Best negative film for both landscape and portraiture

nicowestlicht · Apr 14, 2015

Hi everybody,

I am getting ready for a long trip in the nature in Iceland, and apart for landscapes I would like to picture locals on the same film. I will use my Mamiya 7II: a good compromise of medium format quality and portability, though I won't be able to change backs like on the Hasselblad. On the other hand, using one unique film medium has the advantage of yielding uniformity and consistency to the whole project. That said, I would like to know what is in your opinion the best negative film for both tasks, in terms of color rendition and realism. I am leaving the dias (Fuji Velvia/Provia) out of discussion because of their strong saturation, but if you have good arguments I can change my mind on that.

Thank you in advance for your suggestions!

Cheers,
Nico

polyglot · Apr 14, 2015

Portra 160 is the obvious answer. Fuji Pro160(N)S would be just as good though slightly less fine-grained.

Ektar has more snap (nice for landscape) but it's really easy to get red faces with it on caucasians, especially if they're cold!

nicowestlicht · Apr 14, 2015

Hi polyglot,

Thanks for the feedback! I was indeed considering Ektar and Portra, no direct experience with the Fuji Pro160 up to now. Actually the 160 ISO might also help me out in situations of cloudy/stormy weather...

polyglot · Apr 14, 2015

Yeah, but note that the pro-series neg films really really do not like under-exposure. Consumer films like Gold and Reala seem to be very conservatively rated for speed, which makes them pretty safe when you're not real accurate with exposure.

Ektar and Portra: not so much, and you can expect to get no more shadow detail from them at box speed than you would from a chrome. Personally, I treat Ektar like a chrome and shoot it at 80 to 100 with super-careful metering, and I shoot Portra 160 at about 100-125 just to be on the safe side. That's not so much over-exposure as to cause pastel issues or affect contrast, but it really reduces the chances of colour-cast issues in the shadows where one colour layer has dropped off its toe and the others haven't.

If you like Portra 160, then try the 400 too. It's not much more coarse, but then it shouldn't be because it's only a stop faster. I shoot it at about 250-320, again to prevent shadow issues, and it's fine enough to make a good 16x20" from 6x7. If you want to get the most from your 7 though, you will need to be using Ektar and TMX/Acros/Pan-F.

Personally I like the Fuji colours (awesome greens & purples) better than the Kodak colours (powerful reds/oranges), but that's just me. Plenty of people with the opposite taste...

BrianShaw · Apr 14, 2015

Ditto the Portra 160 and Ektar recommendation

DREW WILEY · Apr 15, 2015

You could try Porta 400 as a compromise or for its faster speed. But I'd rather go the two-film route of Portra 160 vs Ektar. Regarding the latter, Ektar can be a bit fussy if you don't understand it. It's less forgiving than Portra, and more akin to slide film in terms of needed
careful exposure. Dealing with color casts is largely just a matter of understanding when to use warming filters just like competent chrome
film shooters did for decades, until the lazy mentality of the digital revulsion arrived and everyone forgot how to do things. I generally carry an 81A filter for coolish overcast, and an 81C for deep shadows under open blue skies. It also helps to have a light pink skylight filter for high altitude or minor color temp issues. Easy enough. Working with mixed lighting, with some in open sun and some in deep shadow is
a bit more challenging, but doable, but requires some explanation which, as usual, the Jughead types will instantly object to. Let's just say,
Ektar is for adults, and if you prefer to sniff glue and worship Justin Bieber, it might not be the best film choice for you.

BrianShaw · Apr 15, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
... but requires some explanation which, as usual, the Jughead types will instantly object to. Let's just say,
Ektar is for adults, and if you prefer to sniff glue and worship Justin Bieber, it might not be the best film choice for you.

Very poetic; I love it!

Tom Taylor · Apr 15, 2015

The last time I went traveling by air I took two camera bodies: 645NII Pentax and a Nikon F6, one leaded with Acros and the other with Portra 160, and a series 0 Gitzo tripod (I shoot everything off a tripod).

Thomas

I.G.I. · Apr 15, 2015

nicowestlicht said:
......I would like to know what is in your opinion the best negative film for both tasks, in terms of color rendition and realism.

Cheers,
Nico

Appreciation of colour is a very personal thing. With that proviso in mind I would say that Ektar is my favorite. I find its colour rendition and palette exquisite - even the dullest scene looks charming and poetic on Ektar (I am not talking about mere saturation here though it can vary with exposure).

In contrast I find Portra rendition excruciatingly bland and boring, to such a degree that I promised myself never to shot it again (pity Ektar is not available in higher ISO when one needs it). I gather Portra was conceived to appeal to the sensibilities shaped by the digital "neutrality".

From what I have seen there is another quality film I find very interesting in terms of colour rendering though I haven't tried it yet; it is more subtle compared to Ektar, but is pricier. The "new kid on the block", Cinestil, is available in daylight ISO 50 and tungsten ISO 800; one needs an 85B filter to shot the later in daylight. And the bad news is that, AFAIK, it is available only in 35mm format so the only way you can try it on Mamiya 7 is shooting panoramas (not a bad idea actually, considering you will be in exotic location shooting mostly lanscapes).

