're shooting planes with a 50mm lense in perfect conditions, Kodachrome 25 is the best film, nothing compares to it, not even close.
Regards,
Rob
What other people think of you is none of your business!
Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3723 posts, RR: 25 Reply 9, posted (12 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 817 times:
With all due respect to you Rob, (btw, I enjoy your work!) Kodachrome is a real pain! even in a major city like Houston, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get this film procressed affordably, as well as quickly. I use to live on K25/64, then I discovered Fujichrome's 50RFP, sadly this was discontinued in favour of Fujichrome's Velvia. I have accepted some of this films warmish characteristics (especially with flesh tones) and use them it my advantage. Now I rely almost completly on this and sometimes Provia, and the fact that I can get a very quick turn around in a matter of hours in many cases, at a reasonable price, sells me on these films. To be honest I have only scant experince with Kodak's Ecktachrome emulsions, but the few times that I have used these films I have not been too terribly impressed.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 297 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 400 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2000, 106 posts, 
, 930 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
