Best Nikon color photographers

[Paul Howell]

As an addendum, developing the negative/postiive side, I got this from AI :

are there photographers famous for shooting color negative film?

• William Eggleston: Eggleston primarily used color negative films like Kodak Vericolor and later Portra for his prints. His work, such as the vivid, everyday scenes in William Eggleston’s Guide, showcases the muted yet rich palette of color negative film, which was key to his pioneering color photography.
• Stephen Shore: Shore extensively used color negative films like Kodak Vericolor and Fujifilm stocks for his Uncommon Places series. The film’s dynamic range and subtle color shifts helped him capture the American landscape with a documentary-like clarity and warmth.
• Joel Meyerowitz: Meyerowitz often worked with color negative films such as Kodak Ektacolor (not to be confused with Ektachrome) for his street photography and Cape Light series. These films allowed for the soft, natural tones that defined his exploration of light and color.
• Nan Goldin: Goldin’s raw, intimate images in The Ballad of Sexual Dependency were shot on color negative films like Kodak Portra and Fujicolor, which gave her work its characteristic grainy texture and saturated, emotional hues.
• Alec Soth: Known for his large-format work in projects like Sleeping by the Mississippi, Soth used color negative films (e.g., Kodak Portra 400) to achieve the lush, detailed tones that define his lyrical documentation of American life.

tell me for each of those photographers what was their camera of choice (this one I asked to annoy people who don't want brands mentioned ) Eggleston's Canonet is da bomb...

• William Eggleston:
  • Camera: Leica M-series rangefinders (notably Leica M3 and M4) and Canonet G-III QL17.
• Stephen Shore:
  • Camera: Rolleiflex 2.8F (medium format) and later a Deardorff 8x10 large-format camera.
• Joel Meyerowitz:
  • Camera: Leica M-series rangefinders (primarily Leica M4) and Deardorff 8x10.
• Nan Goldin:
  • Camera: Leica M-series (often Leica M6) and Nikon FM2.
• Alec Soth:
  • Camera: Deardorff 8x10 and later a Mamiya 7 II (medium format).

So mostly no Nikon for negative film...uhhmmm

The debate between slide vs. negative film has been going for a very long time. Slide film became the film of choice for commercial and magazine photographers due to how color work was printed for mass market. Nat Geo used slide film, in the 60s Ansco later Kodak. But for printing Kodak recommended negative film. In the 70s the Air Force moved from black and white to color portraiture of commanders and first sergeants we used negative film. With E6 we could have to make a mask to control the contrast. Then you had a 3rd generation print that would lose sharpness. First the slide, second the inter-negative with mask for the final print. When projecting it was a frist generation slide or a copy that had contrast controlled with a mask. Cibachrome improved the slide to print as there no need for a inter negative, but you still need a mask. As there are no direct postive color material such as Cibachrome and most labs scan either slides or negative film unless your are optically printing color not sure if make much of differance. If you want an optical print, then the only practical option is negative. film.

 

[pierods]

So you've got your money in the wrong brand. I think you need to give up photography.

I also think that basically daily, for the reason you cite and other reasons as well (the cost of film also). But I am hooked now, I tried for many years to give up and could not.
In any case most of my photos are black and white, for which Nikon suits me perfectly.

 

[AZD]

I think this is a question based on enthusiasm, which is great. Let’s be inspired rather than insipid.

The practical reality is that the introduction of the Nikon F system and its rising dominance among professional journalists roughly coincided with the apex of print media, and their standard practice was to use positive film. National Geographic is probably THE prime example. Not every contributor always used Nikon. Many supplemented with Leica, some used another SLR system. But generally speaking, NG had a recognizable look about it, though I wouldn’t ever say I could spot a Nikon image.

Anyway, my answer, because he hasn’t been mentioned yet: Nathan Benn. Here’s an interesting read:

Nathan Benn The Life of a Photographer at National Geographic Before D

The Life of a Photographer at National Geographic Before DigitalPublished online courtesy Santa Fe New Mexicanby PAUL WEIDEMAN, SANTA FE NEW AMERICANAUG 31, 2013Nathan Benn's "Fourth of July, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1980." Benn traveled the world, shooting photos for National Geographic...

www.medicinemangallery.com

Autofocus and Canon eventually stole many of the pros, especially those who captured fast action. Fast and greatly improved print films, along with early scanners, displaced reversal film. By the late 1990s digital was good, and by the 2000s had become the new standard, and came along with its own new look.

FWIW, I love my film Nikons and assortment of pre-ai lenses. For me the system just works without being fiddly or annoying. National Geographic was awesome. Still is.

