Best option for color 35mm film?

[ToddB]

Hey guys,

I've been really enjoying shooting with my Canon QL17 rangefinder. I was wondering, what brand of color 35m film would really bring out the best of this camera?

Todd

 

[Athiril]

Same with any other camera really.

ProFoto XL is good, Ektar, Portra 160, Portra 400, Velvia, Provia, Precisa, take your pic.

 

[darkosaric]

More important is your personal taste (do you like saturated colors, which subjects you are photographing ...) than a camera.

 

[ToddB]

I've been rolling with Fujicolor Superia 400 ASA.. It's alright.ext buy, I thin I'll take someone suggestion on the others.

Todd

 

[darkosaric]

Todd, where are you located? Different areas have different films cheap and available. Here in Germany you can buy cheap Agfa Precisa and Kodak Gold - so I would recommend those if you live here.

 

[ToddB]

I live in New Mexico USA. There is a camera store called Camera and Darkroom, that still carries stock film. I might try a roll of the Provia or one of the others mentioned. Balloon Fiesta is in a couple of weeks. I've looked at other image done with QL with color on Flickr. There are some stunning image with color shot with this camera. There is something wonky about this message board.. When I type, it skips characters. Weird

Todd

 

[bernard_L]

Save yourself headaches: use negative color and save the reversal (transparency) for special occasions. Choosing among negative emulsion is a matter of personal taste and finance, so I won't give advice there. Make sure shadows get enough exposure, and let highlights care for themselves (within reason).
"There are some stunning image with color shot with this camera" Stunning, like, stunning colors? Due to camera or due to saturation slider?

 

[ToddB]

Both.. Obviously the people on Flickr probably do some minor adjusting to images before they post. I think using better color film with this might help.

 

[railwayman3]

There are no "bad" films available now, it is, as others say, a matter of personal taste, when you like the highly saturated results from Velvia, or the
softer shades from Portra and similar. Another important point is the quality of processing and printing (or scanning)....IMHO this is as important as the choice of film; cheap consumer film with good process and print can look better than a "professional" film spoiled by poor work in the lab.

 

[Rick A]

Whatever color negative film you choose, over expose it by one third to one half stop. If you decide on slide film, under expose by 1/3 stop. This will help saturate colors.

 

[alienmeatsack]

These are my special shooting films...
- Kodak Ektar 100 - For fine grain and slightly saturated colors and vivid images
- Kodak Portra (Any speed) for excellent images across the board

These are my day to day, affordable films:
- Fujifilm Superia Xtra 400 - Slightly cool and sometimes a little grainy
- Kodak Gold/Ultramax 400 - Slightly warm and always a bit grainy


You'll get outstanding results from most any newer E6 films when processed E6, but they are expensive, so I'm with bernard_L on the using them for special special occasions side of things.

And as said above, it all will depend on your location, weather and season, your personal preferences etc.

I'd try Flickr, Lomography, find photos with you camera and make notes of what films catch your attention.

Learn from doing. It's fun!

 

[ntenny]

Both.. Obviously the people on Flickr probably do some minor adjusting to images before they post. I think using better color film with this might help.

You shouldn't *have* to manipulate in the digital realm to get high saturation if that's your thing, though certainly many people do. Velvia 50 is the traditional prescription for that look---to my taste it's a little too much, and I generally prefer Provia (which is also less finicky about exposure).

There are people who prefer color negative to color transparency film, but I've found the latter to be less of a hassle, especially in hybrid workflows (which though off-topic here, technically, are important for a lot of people---also, in my experience, a well-exposed transparency doesn't really require massaging in digital post, so doesn't really need to be any more "hybrid" than scanning a wet print would be). Try some of each and see what you think?

For any color film, you may want a warming filter to keep the shadows from looking "too blue" (really, shadows *are* blue, but a film that shows that honestly doesn't look perceptually right to most people). An 81B filter is typical.

