120mm Colour Film for People Photographs

[Masuro]

I am going to Australia next month and I'm going to bring Ilford Delta 100 for black and white shots and Fuji Velvia 100 for landscapes and general colour photography. I'm going to be travelling with friends so I will want to take some pictures of them as we travel. Can someone recommend a colour film that will give good skin tones? Please suggest a couple of films because product availability in Korea might be different than in your country.

 

[Ian Grant]

Why not use the Velvia for your people shots ?

If you want to use colour negative film then Fuji's 160S is superb, and readily available in Korea or Australia.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For skin tones I like Fuji Astia for transparencies, Kodak Portra 160NC for negs.

 

[Vonder]

For skin tones I like Fuji Astia for transparencies, Kodak Portra 160NC for negs.

David spoke my mind exactly. Be careful with Astia in mixed lighting though. I've gotten some pretty weird results. Can ANY film handle flash and fluorescent lighting other than B&W?

 

[Masuro]

Why not use the Velvia for your people shots ?

Thanks for the suggestions. I've read that Fuji Velvia tends to give people reddish faces. Perhaps I should look at the Fuji website for some example pictures.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I agree with David that Kodak Portra 160NC is great, it is primarily what I use. I have had good results as well, however, from Fuji 160S. I don't use transparency film for people pictures, so no advice there except to say that you are likely to get better skin tones and a more natural look from a lower contrast film such as Astia.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Another vote for Astia, but it's not available in 120mm. As far as I'm aware no film is. Fuji does sell Astia in 120 though; that's about 60mm wide.

First on-line images I've seen from new ISO 50 "Velvia II" indicate it might not be as horrible for people as the original was. No Fuji Web sites yet seem to have any technical data or product brochures posted yet though.

 

[DrPablo]

At least for outdoor shots Astia 100F is just gorgeous for people shots. It even looks pretty good for some scenery shots under lighting that would be too harsh for Velvia.

For print film I've really fallen for Kodak Portra 400VC. It is not nearly as saturated as the saturated slide films, but I find it gives a bit more life to the colors than the NC version.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak Portas NC [Normal Color] and VC [Vivid Color] are good for portraits. Kodak UC [Ultra Color] can be used for portraits, but I would never use it for a wedding.

Steve

 

[Tamas]

Personally I like the Kodak Portra films, whether is the 160 or the 400NC it works very well with pastel colors... and of course you still have some f-stop correction in the print in case you have misread it with your meter, unlike the chrome film sisters there is no room for mistakes ...

 

[kaygee]

I'm another huge fan of the Kodak Portra films. NC is great for portraits, beautiful tonal range with that one. I've used ultra colour for portraits too, and they always pop.

 

[Richard Harris]

I don't know about transparency film but for negative use Fuji pro portrait for contrasty light. But, if the light is flat, then the punch of consumer film will please the eye more, especially if you wish to sell or even give friends prints. Pro print film is often designed to allow Black to white detail (e.g. weddings dresses and Morning coats) in high contrast light. In low contrast light, like cloudy Great Britain and often in Japan, Pro fuji film can look horribly flat and muddy. Kodak, I think, offer some ultra emulsions in their pro range which address this problem but Fuji consumer film is cheap.
BTW I read in Chasseur d'image a very good french magazine that most French pros use Fuji sensia film (old pre digital days here) rather than Provia or Astia for normal work because, the shot is more important than the film. You don't want to worry about film costs, Digi users don't.

 

[Masuro]

Another vote for Astia, but it's not available in 120mm. As far as I'm aware no film is. Fuji does sell Astia in 120 though; that's about 60mm wide.

Oh, dear. I'm like the guy in Monty Python that always says numbers multiplied by two. Other than that, I'm perfectly all right.

Thank you all for the comments. I will have a look at those films.

 

[DrPablo]

BTW I read in Chasseur d'image a very good french magazine that most French pros use Fuji sensia film (old pre digital days here) rather than Provia or Astia for normal work.

If I'm not mistaken Astia and Sensia are the same thing, just marketed differently. In 35mm Sensia is less expensive, as it's marketed to consumers.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

Astia wins for me as far as tranparency film goes for people. Use a bounced flash indoors. It pushes one stop just fine maybe even two if its natural light stuff. The nice print stuff in any of the pro portrait films. Fuji or Kodak, they are all really nice and not contrasty at all. They are a bit muted in color though next to Astia. I like the punch of chrome but the print film is nice too. Any of those and you can't go wrong.

