I have a wedding to photograph in a couple of weeks, and once
again, the
film choices have changed on me. I don't shoot a lot of weddings
anymore, and tend to shoot either black and white or chromes,
for a variety of reasons.
I will be using Kodak film for this, but am undecided about
whether Portra or Supra would be the better choice.
So, a bit of background about this wedding. I will be doing
it completely on 35mm colour negative film. There will be no
studio portraiture, we will be going to our local legislative
building to do photos amid the marble columns of the Grand Old
Lady of the Wascana.
When I was doing this sort of stuff years ago, I would use a
tripod, hold the flash above the camera and drag the shutter
speed down to around a 15th second to allow good fill from the
primarily tungsten lights. This imparted a beautiful warm glow
to the picture that I found very pleasing.
With this in mind, would I be better off with
Portra or Supra?
I haven't really shot much Portra, and no Supra at all, but
I trust Kodak to provide good picture quality no matter which of
their
films I choose. What sort of differences are there between the
two groups?
Also, I will be shooting 400 speed to maximize the available
light without compromising the shutter speeds over much. Is one
or the other noticably less grainy? When I ran my resolution
tests two winters ago, I thought the Portra 400 to be
surprisingly grainy, much more so than I was expecting. Have
they improved it? Is this an area that the Supra is better?
I do thank you for any advice you can give.
thanks
Bill
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