 

[pierods]

The debate between slide vs. negative film has been going for a very long time. Slide film became the film of choice for commercial and magazine photographers due to how color work was printed for mass market. Nat Geo used slide film, in the 60s Ansco later Kodak. But for printing Kodak recommended negative film. In the 70s the Air Force moved from black and white to color portraiture of commanders and first sergeants we used negative film. With E6 we could have to make a mask to control the contrast. Then you had a 3rd generation print that would lose sharpness. First the slide, second the inter-negative with mask for the final print. When projecting it was a frist generation slide or a copy that had contrast controlled with a mask. Cibachrome improved the slide to print as there no need for a inter negative, but you still need a mask. As there are no direct postive color material such as Cibachrome and most labs scan either slides or negative film unless your are optically printing color not sure if make much of differance. If you want an optical print, then the only practical option is negative. film.

Ah! Got the point.
I am very curious now as to how the photos from these masters of negative were different from the photos of masters of positive (the mentioned Steve McCurry etc). Saturation, perceived sharpness, general "look", maybe dynamic range...

 

[pierods]

I think this is a question based on enthusiasm, which is great. Let’s be inspired rather than insipid.

The practical reality is that the introduction of the Nikon F system and its rising dominance among professional journalists roughly coincided with the apex of print media, and their standard practice was to use positive film. National Geographic is probably THE prime example. Not every contributor always used Nikon. Many supplemented with Leica, some used another SLR system. But generally speaking, NG had a recognizable look about it, though I wouldn’t ever say I could spot a Nikon image.

Anyway, my answer, because he hasn’t been mentioned yet: Nathan Benn. Here’s an interesting read:

Nathan Benn The Life of a Photographer at National Geographic Before D

The Life of a Photographer at National Geographic Before DigitalPublished online courtesy Santa Fe New Mexicanby PAUL WEIDEMAN, SANTA FE NEW AMERICANAUG 31, 2013Nathan Benn's "Fourth of July, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1980." Benn traveled the world, shooting photos for National Geographic...

www.medicinemangallery.com

Autofocus and Canon eventually stole many of the pros, especially those who captured fast action. Fast and greatly improved print films, along with early scanners, displaced reversal film. By the late 1990s digital was good, and by the 2000s had become the new standard, and came along with its own new look.

FWIW, I love my film Nikons and assortment of pre-ai lenses. For me the system just works without being fiddly or annoying. National Geographic was awesome. Still is.

Oh, great link!
I do mostly b/w, with Nikon, but I love to do some color now and again. Of course digital is better, more practical, all that jazz, but I value the special look of color film (and I don't have any digital camera...), so I am trying to understand how the great photographers of the film era used color film, what were their results, if they maybe chose this camera or the other camera with this film or the other film etc.

 

[GregY]

The debate between slide vs. negative film has been going for a very long time. Slide film became the film of choice for commercial and magazine photographers due to how color work was printed for mass market. Nat Geo used slide film, in the 60s Ansco later Kodak. But for printing Kodak recommended negative film. In the 70s the Air Force moved from black and white to color portraiture of commanders and first sergeants we used negative film. With E6 we could have to make a mask to control the contrast. Then you had a 3rd generation print that would lose sharpness. First the slide, second the inter-negative with mask for the final print. When projecting it was a frist generation slide or a copy that had contrast controlled with a mask. Cibachrome improved the slide to print as there no need for a inter negative, but you still need a mask. As there are no direct postive color material such as Cibachrome and most labs scan either slides or negative film unless your are optically printing color not sure if make much of differance. If you want an optical print, then the only practical option is negative. film.

lets not forget the lost art of dye transfer prints.

 

[mshchem]

Well, Dad didn't do any of the actual developing.
He was Customer Service manager, which meant he and his department had all sorts of dealings with the customers that sent film or cameras for repair to the lab, including those who actually visited the lab, along with the customers of the wide array of Kodak dealers in Western Canada who participated in the system where customers could go into their local store, drop off their Kodachrome for development, go back a day or two later and pick up their developed slides or movies.
As well as the customers who put their exposed Kodachrome into the free convenience mailers included with the film, put some stamps on the mailer, and dropped them in the mail, with the reasonable expectation that they would have the developed slides and movies back to them in a few days, courtesy of Canada Post.
All without additional cost to the customer because, in Canada, Kodachrome was sold with the cost of processing and those other auxiliary handling services included in the purchase price,
Dad and his department handled the dealings with Canada Post too.
In its heyday, we are talking about thousands and thousands of films - much of which was movie film.
A bunch of Ektachrome as well, but the processing of Ektachrome had to be paid for.
Dad did have contact with Fred Herzog though - because Fred Herzog was convinced that the Kodachrome lab in Palo Alto was the very best at developing Kodachrome. So despite all the evidence to the contrary, he did his best to have all his Kodachrome forwarded there.
Which meant interacting with Dad's responsibilities - Fred would bring the film to the lab in North Vancouver where Dad was based and have one of Dad's employees fill out the necessary order form to have it sent for processing in Palo Alto California, to be then returned to the North Vancouver for pickup by Fred.
All without extra charge, I believe.
In case you didn't realize it, if you visited Canada back then and bought some Kodachrome, and then took it back to the USA to have it processed by tour local Kodak lab, they would have also processed it for you without extra charge - the "process paid" status of the film was encoded on the cassette and the film itself.

