"Best" Print Film

[MarkH]

For shooting with a film camera underwater, what speed film is best?

In the tropics (high angle of sunlight= very bright underwater), I find that 100-speed is plenty fast enough at least down to 100 feet or so. In more Northen waters, I find that there can be less than 1/10 of the light at depth (even with 100-foot vis). I usually use 400-speed locally and if I want much ambient light in the photo, I sometimes use 1600-speed. I've tried to take natural-light photos at a depth of 100 feet here (with 100-foot vis) and they were still a few stops underexposed. I used a shutter speed of 1/15 sec and an aperature of f5.6, but still no luck. Those tropical divers are spoiled. For macro, I'd go with 100-speed where ever you are (Kodak stopped making the 50-speed Royal Gold).

By the way, for all the above I mean print film. For slide film you can get a slower-than-100.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

Thanks, Swankenstein. I've purchased my camera because I'm going to Cozumel and wanted to get some underwater shots. I've got the Sea & Sea MX-10 on the way, with strobe and wide-angle lens. If I were to load this thing with 400 speed Fuji Film, I'd be good to go, right?

 

[MarkH]

Thanks, Swankenstein. I've purchased my camera because I'm going to Cozumel and wanted to get some underwater shots. I've got the Sea & Sea MX-10 on the way, with strobe and wide-angle lens. If I were to load this thing with 400 speed Fuji Film, I'd be good to go, right?

400-speed would be fine too. You would just have to adjust the camera settings (aperature, shutter speed) to be higher. I don't know if your camera does this automatically. The problem with higer-speed film (400, 800,1600) is that the higher the #, the grainier it is. If you want to make enlargements (an 8x10 for example), it will seem grainy compared to 100-speed film. I've even noticed grainyness in 4x6 prints with 400-speed film. Another thing people talk about is colour saturation. The lower the number, the more colourful the results are supposed to be, but I haven't noticed a big difference between 100-speed and 400-speed.

 

[Fish_Whisperer]

Cool. In that case, I'll go with 100. It would be nice to enlarge them, if I get some nice shots with lots of vivid color, and frame them. I really appreciate the help and advice you've given. Thank you.

 

[ajames54]

gee this thread deteriorated into a bit of a slam fest ..

Speaking of film camera housings though .. does anyone know of a source for them other than e-bay?

would like to find one for any of the following
Minolta X-700 w/motordrive (prefered as I would not care if this flooded)
Nikon FE w/motordrive
Nikon FE2 w/motordrive

Or a really good deal on the hasselblad 500C housing?

OH and someone was comenting about Tri-X .. Try exposing it as 320 ASA that is it's "true" speed. Or at 1000 and develop it with diafine. Ah those were the days!

Pre exposing the film stock and the print paper.. 15 minute developing times..damn I need a house I can build a darkroom into!

 

[cdiver2]

Cool. In that case, I'll go with 100. It would be nice to enlarge them, if I get some nice shots with lots of vivid color, and frame them. I really appreciate the help and advice you've given. Thank you.

I don't know about other films but I do see a color saturation difference between Velvia 50 and 100, the 50 colors being more saturated?.

 

[cdiver2]

gee this thread deteriorated into a bit of a slam fest ..

Speaking of film camera housings though .. does anyone know of a source for them other than e-bay?

would like to find one for any of the following
Minolta X-700 w/motordrive (prefered as I would not care if this flooded)
Nikon FE w/motordrive
Nikon FE2 w/motordrive

Or a really good deal on the hasselblad 500C housing?

OH and someone was comenting about Tri-X .. Try exposing it as 320 ASA that is it's "true" speed. Or at 1000 and develop it with diafine. Ah those were the days!

Pre exposing the film stock and the print paper.. 15 minute developing times..damn I need a house I can build a darkroom into!

A guy comes on and asks a question about film and a digi user comes on and slams it.
But this is nothing new it happens all the time :huh:

 

[Scubatooth]

cdiver2.. i know whatyou mean

jacque: most people who are serious about there photography dont take there film to places like that because they dont watch the chemistry at all or the cook the logs to make it look good. i good c41 line takes a skilled person to keep it at optimal condition and that maintence needed is beyond what most places would even consider do to time and cost.

ajames54: color is a pretty standardized system that you can have underexposures of 1-2 stops and up to 3 stops over.

As for black & white thats a whole other ball game as different developers at different dilutions and tempatures can get different effects and film speeds (ala zone system).

currently for me i dont do much traditional wet lab black and white because the lab at school is over run by first class students who are messing up the chemicals. which is why if i really need to shoot black and white i send it off to www.dr5.com to get processed into slides (or traditional processing that they offer now) and then when i get them back i scan them in and go from there for prints.

FWIW

Tooth

 

[MarkH]

I don't know about other films but I do see a color saturation difference between Velvia 50 and 100, the 50 colors being more saturated?.

I was refering to print film, but I agree that you would probably notice more of a difference in slide film since you are looking at the "originals". My prints from negatives are adjusted in the lab for exposure (darkening them up makes the colours look more saturated) and as far as I know, they might adjust the saturation as well. When I look at sets of prints (some with 100-speed film and some with 400-speed) I can't really see that some are more saturated than others. I can definetly tell with 1600-speed though.

 

[MarkH]

By the way, I always try to over-expose my print film by at least one stop. The lab corrects for this by darkening up the prints, which makes them more saturated and gives that nice "jet black" black (at least I think it's nice) instead of a washed-out dark grey. I have a horror of labs "lightening up" prints, which really washes them out and throws grain all over them. I remember being naive enough to try and take long-exposure pictures of star trails with print film and try and convince the lab not to try and make the black sky grey.