Hope it helps.

D.

 

[Masuro]

I haven't seen Astia in Korea so that's not an option for me, unfortunately.

 

[Silverhead]

Astia and Sensia are definitely not the same thing. I shot Sensia for many years when on staff for a music magazine back in the '90s, and I remember well the difference between Astia & Sensia when the former came out. Sensia is a great film for people-shooting since it nails the skin tones so well. Definitely not as punchy as Valvia, but then again, it's not supposed to be.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Fuji 400 NPH is pretty nice, I think. Nice neutral color.
- Thomas

 

[Richard Harris]

I think silverhead has just confirmed what Chasseur d'image said. Sensia is a good all rounder but Provia, Astia and Velvia are better suited to their relative strengths. I love Provia but shoot negative film most of the time.

 

[waynecrider]

I use NC myself. The prints films are much preferable in contrasty lighting especially during mid day and you have the better exposure range.

 

[fschifano]

If you are going for C-41 print films, then I've got to agree with those who have recommended Portra NC 160. The stuff is drop dead gorgeous to my eye - good color rendition and not excessively saturated. It's perfect for skin tones and has a very wide latitude. If you need more speed, then Portra NC 400 will fit the bill very well. The equivalent Fuji products are good too, but I'm less familiar with them. If you plan on scanning the film yourself and playing with the images in insert name of your favorite image editing software here, then your choice becomes less critical. As far as transparency films go, I don't recommend them unless you're planning slide shows. All of them offer very little latitude, making them terribly unforgiving of stupid photographer mistakes. And that is something we all do quite well.

 

[benjiboy]

Confused

Another vote for Astia, but it's not available in 120mm. As far as I'm aware no film is. Fuji does sell Astia in 120 though; that's about 60mm wide.

First on-line images I've seen from new ISO 50 "Velvia II" indicate it might not be as horrible for people as the original was. No Fuji Web sites yet seem to have any technical data or product brochures posted yet though.

What is 120mm film Sal ?, I think you are mistaken, 120 is just a number for a type of film that is roughly 60mm wide, not a size. When Kodak started making roll film in the 19th century they started numbering them with the number 100 so 120 was the 20th film type they produced, as 35mm(135) was the 135th.

 

[Helen B]

What is 120mm film Sal ?, I think you are mistaken, 120 is just a number for a type of film that is roughly 60mm wide, not a size. When Kodak started making roll film in the 19th century they started numbering them with the number 100 so 120 was the 20th film type they produced, as 35mm(135) was the 135th.

Ben,

I read Sal's post to be correct, and it seems to say the same as your post - that there is no 120 mm film, but there is 120 film, and it is 60 mm wide.

Best,
Helen
PS So 110 was the 10th film that Kodak produced, and 126 was the 26th? It seems to be too much of a coincidence that 35 mm film was the 35th (not 135th) film that Kodak produced. Surely they just put a '1' in front of the width? A helpful and easily remembered designation for a cassette of 35 mm film rather than a plain roll of 35 mm film - because 35 mm film predates 135 cassettes.

Then I Googled and found this:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/tphs-filmnumbers.html

 

[Nick Zentena]

Maybe but 120 came after various other same sized films. I think 120 was supposed to be 12 6x6. The older films were 6x9 I guess by 8. Then somebody figured out you could put more then one set of numbers on the paper backing and sell the same film for multiple cameras.

 

[benjiboy]

Ben,

I read Sal's post to be correct, and it seems to say the same as your post - that there is no 120 mm film, but there is 120 film, and it is 60 mm wide.

Best,
Helen
PS So 110 was the 10th film that Kodak produced, and 126 was the 26th? It seems to be too much of a coincidence that 35 mm film was the 35th (not 135th) film that Kodak produced. Surely they just put a '1' in front of the width? A helpful and easily remembered designation for a cassette of 35 mm film rather than a plain roll of 35 mm film - because 35 mm film predates 135 cassettes.

Then I Googled and found this:

http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/tphs-filmnumbers.html

Helen, this was a typo I ment to type 35th.