Hey Matt. Well when I say your Dad developed Kodachrome, I mean he was part of the team. I tell people I made refrigerators. I was the materials engineering manager (polyurethane foam, plastics and metal) for Raytheon/Amana, Maytag, and Whirlpool.

I remember growing up we would go on 3 week vacations, camping, my Dad would keep his Kodachrome in the Ice chest. Dad used the pre-paid processing mailers for Kodak processing, the mailers used 2 first class stamps (I think a total of 12 cents). I think he always used the Chicago lab as that was closest to our home. Sometimes our slides would beat us home, that was a treat.

I used Kodak labs for everything until they disappeared, a great loss!!! Somewhere I have a set of prints 3 1/2 x 5 inches made from Ektacolor type S that I shot 50 years ago this summer still beautiful!

Tremendous that your Dad got to interact with the dealers and customers (Fred Herzog) of the lab, that would have been a great experience!

 

[AZD]

Some more examples, more or less contemporary:

Larry Niehues - Nikons and miscellaneous color print film.

Mike Brodie (aka The Polaroid Kid) - Polaroid originally, then Nikon F3 and Portra 400

Dan Eldon - Nikon FA and a basic 50mm lens, any film he could get, and WAY more enthusiasm than most of us will ever have.

 

[btaylor]

For me the choice between negative and positive color film was explained in your AI generated list. Color negative back in the day had much more pronounced grain and considerably subtler color saturation than reversal film. I shot a lot of Kodachrome in Super 8 and 35mm (stills)- lots of contrast, big color, 35mm that looked like it could have come out of a 4x5. Carefully shot S8 could look like 16mm it was so fine grained and sharp. Reversal was also considered more archival.

 

[pierods]

Some more examples, more or less contemporary:

Larry Niehues - Nikons and miscellaneous color print film.

Mike Brodie (aka The Polaroid Kid) - Polaroid originally, then Nikon F3 and Portra 400

Dan Eldon - Nikon FA and a basic 50mm lens, any film he could get, and WAY more enthusiasm than most of us will ever have.

Wow thanks, brutal image from Niehues

 

[MattKing]

The choice of film was based on what was being done with the results.
That included what processing resources were available to the photographer and/or their employers.
At one time, the dedicated operated by Kodak Kodachrome processing line located at National Geographic headquarters in Washington DC had the highest Kodak operated lab 35mm Kodachrome slide volume in the world - all of which came from National Photographic photographers. The other Kodak operated Kodachrome processing labs may have had higher total volumes, but much of that volume came from movie film (mostly), plus some 126, 828, even 110 film.
In the case of many photo journalists, the same applied to the choice of camera systems. In many parts of the world, Nikon provided robust and effective service and support to their newspaper and magazine customers, so those newspapers and magazines supplied their photographers with Nikon SLRs.
When Canon overtook Nikon in the support and service for professionals market, many/most switched.
Professional photographers switched whenever the new tool seemed more appropriate for their use. They mostly didn't care what the name on the camera said.

 

[AZD]

More:

Peter Turnley - Nikons, Leicas, black and white.

Mary Ellen Mark - Nikons, Leicas, black and white.

Fabio Ponzio - Nikons, Leicas, black and white.

Breaking the theme somewhat:

Toby Deveson - Nikkormat, 24mm, TMax 400

 

[pierods]

The choice of film was based on what was being done with the results.
That included what processing resources were available to the photographer and/or their employers.
At one time, the dedicated operated by Kodak Kodachrome processing line located at National Geographic headquarters in Washington DC had the highest Kodak operated lab 35mm Kodachrome slide volume in the world - all of which came from National Photographic photographers. The other Kodak operated Kodachrome processing labs may have had higher total volumes, but much of that volume came from movie film (mostly), plus some 126, 828, even 110 film.
In the case of many photo journalists, the same applied to the choice of camera systems. In many parts of the world, Nikon provided robust and effective service and support to their newspaper and magazine customers, so those newspapers and magazines supplied their photographers with Nikon SLRs.
When Canon overtook Nikon in the support and service for professionals market, many/most switched.
Professional photographers switched whenever the new tool seemed more appropriate for their use. They mostly didn't care what the name on the camera said.