As with regard to the subject of Realism, there is more than enough realism in most photography.... what most photographers aim at is producing intriguing suggestive and moving images, but that only happens when one transcend the mundane reality.

nicowestlicht · Apr 16, 2015

polyglot said:
Personally, I treat Ektar like a chrome and shoot it at 80 to 100 with super-careful metering, and I shoot Portra 160 at about 100-125 just to be on the safe side. That's not so much over-exposure as to cause pastel issues or affect contrast, but it really reduces the chances of colour-cast issues in the shadows where one colour layer has dropped off its toe and the others haven't.

So if I have understood correctly, you overexpose a little bit and then you let the films be developed at their nominal speed?

nicowestlicht · Apr 16, 2015

I.G.I. said:
In contrast I find Portra rendition excruciatingly bland and boring, to such a degree that I promised myself never to shot it again (pity Ektar is not available in higher ISO when one needs it). I gather Portra was conceived to appeal to the sensibilities shaped by the digital "neutrality".

My only concern is related to the fact that normally Portra is the standard film for portraits, and since I also have to deal with portraits within the same project, I have to take it into account. Unless somebody can convince me with some sample portraits shot with Ektar I am actually googling around to find comparisons...

I.G.I. · Apr 16, 2015

As I said, appreciation of colour is a very personal thing; and in general artistic choices are absolutely arbitrary. If not convinced look at the cinema shot in colour - from pale bleak and harsh colours for dystopian narratives to ultra saturated pastel or tinted palettes for fantasies or period stories... turns out absolutely anything can be suitable to portray people as evidenced by the work of the most illustrious in cinema (I cite cinema as an example because is closer to home; painting imo is too different and the comparisons with photography end too imprecise). Therefore, at the risk of starting a polemic, I would say that the "unsuitable" Ektar and the "suitable" Portra for portraits is a myth and convention of a subset of hobbyist photographers.

I have a few samples in mind which I can post when I have time to dig and scan the negatives.

polyglot · Apr 16, 2015

nicowestlicht said:
So if I have understood correctly, you overexpose a little bit and then you let the films be developed at their nominal speed?

Normal development for sure. An extra 1/3 to 1/2 stop of exposure may help and certainly won't hurt. If you're going +1 or +2 stops, expect to see flatter highlights though.

nicowestlicht said:
My only concern is related to the fact that normally Portra is the standard film for portraits, and since I also have to deal with portraits within the same project, I have to take it into account. Unless somebody can convince me with some sample portraits shot with Ektar I am actually googling around to find comparisons...

Are you scanning or wet-printing? There are many many examples of nice portraits made with Ektar, scanned and posted online, because the scanner gives you enough flexibility to bring the saturation down and make an appealing portrait. Conversely if you're scanning, it doesn't much matter which film you use at all so you can make Portra super-saturated and popping in digital post. In fact, it's probably easier to transform Portra into a cheesy monster than it is to bring Ektar back to sanity, but (if it matters to you) you will get more resolution from Ektar.

If you want to make RA4 prints however, you will (IMHO) struggle to make a nice portrait with Ektar. You can make a good landscape print with Portra, but it will be more suited to scenes needing subtlety rather than drama.

DREW WILEY · Apr 17, 2015

If one errs with color neg film exposure, it should be slightly toward overexposure rather than underexposure. Some people find this helps
with some of the Ektar complaints with excess blue. But it's not the correct cure, which would be color temp correction. And of course, there are monkeys who claim they can fix anything in Fauxtoshop afterwards, but once you look at their results it's kinda half-baked at best. I won't go into the technical reason for this here, but there is a firm explanation if someone happens to understand dye curves. You
need to get it right at the time of the exposure. But per the immediately preceding post: Sure, you could make lovely portraits with Ektar under the right conditions. I once routinely made portraits with chrome film and printed them on Cibachrome, and Ektar and RA4 papers are nowhere near as contrasty and saturated as that. But let's just say that Ektar probably isn't the best choice for taking High School yearbook pictures of kids with a lot of zits. Soft lighting and smooth complexions maybe. For typical people shoots I'd rather have either of the Portras, or maybe something Fuji color neg. Ektar is more difficut horse to break; but once you've mastered it, it's a helluva film. I can actually get more accurate colors in nature with Ektar than with Portra, and there's a technical reason for that too. In fact, I can reproduce
certain hues I couldn't previously bag with either chrome film or previous color neg options. No film is perfect at everything, not by a long
shot. So it helps to have options.

I.G.I. · Apr 18, 2015

nicowestlicht said:
Unless somebody can convince me with some sample portraits shot with Ektar I am actually googling around to find comparisons...

