6x6 Neg. or Tranny?

[rolleiman]

The increased cost of transparency film and rising lab processing charges, compelled me to start experimenting with colour negative film for the purposes of shooting stock images. I've been pleasantly surprised by the quality of recently launched films such as Kodak's 100asa Ektar. As well as the superb grain pattern (or lack of it!) it appears that on contrasty sunny days, the shadows don't "block up" so much as they are sometimes inclined to do on some tranny films. The longer apparent contrast range often appears to give more satisfactory scans.

My stock library has made no adverse comment on my scans from Ektar.....and being as colour neg is much easier to home process than transparency, this could go some way to cutting costs at a time when fees from stock material have taken something of a nose dive.

Have any other stock photographers made the change from transparency to negative film?

 

[Dr.Pain-MD]

I'm not a stock photographer by any means, but I love both color negs and slides. In my experience, color negs are a lot easier to shoot, but color slides are far easier to scan/color correct/etc. Both look great, so I see no reason why it should be a huge issue for you. Personally, I find Ektar to be hit or miss and really like the roll of Fuji Reala that I've shot. Give that one a try next just for comparison's sake.

 

[rolleiman]

I'm not a stock photographer by any means, but I love both color negs and slides. In my experience, color negs are a lot easier to shoot, but color slides are far easier to scan/color correct/etc. Both look great, so I see no reason why it should be a huge issue for you. Personally, I find Ektar to be hit or miss and really like the roll of Fuji Reala that I've shot. Give that one a try next just for comparison's sake.

Thanks for the tip re. Fuji Reala, I'm always willing to experiment, and I'll give it a try. It's not that I'm unhappy with the quality of transparency, more a case of the growing expense of buying it and getting it processed. The improvement in quality of recently lauched colour neg. films, makes using it for stock shooting more of a realistic prospect, as well as being cheaper to buy and process (particularly if you process your own). At a time of diminishing financial returns from stock photography, every saving in costs becomes an important consideration.

 

[landscapepics]

Whilst I can't pretend to make an income from stock, I have images accepted by stock libraries taken with both transparencies and negatives. Where I shop (live in UK, and usually buy film online from 7dayshop) the range of prices for slide and negative 120 film is roughly the same - both are in the £3.50 - £4.50 a roll range. I've processed both at home and don't find one any more difficult than the other (the main problem being avoiding dust and scratches which is common to both types).

Recently I have shifted from predominantly using Fuji slide films to predominantly using Kodak Portra negative film, largely because of the very wide exposure latitude. I have used Fuji Reala and like it a lot but I'm trying to concentrate on just one film type to reduce variability.

Portra is available in 35mm, 120, and large format, in speeds of 160, 400, and 800 - whereas Reala is limited to one film speed and to 355m and 120 sizes.

 

[vedmak]

I'm not a stock photographer by any means, but I love both color negs and slides. In my experience, color negs are a lot easier to shoot, but color slides are far easier to scan/color correct/etc. Both look great, so I see no reason why it should be a huge issue for you. Personally, I find Ektar to be hit or miss and really like the roll of Fuji Reala that I've shot. Give that one a try next just for comparison's sake.

latest Kodak reincarnation of the color neg has been optimized for scanning, or you can use Rollei with a transparent base, IMHO negative gives you much more room to work with than transparency