Got ya.
But what about film? When making these switches, did they also switch between positive and negative?

 

[MattKing]

Got ya.
But what about film? When making these switches, did they also switch between positive and negative?

If their customer or their employer changed their requirements they did.
Or if they changed their preference for output media or process, they did.
On the art photography side, Jeff Wall was one of the largest single users of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome transparency materials, when he was making his wall size, backlit images from that. So while he was doing that he shot his images on large format transparency film.
When he switched to different projection/display media, he may have switched film - he did eventually switch to digital capture.
Many people on Photrio start from the camera and film and work forward. Most photographers who did this commercially or professionally or in support of their artist career started from the final output and/or the employer supplied resources and made their camera and film choices based on them.
I referred to Fred Herzog earlier. In his "day" job he was a photographer and photographic technician at the University of British Columbia, and would have used the camera equipment supplied by UBC - which was probably Nikon for when an SLR was appropriate. He also travelled extensively and took wonderful photos as a result of that - which we rarely see. He probably preferred his Leicas for that, because of their size (I don't know for sure).

 

[Pieter12]

Many sports photographers switched to Canon when their long telephoto lenses proved superior (sharper & faster). Also, when digital hit the commercial and photojournalist market, in short time Canon surpassed Nikon. I know a lot of commercial photographers who dumped all their Nikon film gear and bought Canon systems.

 

[Paul Howell]

Many sports photographers switched to Canon when their long telephoto lenses proved superior (sharper & faster). Also, when digital hit the commercial and photojournalist market, in short time Canon surpassed Nikon. I know a lot of commercial photographers who dumped all their Nikon film gear and bought Canon systems.

The Canon EOS system changed everything. Prior to EOS Nat Geo, the Air Force, Army, newspaper, the wire were by and large Nikon users. The System non only included the body but the motor drives, finders, screens and lens. So when looking at moving from say Nikon F2 to Canon F1new or Pentax LX you needed a entire e new system. When AF came along Canon came out with a new mount, lens all micro motor driven. Nikon stuck with the F mount so the AI and AIS lens could be used in most exposure modes in manual focus. But, why but why buy and expensive F4 and not have AF lens? So at that point the choice was get the best AF system, which was Canon EOS 1. In the world of AF Canon became the new Nikon. The gray L glass lens became the standard. I've not be able to confirm but the story is that NASA used Nikon as Canon L glass lens used a floride element that would hold up the vibration of a space launch.

 

[Paul Howell]

lets not forget the lost art of dye transfer prints.

when the Phoenix Art Museum had the last AA exhibit they had the same color shot in Monument Valley, one dye transfer one Cibrachrome. The Cibrachome version had what I think was more punch, or contrast, but the place card stated that AA like the dye transfer as it look like poloriod film. In the late 80s there was an artical in Peterson Photography about dye transfer prints, at the time the frist print cost $300, additnal pritns were $20.

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Ernst Haas (March 2, 1921 – September 12, 1986) was an Austrian-American photojournalist and color photographer. During his 40-year career Haas trod the line between photojournalism and art photography. In addition to his coverage of events around the globe after World War II Haas was an early innovator in color photography. His images were carried by magazines like Life and Vogue and, in 1962, were the subject of the first single-artist exhibition of color photography at New York's Museum of Modern Art. He served as president of the cooperative Magnum Photos. His book of volcanophotographs, The Creation (1971), remains one of the most successful photography books ever published, selling more than 350,000 copies.[1]

Ernst Haas - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Given this work, it would be an insult to the photographer to ask which 35mm camera he used to take his photos. In truth, it doesn't matter at all.

It was probably a Leica, since that was a common 35mm camera at the time.

But as @pentaxuser rightly points out: Without knowing the OP's motivation and his evaluation criteria, this thread will collect 100 more photographers' names. Completely pointless.

 

[GregY]

thanks, I am interested in photographers using Nikon cameras.

my point was that the "best colour photographer w a Nikon".....doesn't make the list of the greatest mountain photographers....

 

[Andreas Thaler]

Of course digital is better, more practical …

"Better"

I'm better, I have the better camera, I have the better film - all right?

Sorry, but what does "better" mean?

It's like a potential without a reference point in electronics, a term that hangs freely in the air.

Please demand more from the forum

 

[Andreas Thaler]

My question for you is, are you old enough to have lived the golden age of color film? What is then the matter with positive film being perceived as superior? Was it justified? Kodak had a ton of color negative films (vericolor, gold, kodacolor...) and probably tens of others were available from other brands.

I'm old enough

Slide film was the easiest to process.

As a positive film, it can be viewed immediately after development. There's no color ambiguity, as it's standard, and there's no conversion or individual filtering like with negative.

Films like Kodachrome 64 and 25 were also known for their sharpness.

However, slide film is more demanding in terms of exposure, as it has a narrower exposure range than negative film. Also, there are no correction options available with the positive process, nevertheless prints from slides could be made, see

Ilfochrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[pierods]

I'm old enough

Slide film was the easiest to process.

As a positive film, it can be viewed immediately after development. There's no color ambiguity, as it's standard, and there's no conversion or individual filtering like with negative.

Films like Kodachrome 64 and 25 were also known for their sharpness.

However, slide film is more demanding in terms of exposure, as it has a narrower exposure range than negative film. Also, there are no correction options available with the positive process, nevertheless prints from slides could be made, see

Ilfochrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks Andreas,

so to sum it up, there were the commercial photographers who chose whatever film suited the job best, and then there were the "art" photographers who had more freedom.

So when they had the freedom, what film did they choose?

Today...(going back to "better") I would chose a certain digital camera based on how it would render a certain photo, so that would be "better" for that photo/scene, and that camera would give me either a print or a screen image or whatever.

From the information gathered so far, I understand that they would choose negative film to make prints to be sold in galleries for example, and probably also because negative films gave them more latitude in exposure when taking their photos.

Also between the photographers that were cited, the ones who worked with negatives were not natgeo but more freelance or "art" types.

At the same time, it appears to me that photos from negatives also had a quite different, ("colder"?) look.

Like this from Stephen Shore:

 

[Pieter12]

The Canon EOS system changed everything. Prior to EOS Nat Geo, the Air Force, Army, newspaper, the wire were by and large Nikon users. The System non only included the body but the motor drives, finders, screens and lens. So when looking at moving from say Nikon F2 to Canon F1new or Pentax LX you needed a entire e new system. When AF came along Canon came out with a new mount, lens all micro motor driven. Nikon stuck with the F mount so the AI and AIS lens could be used in most exposure modes in manual focus. But, why but why buy and expensive F4 and not have AF lens? So at that point the choice was get the best AF system, which was Canon EOS 1. In the world of AF Canon became the new Nikon. The gray L glass lens became the standard. I've not be able to confirm but the story is that NASA used Nikon as Canon L glass lens used a floride element that would hold up the vibration of a space launch.

A couple of years ago I saw a Nikon F2 with a charred body at a camera repair shop. It had been used, along with a bunch more, to photograph a rocket launch. But the assistant forgot to securely close the latches on its protective enclosure and the camera nearly melted. However, it was later serviced and continued to be used. The photographer (from Lockheed, I think) liked to use it to shoot executive portraits to hint that he needed new equipment.

 

[MattKing]

t the same time, it appears to me that photos from negatives also had a quite different, ("colder"?) look.

Like this from Stephen Shore:

Have you ever seen the original dye transfer prints? That image you have shared may very well be from a more recent print. The original image was from 1975 I believe.
Have you compared those with the Cibachrome and R type prints that would have been available from transparencies back then?
Again, the decision about film was determined mostly by what the presentation medium was going to be.
As well as by the processing resources available.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Any of these color media could look either great or wretched, depending on the skill of the printer and the appropriateness for any given specific image. All kinds of films were used.

There was nothing "colder" about C prints. Color neg film itself trended warm. That particular Shore image just happens to have quite a bit of blue in it. Just look at the warm tinge of the sidewalk concrete and road asphalt. It was shot on 8X10 color neg film, like nearly all his early work. It certainly doesn't belong in a 35mm camera thread. Most of his images were a play of pumpkin orange versus poison green according to the native repro flaws of Vericolor L. He began by making 8X10 contact prints on Ektacolor paper, then consigned his C-print enlargements to a big NYC lab. I don't recall any DT's of Shore's work. These guys weren't either rich or famous when they started out.

Dye transfer printing was (and still is) the most malleable process, but also labor intensive and expensive. R (reversal) prints were inexpensive and made directly from chromes, and were the least permanent. Cibachrome was the doom of R printing, but being more deluxe, warranted extra masking steps to optimize it. In the meantime, C-prints as well as color negs have dramatically improved.