Eric, I guess I will go with the Fuji then. You seem to be much more knowledgable than I, so I am going to take your word on it! Thanks for your input.

You'll enjoy Fuji
However, where you get your pictures printed is equally as important. A print at the drugstore may look flat or greenish when compared to a photolab.
I found that a print from the drugstore did not look like I remembered it. I carried it to a photolab with a printer that I trusted and my images looked at least 10 times better.
In fact, the printer, a lady I still pop in to say hiya to from time to time, was able to bring out the gold on the cross atop St. Paul's Cathedral in London where the drugstore had it printed like it was stone-coloured. Just another variable to be aware of.

Hi everyone! I just wanted to mention that after reading this thread I went and bought 6 box of 8 36exp rolls of Fuji Superia (400 speed). I went to a Fuji film specialist and the price tag was AUD$50. He said he could do me a deal of AUD$45. I then went to a camera store and the advertised price was AUD$45. I told them how much film I was after and asked what kind of deal they could do me and I got them for AUD$43 each. The other place could have probably matched the price but I liked the fact that their advertised price was cheaper to begin with. I asked what speed would be suitable and they asked what sort of camera I had. This was the first place (out of 5) who asked me this question! They are also going to do me a deal when I get them processed. They are not the cheapest but apparently look at each picture individually when processing to fix little things up.

I had originally planned to buy Kodak Max (that's what I've always bought).

I took all my film out of the cannisters and put dots on them for labelling with numbers and have them in a clear ziplock bag to take with me one my carry on luggage so it doesn't go through the x ray machines. I was told that it was ok to have them out of the cannisters as long as I kept them out of direct sunlight. Has anyone heard this?

Penelope

Sure you can keep it out of the cannister. However, it can be kinda hazardous as far as moisture and dust. I keep mine in the cannisters when I'm on the road; but I keep them in the cannister even for the hand checks.
I know of other photographers who have them out for the hand check; but it is sometimes cumbersome and you run the risk of damage from the person checking it.

triom (eric)

Ive done a few photography classes and most lecturers say to put your film in the fridge or freezer, as film is made from animal product. This will help keep longer. Once out,wait a couple of minutes and then load the film.

I still have used "frozen" black and white film since last September in the freezer as I havent had the time to develope & print.

As for Kodak or Fuji, I agree Fuji has brighter more vibriant colour but more so than real life. I like Fuji.

Anyone know if Fuji make C41 processing black & white??

Does anyone know what the "expiration dates" on film really mean. How do they determine the date?
Yesterday I found a 4 roll box that expired late last year - should I take the chance and use it?

If you read my post just before yours, I explained how film is made from animal product. So just as meat has an expiration date so does film. (know any vegetarian photographers???)
You run the risk of the colours not being as bright or the photos being "foggy". By all means try a film at home first, develope it and if youre happy with the results use the others.
If they had been kept in a freezer, just like meat it extends youre expiry date.

Film does have a shelf life, the difference between professional film and the stuff the rest of us use, besides some quality issues, is the freshness of the film and shelf life. Youll always find professional film in a fridge or you should.

quote:

Originally posted by Swissmiz:
[qb]Does anyone know what the "expiration dates" on film really mean. How do they determine the date?
Yesterday I found a 4 roll box that expired late last year - should I take the chance and use it?[/qb]

Weird!! I never knew film was made from animal products.

So how does the xray machines damage film? Does it 'cook it'? he he he!

Well, you learn something new everyday don't you!! Thanks Edith

Penelope

Never thought of that, maybe youre right, would you like yours rare, medium or well done??
Actually x-rays are supposed to make the film foggy as well, but youd have to put it thru a few times. When I went overseas last year i put my film in a see-thru bag, out of the canisters. I asked for it to be hand searched, but I grew weary of doing this and in the end just let them xray it.

quote:

Originally posted by PAL:
[qb]Weird!! I never knew film was made from animal products.

So how does the xray machines damage film? Does it 'cook it'? he he he!

Well, you learn something new everyday don't you!! Thanks Edith

Penelope [/qb]

Never thought of that, maybe youre right, would you like yours rare, medium or well done??
Actually x-rays are supposed to make the film foggy as well, but youd have to put it thru a few times. When I went overseas last year i put my film in a see-thru bag, out of the canisters. I asked for it to be hand searched, but I grew weary of doing this and in the end just let them xray it.

quote:

Originally posted by PAL:
[qb]Weird!! I never knew film was made from animal products.

So how does the xray machines damage film? Does it 'cook it'? he he he!

Well, you learn something new everyday don't you!! Thanks Edith

Penelope [/qb]

Does anyone have problems with a change in humidity when taking the film out from the refrigerator?

Fuji 400.

We even got decent no flash shots inside tombs at VK in Egypt, much to our surprise. (We'd have taken many more shots, had we known.)

I don't waste time with the 200; the 400 has just as fine a grain and will be useful in all situations where you might use 200. (It's my default film speed.) I was also disappointed at the minimal increase in shutter speed I got in low-light situations with 800 ASA. Just take a big bag of 400 speed film.

Find out what kind of paper your processor uses. I take all my vacation pics to the 1hour lab at Costco (I just can't WAIT!!) and since they use Fuji paper, I think the pics from Fuji film are brighter and better. I don't like the results as well on Kodak paper.

Consider going to the trouble of finding 36 exposure film; it can be space-saving and it's not hard to use up all those shots on a great road trip.

Regarding shelf life and refrigeration, it is my understading that film needs to be in a freezer to really maintain/extend shelf life, not just refrigerator. Of course, the refrigerator is a great place to store it to maintain temps that won't wreck it, especially if you live in the desert.

Pro film is much more sensitive to time and temperature than consumer grade film; Kodak and Fuji know we are going to take the camera to the beach in the heat, or leave it in the car, or get two Christmases on a single roll of film, and they build it accordingly. While it's never a good idea to disregard an expiration date, if my film has been stored at appropriate temperatures, I've never had problems with color bleeds or quality if I use it within a year of that date. But you take a chance - I'd not use that film on my trip to Italy, for example.

Moe

Wow! I've got a friend who works for Fuji and he'll be happy to see the positive feedback.

Wish I had used 400 film on my last trip to Russia. A lot of the outside shots came out dark. I'm taking 400 to Ireland!

I also take my photos to Costco and have been happy with the results at the 1-hour counter. The regular processing works well, too, but I've had problems with a roll of film will disappear and shows up weeks later.

Cathy

Cathy,

While I think 400 speed film can often be a good idea (especially with point & shoot cameras), are you sure the problem is the film? Despite Kodak's disingenuous advertising of late, a slower film will NOT in and of itself mean darker pictures than a faster film. Consider two pictures taken of the same object with the same lighting, one taken with 400 speed film and one with 200 speed. To simplify things, let's assume that the f-stop (lens opening) is the same for both pictures. The 200 speed film will require twice as much light falling on it to properly expose. That would make the shutter speed twice as long (for example, 1/30 second vs 1/60 of a second for the 400 speed film). Both pictures will be properly exposed. The slower (200 speed) film won't be darker than the 400. There may be color differences between the pictures since we're using different films. If there was really a lot of light (so that our shutter speed differences were 1/500 second for the 200 speed vs 1/1000 second for the 400 speed), the 200 speed will possibly look better (assuming that slower speed film has finer grain and that this can be discerned in 4x6 prints). If there wasn't much light, all things again being equal, the 400 speed print may well look sharper because the shooter couldn't hold the camera as steady at the slower shutter speed required by the 200 speed film. If you wound up with dark pictures, it is more likely a problem with the exposure (the camera calculated the exposure incorrectly, thus underexposing the picture), there was a mistake at the lab in developing the film, or (most likely) the lab didn't properly print the picture. Print film has a lot of latitude. You can overexpose or underexpose a good bit and still get an okay print. Most labs (especially the one-hour places) don't adjust the exposure time for each individual negative in your roll of film. They use some kind of average exposure time calculated in some way. That could cause some pictures to print as overexposed and some as underexposed. A simple test would be to take the negative of one of the dark pictures and have a reprint made. That would tell the tale, I believe. Another possiblity that occurs to me is that you might have used a disposable camera. Those have a fixed aperture and (I believe) a fixed shutter speed (as well as fixed focus). Every picture is exposed the same. The camera can't make any adjustments for differences in lighting. They're counting on the actual printing to make the pictures look okay. I could see a camera like that resulting in severely underexposed pictures in dim light. A reprint from a negative would still be interesting in such a case. Hope I haven't confused the issue. May all your future pictures be keepers.

Mike

I'm thinking it could be the camera. The outdoor pictures from the entire trip came out underexposed if there was very much contrast (like evening shots). Photos taken closer up or in more even lighting turned out better. It's a Point & Shoot I bought at Costco. It was the demo model and could have been damaged. It was a typical case of "I want it and I want it now!" so I bought the floor model. The camera takes great photos indoors.

Thanks.

Cathy