Ektar 100 or 160VC to take to Africa.

[Hollis]

I am reposting this from my blog...

'''I am more than likely going to be taking my hasselblad to Africa with me (I know, heavy, clunky etc. etc. but we get along so so nicely) and I need to figure out which film to take with me. I have been shooting 160VC for some time now and am comfortable with it but I really really like what I am seeing from the new Ektar 100. I have a propack here at the house that I need to test next week and get processed. Depending on those results, I guess I will make my decision but I am leaning heavily towards the Ektar 100. Nothing like a leap of faith into the Dark Heart of Africa with strange emulsions....'''


So, if only one film could be brought, which one?

[venchka]

I like both. Maybe 60-40, Ektar is the 60. Are you taking more than 1 film back?

If you held my feet to the fire, 1 film only............probably 160VC. For the extra bit of speed.

[Bruce Watson]

Easy enough: Portra. The Ektar stuff doesn't come in LF sizes.

[Gene McCluney]

Easy enough: Portra. The Ektar stuff doesn't come in LF sizes.

But it does come in the 120 size the OP was asking about.

[Mark Sampson]

I think they're both too contrasty and over-saturated. I'd take Portra 160NC, or 400NC if you're thinking about early/late shooting. You can always boost contrast and saturation in post-production, but you can't get back the subtlety of colors that you didn't capture in the first place. I think that this especially holds true with the ultra-contrasty modern Zeiss lenses, but of course it's a matter of taste.

[Robert Fisher]

160nc

[BrianShaw]

The only experience I can relate is vicarious:

My brother went to deep, dark Afrika on a photo safari a few years ago. He took a Nikon F-100, about 500 pounds of IS zoom lenses, and 6 million rolls of "I don't remember which" E-6 film. (Perhaps I exaggerate a bit, but that's the impression I had when I saw his equipment pile up.) Two problems he encountered were: 1. luggage and carry-on weight limitations (I think he had to leave his shoes and underwear at home in lieu of the lenses/film; and 2. tremenous difficulty managing the equipment and film bulk whilst safari-ing

Most of the better shots he took were with really high-focal-length zoom; some of the wide-angle landscapes are really nice too, though. He had a similar experience with a trip to Galapagos. Now he is using one of the Nikon "D" cameras, the same 500 pounds of IS zoom lenses... but only has to carry 5 or 6 SD high-capacity cards. His total bulk has been considerably reduced, and he can now skip the scanning phase when he does the inevitable post-production touch-ups.

Since I'm not quite that sophisticated, I'd opt for a C-41 film. Having not yet tried the Ektar i can't say that would be my choice... but I probably would shoot some before ruling it out and going with the old standby -- Kodak Gold 200 (if taking 35 mm) or Portra 160 (probably a mix of NC and VC) for MF.

I, personally, wouldn't take MF but would go 35mm for speediness and ease-of-use. One suggestion that I twice made to my brother, which he twice rejected and now twice has regreted ignoring me, was to take a monopod.

Whatever you take, I suggest you take a monopod!

[Bruce Watson]

But it does come in the 120 size the OP was asking about.

My bad. I thought since he was posting on the LF forum, it was an LF question. I saw the reference to Hassy but it didn't register.

[PViapiano]

Take a bit of both films, this way you're familiar with one and then the Ektar is your new one. It won't be terrible...just remember that these kinds of trips are once-in-a-lifetime so work to get your best results.

I'd also bring along a 35mm, but that's me...

[Hollis]

All good advice. I think I am going to go with the 100 ektar for a few reasons. Granted, this is all conjecture until actually test it but, I have better things to do, like track down visas and such. So, as for the safari, Im not going to be going on safari. The wildlife that I enjoy shooting (no pun, really) are ones that can shoot back, i.e., strife, war, hunger and all those pesky little things that normal people try and avoid.

Im sick of portraNC due to its piss poor scanning qualities (for what I want to get out of it) but do find a sheet or two placed around the house helps deter guests from setting drinks on the tables.

As for the speed between 160 and 100, it is negligible at the best of times and over there, totally irrelevant. There is no magic hour or subtle ease into evening. The sun is up and it is hot and then the sun is totally gone and it is hot. It really does happen that fast.

As for weight and baggage, Im not worried. All I am taking is a tent (4 pounds), water filter (1.5 pounds), small solar panel (3 pounds), 2 pair pants, 4 pair socks, 2 pair underwear and 2 pair shirts. 1 jacket. 1 hat. All the weight will be in the hassy+1 back+80mm lens and the canon digital, 2 lenses, cards and charger. It should all come in under 40 pounds and I am only taking one backpack. When obtaining and carrying food and water is not an issue, I can travel like this for upwards of 6 months.