Best Kodak Film for Fair?

Forgot to mention, I wanted to take some slides too...would E100G be good for the colorful costumes? I shoot alot of Kodachrome64, but am afraid if it's too overcast, it might not fit this occasion.

The Kodachrome 64 will look better in low contrast lighting, since it is so intensely contrasty. If you choose E100, make it E100GX, since it is designed for outdoor use where you may be shooting subjects lit by blue sky. E100G is too neutral, really designed for completely controlled studio lighting, far to easy to get "blue" results outside.

I was at a Faire myself and I would certainly use 160VC again. Even though it is a bit garinier then 100UC, it is manageable even for poster size. The colors are definitely more vivid then 100UC without post processing so it's great straight to print. I have examples of both in my Film 2 Album along with others and the 160VC example was taken from the faire.
If is turns out to be a sunny day I would certainly use Agfa Ultra 100 too, but if you're having to resort to using flash then I would not recommend it at all.
Good luck and have fun as that is one of my favorite events to go to as well.

Mike,

No film suggestion, but if you can get close enough to the action, you might try some slow sync flash on the swordfights. That would incorporate some motion blur that might look pretty cool. This is where the instant feedback of digital really provides a benefit. Now if they'd just drop those DSLR prices below $500...

Have fun.

Bill

Mike, I think you're making it too complicated. I would use just one film, 160VC or UC100 if it's sunny, and UC400 if it's cloudy. Generally UC100 is considered more saturated and higher contrast than 160VC, but because it's a 200 speed film, it will have more shadow detail than 160VC if rated at box speed. UC100 skin tones are fine, so I can't recommend one over the other. However I admonish you to avoid Agfa Ultra 100 for people -- there are lots of people at any Ren Faire. Slow-sync or rear-curtain flash is a great idea for the swordfights. If you want slides, have Dale Labs process, print, and slide-dupe your film. That way you don't have to decide when to shoot slides or not. Cost is reasonable.

Mike:

This posting has both a suggestion and a question.

First, the suggestion. If you are going to use Portra 160, be sure that your processing lab can develop and print it properly. My experience has been that consumer processing (even the Kodak processing lab) does not produce satisfactory results. I have had good results from a variety of pro and mass market labs when processing the UC films, including the HD200 emulsion, which brings me to my question - for Bill.

Bill, you mentioned that the UC100 emulsion is a 200-speed film. My suspicion is that you are correct - from examining the Kodak data sheets for the 100 and 200-speed emulsions in this family. Nevertheless, could you elaborate further, re exposing the 200-speed film (have a my share at home) at an EI of 100?

Forgot to mention: I find 160VC quite muddy in overcast weather, so I really mean it about 400UC if it's cloudy. I don't have enough experience with UC100 to know how it performs in overcast weather.

Steven, my tests indicated UC100 had -4 stops of underexposure latitude; -3 is typical for wide-latitude films. In his Sep/Oct 2004 review for Photo Techniques magazine, Ctein said UC100 is "identical in speed to Portra 160." In Europe a similar film is sold as Elite Color 200.

I don't understand why people are living in the 1970s and shooting 100 and 160-speed color negative. There is so little difference in grain now between 160 and 400 professional films such as the Kodak Portra series that you can just stick with the 400, especially for a shoot like this where it's cloudy and you need the speed. If you're making prints large enough where the grain is an issue, then you shouldn't be shooting 35 and should move up to medium format.

I would love to shoot in med format, but i'm really afraid of investing $$$ in the equipment, only to have emulsion after emulsion go away due to digital. I do agree, the Kodak Ultra 400 has great grain for it's speed. The 160/100 speeds do have a bit less grain, even in smaller print sizes. (not a huge difference, but a little).

Just to make sure I'm understanding Bill Jordan's cool suggestion..slow sync is when you have a longer shutter time after the flash fires..right? And high speed sync is when you set the dedicated flash to high sync mode, so you can shoot with larger aperatures, and the flash will be synched to the higher shutter speeds? Yeah, i've accidently done the slow sync before, and if conditions are right, it is cool!

Here's a pic I just took with Kodak 400UC..turned out pretty good for an indoor shot..lit by sunlight with fill flash.

Mike,

If you want the blur to be behind the frozen action (which is the more natural looking motion), then you need to shoot in rear-curtain sync, as Bill T. suggests. Most flashes "default" to front-curtain sync I believe, so you need to make sure you specifically set yours to rear-curtain if that's an option. But yes, you are correct in your assessment of slow sync flash. I would think a shutter speed of between 15 and 30 should do, but others who have more experience with it may have other ideas. The first time I did slow-sync, it was by accident while shooting my son doing layups at the hoop along our driveway. The resulting shot was much better than those that froze all of the action. I would think it would be really neat with sword fighting. I'd vary the shutter speed quite a bit just to experiment. If you have a monopod, that might be a big help.

Bill

My camera doesn't have the second curtain sync option, damn! Just have to make due, I guess! Cool Ferris wheel shot, great example! Thanks to everyone for your help, I learned a lot today!

I ended up using Kodak 400UC..here's some shots I've posted. I shot mostly the 400, ended up not buying any slide film, but after the print film ran out, I ended up using a roll of Kodachrome 64 I had on hand, just for some shots of the Faire. I was pleased overall with how the 400UC turned out, particularly in #1, where I used fill flash with the high sync engaged....I tried a slow synch shot, but I did it wrong, and I didnt have time to try another! But i'll keep practicing, that's how I learn.

Oops..let me try reposting the pictures again!

Here's another.

One more..

Mike,

Looks like the film performed very well. Also looks like the weather cooperated. Without the flash in the first shot, you could never have preserved the detail in the sky. I found that out by mistake too (like the slow sync). As long as you learn from your mistakes...

Hope all had fun, Bill

Good work, Mike! UC400 performed very nicely for you outdoors. Recently I've seen people-pictures taken with a Nikon D70 that had horrendous skin tones in comparison, so film still has some merit. In your picture of Selena, you can see why some photographers prefer other portrait films: her left eye (right of picture) shows too much red where contrast rolls off into the shadow. But 400UC is a superb general-purpose film, maybe the best.

Thanks for your kind comments. the picture of Selena was just taken on the fly, and 400UC was the only film I had in the camera and available. The scan of Selena was done by MPIX, the Faire scans were done by the minilab at the grocery store using a Noritsu...fyi.