"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'm not sure about film choice though. 100 ASA gives better grain, but
you
have to use a slower shutter speed. 400 lets you use a faster shutter. I
haven't done tests (and I don't do it professionally) so I'm not sure
which is
better.

For what it's worth, last winter I tried out a (new to me) film Kodak makes,
that they call "High Definition". I found that, true to their claims, it
had significantly less grain than the same speed film of different
manufacturer, or even one of Kodak's other types.

I only tried it because I can't find their "Royal Gold" type anymore; as
near as I can tell from their web site, they don't make it anymore.

Anyway, I used to shoot 200, as a decent compromise between grain and speed,
and now I always use the 400 Kodak HD film.

That said, if you are shooting through clear windows (the ones in my plane
are tinted, and cut the light a bit...and of course, require color
correcting the photos later), and are shooting a brightly lit subject, and
using 100 ASA film is an option, that will give you the best results. As
the light is reduced however, what you lose in grain by using a faster film,
you make up for by not having a blurry photo.

If I were shooting professionally, I'd probably invest in a gyrostabilized
mount, and shoot medium format. At the very least, I'd use one of
Canon's optical stabilizing lenses. As an amateur, I don't shoot enough
frames to make it worth switching film according to lighting, thus the
compromise film.

Of course, these days, I'm shooting more and more digital anyway. Even my
little 5 megapixel Olympus turns out pretty great pictures. Once I've got a
digital SLR, I probably won't go back to film.

Pete