Forgive me in advance if my question is redundant. I have a Canon Prima Zoom 85N (essentially a point and shoot camera with 35mm and 85mm lenses). I'm concerned with what film will be best to take with me to Europe. I took this camera to Britain last year, using 400 and got good results. My brother, who is a pretty advanced photographer, said that 200 is superior as 400 can be quite grainy. I was under the impression that 400 is the most versatile as it is good in different lighting, indoors and outdoors. What risks am I taking using 200 vs the risks using 400? I bought this same camera for my Mom and she is taking it on our trip to Europe this summer. She has 200 film and I want to ensure she gets the best possible pictures. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance!

Anita

My personal experience has been that 400 film works fine for photos. I think the possibility of grainy photos is only an issue if you're making enlargements. To me, the added flexibility more than makes up for that limitation. I'm planning to take 400 film to Ireland next month.

Cathy

If you are taking scenic photos in a low light environment, 400 is the way to go. However, an additional important criteria is the speed (faster speed lens lets more light in - hence better picture in low light environments) of your camera lens. Most zoom cameras do not have a high speed lens and your pictures in a church - a long distance shot within the church itself - will be of poor quality, even with 400 film.
Also be aware that the more you extend the zoom the slower the lens becomes.
My zoom camera has an f5.6 lens (moderate to slow) and I am unsatisfied with indoor scenic photos of poorly lighted rooms/areas, etc. So, I just went out and purchased a shoot and point camera with a much faster fixed f2.8 lens. I think that this lens with 400 film will give me decent indoor photos. For you non-camera people, a flash is totally a waste when used to take a picture of a large area like a church.
The camera store technician advised to me go with 800 film, however, I think 400 with the new camera will be good enough.

However, only if all your photos are in good light would I go with the 200 film. The 400 is a much better option. Fuji recommends 800 for all around picture taking. See the chart on the Fuji film box. They are the experts!

JimO

ISO 200 (the modern version, anyway) is very good in well lighted situations-primarily outside. ISO 400 doesn't give you much help, only one "stop" extra speed. When you go from outside to inside (a cathedral, for example), 400 is just about as slow as 200.

On our last trip, to Paris last November, I carried both 200 and 800. I have used 3200 in the past but it was very grainy and I don't think the light meter was that accurate at that speed.

I have never had a problem with security x-rays and film (except the 3200 that all 20 rolls had a green cast when developed). Although Michael Williamson is the expert on this, I think you will find that the official position of both Kodak and Fuji is that only repeated exposures to security x-rays have any really probability to fogging film.

Have a great time on your trip.

Glenn

I am NOW a digital camera buff. I bought a $499 Sony DSCp5 in January right after our cruise. A standard 64 meg memory chip will hold about 1,200, yes, twelve hundred photos and even takes about 11 mini movies, about 15 seconds each on a 64 meg chip. Now I don't have to worry about changing film or buying film. I know reg. camera users will rebuff this but when I bring the camera home and place them on the 'puter and print them out on good Kodak paper, they look like the real thing. Just wonder in 30 years if they will fade. No proof on that yet.
maril

Whether or not your pictures will fade depends on your printer from what I understand. Some printers, such as HP have inks that fade rather quickly, but other companies produce archival inks that will last for many years. I am going to be buying a new printer this year and that factor is going to weigh heavily in my final decision.

quote:

Originally posted by Maril:
[qb]I am NOW a digital camera buff. I bought a $499 Sony DSCp5 in January right after our cruise. A standard 64 meg memory chip will hold about 1,200, yes, twelve hundred photos and even takes about 11 mini movies, about 15 seconds each on a 64 meg chip. [/qb]

If you're getting 1200 pictures on a 64MB memory card, that's only 55kb per image. You must be taking pictures at VERY low resolution; either that, or else you have JPEG compression set to an excessively high compression level which will throw out all the fine detail in the image!

Taking pictures at a resolution of, say, 640x480 pixels, is OK if you just want to show it on a computer screen, but not very good if you want to print pictures. A good "rule of thumb" is that you should allow at least 150 pixels per inch for a printed picture - that means that if you want to print a 6"x4" image (which is typically what you get back from print film developers) you'll need an image resolution of at least 900x600 pixels. Personally I generally use a resolution of 2000x1500 pixels on my camera, which lets me print decent quality A4 or 11"x8" pictures.

At that resolution I can store about 200 images on a 128MB memory card. Obviously it's a matter of personal choice, but personally I believe that taking a smaller number of decent pictures is better than vast numbers of poor quality ones!

Regards,

Chris

quote:

Originally posted by RaroGirl:
[qb]Whether or not your pictures will fade depends on your printer from what I understand. Some printers, such as HP have inks that fade rather quickly, but other companies produce archival inks that will last for many years. I am going to be buying a new printer this year and that factor is going to weigh heavily in my final decision.[/qb]

As you rightly say, paper and ink are the primary factors in determining how long a printed image will continue to look good for. Use decent "photo quality" paper and good ink and they should last for many years.

The main factor in making images fade is bright light - a picture hung on a wall might fade quickly, whereas the same image shut away in a photo album will last for many years. You can get spray for printed photographs which will protect the ink against light, and make them last a lot longer, but I've no personal experience of how well (or otherwise!) these work.

Of course, one advantage of a digital picture is that you can print it out as many times as you want! What I do personally is to write the pictures I've taken on each trip to a CD-R, and keep a copy of that safe and sound as a "backup" for the copy stored on my computer's hard disk.

Regards,

Chris