"Best" Print Film

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Phoenix1

Registered
Messages
57
Reaction score
5
I am looking for opinions (yes, I know this is subjective) on the best print film for underwater photography. There is a lot of board talk about slides, but not much on prints. Since I know everyone will say, "Best print film for what?" here's my background and objectives.

I've been an amateur print (and more recently, digital) photographer for a little less than 50 years. I've been taking underwater photos since 1970 (with a big gap between 1972 and 1990).

My wife and I take a couple dive trips a year, typically to the Caymans or Bonaire. Because of the ecology of those two locations, I typically shoot seascapes and medium to macro marine life in 30 - 100 feet of water.

I use a Nikonos V with a single SB 105 strobe and either my 20mm or the 35 with the closeup lens attached. For the last decade, I have shot Fuji Reala print film.

I have listened to the debate between slides and prints. Although I might still be convinced to switch, my success with slides has not been breathtaking, so I stick with print film. I can live without the instant feedback of slides, I think print film has more latitude, and my local processor produces extremely good digital scans. I am an intermediate to advanced Photoshop user, and I turn my digitized work into 8 x 10s, printed on a good Epson photo printer, for framing at home.

I am not unhappy with Reala; I like the greens and blues that are missing in most Kodak print films. I'm just wondering if there is anything else out there I should experiment with.

Rich
 
Rich -

I haven't used film for so long I don't know what is available now. I used to use Agfa 100 something as it gave incredible purples, pinks, oranges etc that are common in many of the macro subjects I was shooting.

I wonder, though, why you are sticking with film or slide since you are also a digital shooter. Your strobe will move with you to a digital system, I'm pretty sure. Just cuirious - I'm sure you've read the pros of moving to digital.
 
Since most labs digitally scan your negatives nowadays, I think the differences in films would be almost irrelevant, since your results would depend on the scanner/computer/software's idea of colour balance (and saturation), exposure, etc. Some systems are even automatic so when you ask (and I have) for them to print your pictures with "no corrections", the computer tries to adjust for exposure anyways. I think most major brands are too close in grain size (for the same ISO) to even worry about that.
 
Cost is the simple reason I'm still using film. I have a Nikon D70, but when you add the housing, the dome, a super wide lens and probaby another strobe (to make 2), I'm up to $5,000 plus. What I've got produces great results (and better resolution).

Rich
 
Phoenix1:
Cost is the simple reason I'm still using film. I have a Nikon D70, but when you add the housing, the dome, a super wide lens and probaby another strobe (to make 2), I'm up to $5,000 plus. What I've got produces great results (and better resolution).

Rich
Same with me, though I'm not a pro or anything. I could spend upwards of $10,000 for a digital SLR, lenses, housing, strobes, etc... and have it flood in 6 months. My old film SLR system can be replaced for around $300 (lots of cheap second-hand stuff around). I spend around $1000 on film and processing per year. To justify the cost of a new digital SLR system, I would have to be guaranteed that it would last long enough to make up for the expense of film.
 
You don't need to go dslr underwater...there are plenty of options in the compact digital range that will produce great results. But if you are happy, there's no reason to change...

...if you aren't missing shots and are happy with your keeper rate, then again, there's no reason to change...
 
Rich:

Before I went digital I was quite happy with Kodak Portra VC. I generally shot 400iso for wide angle, needing the extra 2 stops in Florida water. For close up and macro the 160 should work nice. I find the color saturation in the VC to be better for underwater shots than the NC.

---Bob
 
Phoenix1:
Cost is the simple reason I'm still using film. I have a Nikon D70, but when you add the housing, the dome, a super wide lens and probaby another strobe (to make 2), I'm up to $5,000 plus. What I've got produces great results (and better resolution).

Rich

I am with you on this. I still use a Nikonos V and a Canon rebel in a Sea & Sea housing.

I don't think there is anything better than Fuji Velvia (slide) if you look at professional photos online that have been done in film, you will find that the vast majority are in fact taken using Velvia. My slides are scanned to make about a 20 MB file for prints up to 13x19 and I have some prints 24x36 120 MB file
 
Reala is an excellent film.. I've always liked the results it gave for anything other than portrait work. I find that it allows the warm whites and tans to wash out becoming cooler than they actually are (there is a reason but it is not appropriate to discus that here). Kodak has two (four) professional films that you might want to try out, Portra NC and VC (both are available in 160 and 400 ASA). VC apparently stands for VIVID colour and NC for NATURAL colour, the VC would I think be better for Underwater Photography with a flash, specifically because the way a flash exposure can wash out highlights.


You are correct when you say print gives a wider latitude, there is, depending on the film up to two stops of over or underexposure “tolerance” built into the film. None of the films in this thread have this kind of latitude, there is however close to a full stop under and over that you can miss by and still get an acceptable print. More importantly this latitude will allow a good custom printer to get detail in both the shadows and the highlights that you don’t necessarily see in the results you get back from the lab. (Burn and Dodge are not just photoshop tools.). Even the very best digital printer can’t match the results of a good custom 8x10 you might want to try getting one of your better negatives done professionally.. (then again it is pretty darn expensive so maybe you should simply spend that extra cash diving)

AS to slide film.. if you want to get better shoot slides .. there is no room for error, something is right or it isn’t, and it is easy to see what is wrong.. however I would do that on land rather than underwater. Personally if I had my choice and unlimited funds I would be shooting Fuji Velvia 50 (in the Hasselblad).
 
Can't help you with a reccomendation; when I shoot color film it's all chromes (slides).

Allthough it doesn't really answer your question, it at least gives you an idea about the prevalence of folks shooting negs U/W.

Wait a minute! I do shoot a lot of print film underwater. Plus-X and Tri-X.


All the best, James
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom