Films

by Markus Ehrenfried

ISO 100: Kodak Farbwelt/Gold/Ultra 100 and Fuji Superia 100

I think the Kodak ISO 100 film is called almost anywhere outside Germany 'Kodak Gold' or 'Kodak Ultra'. I never saw a difference between Farbwelt, Gold or Ultra, so I assume it is the same material or at least very similar. The Fuji Superia has like all new Fuji negative films 4 colour layers. It is hard to say which one is better. I'm not even sure if I could clearly distinguish Kodak and Fuji films by looking at the prints. Probably I couldn't. In general I had the impression that the ISO 100 Kodak films are more 'colourful' than the ISO 100 Fuji films whereas the Fuji films often appear to be 'clearer' and 'sharper' to me. I usually prefer Fuji Films nowadays.

ISO 400: Kodak Farbwelt/Gold/Ultra 400 and Fuji Superia X-TRA 400

In the ISO 400 segment the difference seems to be clearer to me. I used to be a Kodak fan, but I'm convinced now that the Fujicolor Superia X-TRA 400 film with four colour layers is better. I use this film almost exclusively for macro photography and I'm very pleased with both colour saturation and sharpness. Using ISO 400 instead of ISO 100 allows me to increase depth of field by stopping down the lens or using higher shutter speeds.

ISO 800: Fuji Superia X-TRA 800

Under extreme low light conditions this film can deliver surprisingly good results. Although there will be some grain, the colour saturation and contrast are impressive considering the high film speed. I wouldn't use this film for macros but for interiors when you cannot / don't want to use flash or a tripod this additional step in film speed might just be what you need! Click here for some example photos.

Black and white film

Sometimes I play with black and white film, but the problem is that b&w prints are usually four times as expensive as colour prints and the quality is not really satisfying. When I was 14 or 15 years old we had a small darkroom at school and I used to do my own prints. Without any experience then, I often produced better prints than what I get nowadays back from the labs. As I have no own darkroom available, I cannot say how good my b&w photos really are. I never was happy with the prints. The ISO 3200 films from Kodak and Ilford are quite impressive as they allow you to take photos without flash under extreme low light conditions. The pictures are very grainy, but to get a reasonable picture at all under these circumstances impresses me.

I tried also the Ilford XP2 ISO 400 film. This is a b&w film which can be developed in the C-41 process (like colour negative film). Therefore you can get it developed much faster than 'real' b&w film (-- where the labs wait until they have enough rolls to care about which often takes two weeks or longer). When it comes to making prints from XP2, you can choose between prints on b&w paper and prints on normal colour paper. They have both their disadvantages: prints on colour paper from b&w film always have a colour cast, i.e. black is not really black but dark brown or greenish or blueish. In the best case your pictures look antique when they have this brownish sepia tone, in the worst case they look just ugly. The labs claim they cannot control whether the prints will be brownish or blueish or greenish as it depends on the tuning and the mood of the printer on the day when your prints are made. (Note that also your colour prints made under the same conditions will have a similar colour cast, it is just not as obvious!) Therefore I wouldn't recommend to order b&w prints on colour paper and I wonder why the photo shops offer this at all; perhaps because it is the easiest for them as they can treat your XP2 film like normal colour negative film. The other option is to order the prints on 'real' b&w paper; in this case black will really be black. But this of course is again much more expensive (up to four times as expensive as a colour print of same size) and the labs usually do a bad job printing b&w (low contrast, wrong exposure, etc.).

Keep films in a cool place and use them soon

Of course it is not really necessary to store films at home in the fridge; on the other hand: it also doesn't hurt. But if you do that let them warm up until they reach ambient temperature in the closed film canister before you insert them into your camera! Otherwise humidity from the air will cause condensation inside your camera which -- if you are lucky -- only ruins the film. When travelling, storing films at a cool place is really important. If you park your car outside in the sun, the interior temperature can easily reach up to 60, 70 or 80 °C. So better don't leave your camera and the films inside this car! And make sure you lock the doors when you leave the children and the dog inside that car. It's surprising what get's stolen these days. Also use your films always well before the 'best before: ....' date. I occasionaly had some old films and used them anyway; the results were indeed not what I expected. Many shops sell films which are close to expire for a reduced price. Don't buy them, it might be a bad deal!

X-ray scanner at the entrance to the Vatican. (Rome, Italy, March 2004)
(c) Markus Ehrenfried

X-ray scanners at airports

The radiation from X-ray scanners at airports can damage (expose) your films. However, modern X-ray scanners (at least on most European airports) use only relatively soft and low intensity radiation. In addition, the radiation is not switched on permanently: if you watch the screen you'll see your bag coming into view and then stopping while the guard examines it; during this time, when the band-conveyor is not moving, the X-rays are blocked i.e. your bag is not constantly exposed all the time the guard is looking at it, he is just looking at a frozen frame.

I never could see any damage done to my ISO 100 to 400 films. With highly sensitive films (like ISO 1600, ISO 3200) you probably should be more cautious. I always put those into my shirt pocket and most metal detectors are not triggered by the tiny amount of metal in the film canister. By the way, it's actually worrying how much metal you need to trigger these walk-through metal detectors. Many airports set them to a threshold where they tolerate watches, cuff links and belt buckles. How do they expect to detect razor blades and carpet cutters? The only European airport I know of which really forces me regularely to remove belt, watch, cuff links, etc. is Zürich-Kloten. This is inconvenient but I would rather prefer the others to be a bit more thorough... would make me feel safer on board of planes.

At some US airports I was worried that the X-ray scanners might damage my films. In this case you should pack them in one of these transparent zip-lock bags (the ones you can also use for food in the fridge), take the films out of the containers (so the security people can clearly see that these are really films and not some sort of batteries you will use for igniting the bomb which is hidden in your shoes) and ask the guard to search them by hand. By the way: those little metal shielded X-ray protection containers you can buy at photo shops are of absolutely no use. Yes, they might block the radiation in the first place, so the container appears just to be opaque on the screen. You think the security people will be satisfied with this? The modern X-ray scanners automatically start increasing the intensity or energy of the radiation unless they can identify the content of your protection container. This is exactely what you want to avoid!

Being myself a physicist, I sometimes asked the people at the security gate how these machines work and if they are really film safe. I still hope to meet some day somebody there who has at least some basic knowledge about radiation and how this stuff functions....