-NT

 

[Alan Klein]

What subjects are you shooting? If people, you'd want a neutral film that best captures natural colors and normal skin tones, like Portra, a negative film. If you want colors that pop a little for let's say landscape pictures, than Ektar 100 negative film or my favorite, Velvia 50 transparency. If you plan on printing from the film, then stick with the negative type films. If you plan on projecting or scanning to post on the internet or printing from the scan, then Velvia or other transparency films will work as well as negative film although I find that transparencies scan better for me.

 

[Wallendo]

You will probably spend much more money on developing than on the original film, so don't put too much emphasis on film price. Another issue is that most consumer labs will "auto correct" the images which may take away some of the individuality of the films.

I wouldn't bother with slide film until you feel comfortable with print film. To really be appreciated, E-6 films need to be projected onto a white screen in a darkened room. E-6 film can be more challenging to use, but the efforts are worthwhile, I just would start with something easier.

I would start off with Fuji Superia (most house brand films in the US are Fuji film) or Kodak Gold. These are both inexpensive films with good latitude, and give good results in most situations. From there you could go with Ektar for more saturated colors or Portra for more realistic colors.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Like mention before go with Fuji Superia.


Jeff

 

[cliveh]

Hey guys,

I've been really enjoying shooting with my Canon QL17 rangefinder. I was wondering, what brand of color 35m film would really bring out the best of this camera?

Todd

None, you have to bring out the best with your camera.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Save yourself headaches: use negative color and save the reversal (transparency) for special occasions. Choosing among negative emulsion is a matter of personal taste and finance, so I won't give advice there. Make sure shadows get enough exposure, and let highlights care for themselves (within reason).
"There are some stunning image with color shot with this camera" Stunning, like, stunning colors? Due to camera or due to saturation slider?

Kodak Portra 160
Kodak Portra 400

 

[ntenny]

I wouldn't bother with slide film until you feel comfortable with print film. To really be appreciated, E-6 films need to be projected onto a white screen in a darkened room. E-6 film can be more challenging to use, but the efforts are worthwhile, I just would start with something easier.

This may be good advice at its root, but I took it WAY too seriously when I first started shooting color. It's easy to get the idea that slide films are totally unforgiving monsters that can only be shot competently by about three highly practiced super-genius photographers in the whole world, and it turns out that's just typical internet overstatement.

They *are* less forgiving about exposure than print films, but really I think that in normal lighting conditions, anyone who can use a meter, or any autoexposure camera that's considered a decent performer, should be able to shoot E-6 films Just Fine.

-NT

 

[Alan Klein]

Years ago, every Tom, Dick and Harry used 35mm slide film for their family and vacation shots to show with their projector on a screen. Kodachrome, Ektachrome, etc. No big deal. If they can do it, so can you.

 

[pdeeh]

I scanned a few hundred of my family slides from the 60s and 70s last year - almost without exception shot on 126 snap cameras, the most sophisticated of them having two exposure settings: Cloudy and Sunny.

Kodachrome-X, Ferrania and own-label stuff all of it.

None of them would make NatGeo, but on the other hand only a small proportion were grotesquely over or under exposed.

 

[Athiril]

You shouldn't *have* to manipulate in the digital realm to get high saturation if that's your thing, though certainly many people do. Velvia 50 is the traditional prescription for that look---to my taste it's a little too much, and I generally prefer Provia (which is also less finicky about exposure).

It depends on the acquisition device, at minimum you should level off the black and white points so you actually have black and white rather than dark grey and light grey, and more often than not with colour negative scans is that they're a lot more open and low in contrast and saturation than printed in the dark room, as you can scan the entire scale of the negative, but not print it, as well as the RA-4 paper left these days for printing is saturated and contrasty typically.

Same goes for slide, you may need to level it off and adjust saturation to match a light table look. It's easier to match this since both are rear projected/transparency, rather than one reflective and one projected (screen).

I live in New Mexico USA. There is a camera store called Camera and Darkroom, that still carries stock film. I might try a roll of the Provia or one of the others mentioned. Balloon Fiesta is in a couple of weeks. I've looked at other image done with QL with color on Flickr. There are some stunning image with color shot with this camera. There is something wonky about this message board.. When I type, it skips characters. Weird

Todd

I would try some form of Velvia given your description if it's not ridiculously priced and processing is affordable.

Also what makes a huge difference can be a polariser, which is useful in more than just sky/clouds.

Ektar, no polariser
Stream #4 by athiril, on Flickr

Ektar, polariser
Stream #3 by athiril, on Flickr

 

[Fixcinater]

This may be good advice at its root, but I took it WAY too seriously when I first started shooting color. It's easy to get the idea that slide films are totally unforgiving monsters that can only be shot competently by about three highly practiced super-genius photographers in the whole world, and it turns out that's just typical internet overstatement.

They *are* less forgiving about exposure than print films, but really I think that in normal lighting conditions, anyone who can use a meter, or any autoexposure camera that's considered a decent performer, should be able to shoot E-6 films Just Fine.

-NT

Wholeheartedly agree with this. I brought 20 rolls of slide film with me (Provia, Velvia, Astia, some older expired Kodak stocks) on vacation last year and used my iPhone and brain as meter for my Pentax 6x7. I have 3 frames from all of those rolls that are what most people would call bad exposures.

A little common sense (thinking of Sunny-16 and the modified versions appropriate to your situation) will do you just fine. The Canonet meter is pretty solid in general and you can easily compensate for back-lighting as needed.

I'd shoot some slide film if you never have, it's a blast, but now I'm addicted to 6x7 format slides which are hard to scan, hard to print so not good for much beyond looking at them with a loupe. That's fine by me but might not be for you.

 

[Roger Cole]

This may be good advice at its root, but I took it WAY too seriously when I first started shooting color. It's easy to get the idea that slide films are totally unforgiving monsters that can only be shot competently by about three highly practiced super-genius photographers in the whole world, and it turns out that's just typical internet overstatement.

They *are* less forgiving about exposure than print films, but really I think that in normal lighting conditions, anyone who can use a meter, or any autoexposure camera that's considered a decent performer, should be able to shoot E-6 films Just Fine.

-NT

I totally agree. I got the same impression back in the late 70s/early 80s WRT developing color films of both varieties and color printing. I jumped in and did it anyway and found that not only did it not require anything super human, it wasn't even all that hard. Same with slide film.

Of course as you say they are a lot less forgiving than negative film, but quite workable. I don't agree with routinely underexposing by 1/3 stop, partly because they already have limited range and you're pushing any low shadow areas right off the cliff, but also because you're giving up most of the latitude they DO have. Done perfectly, with a narrow range scene, this can work but as a routine matter I recommend aiming for spot-on exposure. Of course some films you may find with your particular meter need a setting different from the box (not common with E6, except maybe Velvia at 40, but could happen) but that's different from an intentional underexposure.

 

[Roger Cole]

Wholeheartedly agree with this. I brought 20 rolls of slide film with me (Provia, Velvia, Astia, some older expired Kodak stocks) on vacation last year and used my iPhone and brain as meter for my Pentax 6x7. I have 3 frames from all of those rolls that are what most people would call bad exposures.

A little common sense (thinking of Sunny-16 and the modified versions appropriate to your situation) will do you just fine. The Canonet meter is pretty solid in general and you can easily compensate for back-lighting as needed.

I'd shoot some slide film if you never have, it's a blast, but now I'm addicted to 6x7 format slides which are hard to scan, hard to print so not good for much beyond looking at them with a loupe. That's fine by me but might not be for you.

They can be projected but the projectors are EXPENSIVE and sometimes rare.

A medium format, but probably only up to 6x6, projector is on my wish-list.