Sorry for the delay with the samples. As it turned out all my examples of human complexion on Ektar were shot either under unfavorable light (in deep shade on a sunny day with yellow and brown walls reflecting back), or are night shots under the harsh and mixed city lights. Therefore, depending on your reasoning, you can either conclude that my examples are not representative since the typical portraiture lighting is much more flattering; or an equally valid argument could be mounted that my samples are especially revealing of the Ektar colour since all were shot without special consideration to get "the best" skin tone.

Please bear in mind that by coincidence all samples were shot at the height of summer in central Europe, and most faces are tanned to varying degrees (bar the waitress in white shirt in the first crop who appear pale and pink).

And lastly, I deliberately added a sample on Fuji Pro 160 (very close and competing with Portra; here shot in the much more favorable morning light) just to emphasize that the differences Ektar vs Fuji Pro in skin tone are more subtle than popularly assumed.

(no need to tell these crops are huge magnifications)

I.G.I. · Apr 21, 2015

nicowestlicht said:
..... sample portraits shot with Ektar I am actually googling around to find comparisons...

Hi again,

I just stumbled upon a thread here on APUG you may find beneficial as it discuss the subject of Ektar's qualities.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Check in particular what member (there was a url link here which no longer exists) has to say at the end of page 3, and his images on Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnymartyr/5783542136/in/photostream).

And lastly, picked up from the threat linked above, at some point Vogue chose a portrait shot on Ektar as their "Photo of the Day"

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Not to sound boastful, but all these just prove my point that one can use any of the quality films irrespective of the subject.

RobC · Apr 21, 2015

I would have thought the question should be, ow are you going to convert to print? If you are scanning then I'd say Provia. If you print from neg to paper then it would be a combination of of neg and paper which I can't advise on since I don't know.

nicowestlicht · Apr 22, 2015

I.G.I., thanks a lot for the picture samples and the link, they are really self-explanatory. In the end, since I use to scan from negative, any subtle tonal adjustment can still be made in post-processing. I have decided to give all these films a try: this weekend I will start shooting a mix of landscapes and portraits with both of them and then decide myself which one suits me better... probably this is the best solution.

I.G.I. · Apr 22, 2015

Glad to hear you found the samples informative.

Good luck on your trip!

RobC · Apr 22, 2015

nicowestlicht said:
I.G.I., thanks a lot for the picture samples and the link, they are really self-explanatory. In the end, since I use to scan from negative, any subtle tonal adjustment can still be made in post-processing. I have decided to give all these films a try: this weekend I will start shooting a mix of landscapes and portraits with both of them and then decide myself which one suits me better... probably this is the best solution.

This is why i suggested Provia. It has neutral colours and you aren't going to need to work out colour adjustments just to remove a negatives inbuilt colour printing mask from the scan.

Looking at someone elses scans from negatives really only tells you how their scanner and colour adjustment has worked. It won't tell you the settings you need on your setup to achieve the same, whereas scanning postives removes that problem from the equation. But I digress and this sort of talk is really for Dpug and not Apug and you are probably best advised to ask your question there saying you intend to scan for output and are happy to apply post scan colour correction actions if that is the case.

Doc W · Apr 22, 2015

polyglot said:
Portra 160 is the obvious answer. Fuji Pro160(N)S would be just as good though slightly less fine-grained.

Ektar has more snap (nice for landscape) but it's really easy to get red faces with it on caucasians, especially if they're cold!

I agree with your choice but, speaking as a Caucasian from a cold country, my face is always red, either from the cold or from drinking beer on the patio during our six week summer.

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 22, 2015

nicowestlicht said:
My only concern is related to the fact that normally Portra is the standard film for portraits, and since I also have to deal with portraits within the same project, I have to take it into account. Unless somebody can convince me with some sample portraits shot with Ektar I am actually googling around to find comparisons...

Here's some examples of portraits shot with Ektar:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

RobC · Apr 22, 2015

Those should show up well for a non subscriber. :confused:

TheFlyingCamera · Apr 22, 2015

Happy now?

skysh4rk · Apr 22, 2015

nicowestlicht said:
I would like to know what is in your opinion the best negative film for both tasks, in terms of color rendition and realism.

I can't say what's best, but I can share some of my results with films that I've used for both portraiture and landscape. These were all developed and scanned by the same lab. Obviously your own experiences may differ from these depending on your workflow.

To be frank, all of these films are great. If anything, the weakest link in all of these is me, not the film stocks. I usually just buy whichever one is cheapest, which is why I have a freezer full of 160NS.

Fuji Pro 160NS

Fuji Pro 400H

Kodak Portra 400

Best negative film for both landscape and portraiture

nicowestlicht

polyglot

nicowestlicht

polyglot

BrianShaw

DREW WILEY

BrianShaw

Tom Taylor

I.G.I.

nicowestlicht

nicowestlicht

I.G.I.

polyglot

DREW WILEY

I.G.I.

Attachments

I.G.I.

RobC

nicowestlicht

I.G.I.

RobC

Doc W

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

RobC

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

skysh4rk

Best negative film for both landscape and portraiture

I.G.I.

I.G.I.

I.G.I.

Attachments

I.G.I.

I.G.I.

Membership Council

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency