Color Film recommendations

[TareqPhoto]

Hey all,

As i asked the question in B&W film, i will ask same question here as well.

What do you recommend or your favorite color film for: Landscapes, Portraits, general,...etc?

Mostly for color i decided that i will give Velvia 50 as my favorite color film, but i will test another film as well, i didn't shoot film to decide yet.

 

[Stephen Schoof]

Velvia 50 is my favorite also for landscapes and general travel shooting. For negative I'd pick Ektar or Reala.

 

[williamtheis]

Velvia is fine if you like very saturated. However be aware that exposure is critical as this film only has a 4 to 4.5 stop range from highlight to deep shadow and 1/3 of a stop makes a big difference. Useful primarily only for very overcast days or in the shade. something like Provia is much more friendly and may be finer grain than Velvia and looks closer to reality. My favorite is Ektachrome 64 (having used it for many decades I know it's characteristics well) which has a nice blue response... for greens, Provia... for browns, Agfa

 

[mooseontheloose]

Hi Tareq,

Have you shot with Velvia? Do you plan on handholding your cameras at all, or will they always be on a tripod? 50 ISO can be pretty slow (depending on the light), and, like others have mentioned, Velvia is very saturated -- great for colourful landscapes, not so good for people. I like Velvia a lot, but since I shoot a variety of subjects on any given roll of film, I tend to shoot Fuji Provia (100 and 400) -- it's still quite saturated (not as much as Velvia) and people look a lot more natural as well. I've also been quite happy with Astia film as well -- it has a much more natural palette (great for people). If you want to shoot at night/dusk, you might want to try one of the tungsten films from Kodak or Fuji. For negative film you might want to try Kodak Ektar, or their Portra line of films, which come in natural and vivid varieties.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Thank you very much for the replies.
I have several film rolls i bought from USA when i was there in Oct 2009 for vacation, i bought Fuji, Ilford, and Kodak different film in color and B&W, i have Velvia 50 and 100 and Provia 100, so i will use them all anyway.
Yes, all my landscapes will be on tripod as i like to use longer shutter speed [slower than 1/10 up to seconds and minutes when i use filters].
It seems that Ektar is a good choice by you, i have Ektar 100 as well, also i will shoot my first color film with Kodak Porta 400NC on my Mamiya RZ67 II.

 

[Ap507b]

Really like Portra 160VC for portraits. Shot the NC & found it a bit flat for my tastes. Have also been really impressed by Ektar 100. For slides have been shooting Sensia 200 lately. Had read a few bad things about it & the grain, but I have been happy with it.

 

[TareqPhoto]

So what is the difference between a roll, a slide, a sheet and so?
Yes, color is due to personal taste, so like something a bit saturated, some like it less contrast or tones, i don't have anything personal, i may like them all.
I did asked ask a question about developing in B&W for B&W film, so here i want to ask, what chemicals do i need to develop color film? And what process is preferable? and is it by chemicals developing you get that different color effects as you want [Cross Processing or lomo, retro, saturation, monotone(blue, green, sepia,..) and so...]?

 

[mooseontheloose]

Tareq, that's a lot of questions. I'll have a stab at a few.

I haven't done any colour processing but from what I understand it's much more precise (with no room for error) than black and white processing, which allows you to experiment with dilutions, agitation, chemicals, etc. For colour it's almost always the same -- you can't really change the process of development (for the most part). In addition, if you get an enlarger you would need one that could do colour, as well as getting another set of chemicals for the paper. Black and white is a separate process (film, chemicals, paper) entirely -- from colour. The only exception would be chromogenic black and white films like XP2 that can be processed in colour chemicals.

As for process...it's really the film that makes a difference, not the process. There is a difference between slides (positive film) and negative film as well. If you want prints, go with negative film (like Ektar, Portra, etc). If you want to project slides, or maybe only scan them, then you could try positive film. You can cross-process slide film (E-6) in negative chemistry (C-41) but the look will be different depending on what type of film you use.

Film used to come in a great variety of sizes, but for the most part they now fall into 3 categories -- 35mm casettes, 120 (or 220) roll film, and sheet film. You're probably familiar with 35mm film, 120 film comes on a spool with a paper backing to block light -- it's used for medium format cameras and will produce different size pictures depending on the camera/back that you have 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, etc (that's centimeters). Sheet film is like a sheet of paper (but film), it comes in different sizes --4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and larger (that's inches). Each sheet is exposed and processed individually. Of course, the larger you go, the more expensive each frame becomes.

Hope that helps.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Tareq, that's a lot of questions. I'll have a stab at a few.

I haven't done any colour processing but from what I understand it's much more precise (with no room for error) than black and white processing, which allows you to experiment with dilutions, agitation, chemicals, etc. For colour it's almost always the same -- you can't really change the process of development (for the most part). In addition, if you get an enlarger you would need one that could do colour, as well as getting another set of chemicals for the paper. Black and white is a separate process (film, chemicals, paper) entirely -- from colour. The only exception would be chromogenic black and white films like XP2 that can be processed in colour chemicals.

As for process...it's really the film that makes a difference, not the process. There is a difference between slides (positive film) and negative film as well. If you want prints, go with negative film (like Ektar, Portra, etc). If you want to project slides, or maybe only scan them, then you could try positive film. You can cross-process slide film (E-6) in negative chemistry (C-41) but the look will be different depending on what type of film you use.

Film used to come in a great variety of sizes, but for the most part they now fall into 3 categories -- 35mm casettes, 120 (or 220) roll film, and sheet film. You're probably familiar with 35mm film, 120 film comes on a spool with a paper backing to block light -- it's used for medium format cameras and will produce different size pictures depending on the camera/back that you have 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, etc (that's centimeters). Sheet film is like a sheet of paper (but film), it comes in different sizes --4x5, 5x7, 8x10, and larger (that's inches). Each sheet is exposed and processed individually. Of course, the larger you go, the more expensive each frame becomes.

Hope that helps.

Yes ofcourse, it helped a lot.

So another question: Let's say we have two exactly same cameras and lenses, using same fill rolls on both of them, putting them close to each other with same exact settings to shoot one same subject both at the same time, and then unloading both film rolls and developing with different chemicals, will we get different results? same situations but we use different film rolls [but same ISO] and using same developing chemicals for both, will we get again different results? [assuming all the other factors are the same: temp, time processing,...]

So rolls are for 35mm and medium format, and the sheet or slides are for large format?

And you say if only scan then go with positive, so negatives can't be scanned or not good for scanning?

 

[naugastyle]

If you have the same black and white film in two of the same cameras and shoot a scene/subject in the exact same way and develop in different chemicals, you could get different results. It depends on which different developers you use.

If you have the same color film in two of the same cameras and shoot a scene/subject in the exact same way, you should get essentially the same results no matter which chemicals you use or whether you take the film to a lab.

If you start out with DIFFERENT films but process the same way, then it doesn't matter if it's black and white or color. There will be differences, all films have some unique traits. How much you will actually notice those differences depends on which films you're comparing, how you scan or print the photos, and how you yourself see them.

Negatives can be scanned just fine, mooseontheloose is not saying that they can't be scanned. It's more that slides (positives) are a finished product that don't NEED to be scanned, and that slides can't be printed easily (without scanning, that is). If you want prints, go with negatives.

 

[nickrapak]

So rolls arAnd you say if only scan then go with positive, so negatives can't be scanned or not good for scanning?e for 35mm and medium format, and the sheet or slides are for large format?

Not exactly. Sheet film is for large format. Slides are created with slide film, which is available in all formats from 35mm to 8x10. The film is processed as a positive, and becomes a "slide" when each frame is encased in a mount for projection.

And you say if only scan then go with positive, so negatives can't be scanned or not good for scanning?

No. Actually, negatives can be better for scanning, due to the inherent dynamic range of a negative. The advantage for positive film is that you have something you can visually compare the scan to, unlike a negative.

 

[TareqPhoto]

If you have the same black and white film in two of the same cameras and shoot a scene/subject in the exact same way and develop in different chemicals, you could get different results. It depends on which different developers you use.

If you have the same color film in two of the same cameras and shoot a scene/subject in the exact same way, you should get essentially the same results no matter which chemicals you use or whether you take the film to a lab.

If you start out with DIFFERENT films but process the same way, then it doesn't matter if it's black and white or color. There will be differences, all films have some unique traits. How much you will actually notice those differences depends on which films you're comparing, how you scan or print the photos, and how you yourself see them.

Negatives can be scanned just fine, mooseontheloose is not saying that they can't be scanned. It's more that slides (positives) are a finished product that don't NEED to be scanned, and that slides can't be printed easily (without scanning, that is). If you want prints, go with negatives.

Aha ok, in all cases i shouldn't care much how is the result will be as long if i do it correct or exposed properly, i saw different B&W results as well color, and most of them are really nice good enough, so i don't have a certain or specific look i am after, the most important is that i should ruin the film.

And yes, sure i want to print most of the film i will use.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Not exactly. Sheet film is for large format. Slides are created with slide film, which is available in all formats from 35mm to 8x10. The film is processed as a positive, and becomes a "slide" when each frame is encased in a mount for projection.


No. Actually, negatives can be better for scanning, due to the inherent dynamic range of a negative. The advantage for positive film is that you have something you can visually compare the scan to, unlike a negative.

I think i should see what is the slides or sheet and how they develop it, mostly by seen i can learn faster and understand more than i don't know what the items are, all what i know that negatives is that has to be scanned and processed to see the photo, or printed by a way to get the pics back out from the film roll or so.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I will try hard to see if i can find someone in my area who shoot and develop film to teach me

 

[Ektagraphic]

I like E100G and Rollei CR200. I am starting to adapt some of the Kodak Portra and Ektar every once and while. For 35mm I shoot the Elite Chrom 100 and 200.

 

[TareqPhoto]

I like E100G and Rollei CR200. I am starting to adapt some of the Kodak Portra and Ektar every once and while. For 35mm I shoot the Elite Chrom 100 and 200.

Good for you, i use only 120/220 film, no 35mm.

 

[Depth]

Portra is my favorite all-around film. My main use of it is portraits but I find it works great in a lot of other situations. Like in this photo it rendered the greens nicely.

I love the saturation of Velvia for landscapes but due to it being slide film it's trickier to use. It's not that big of a deal, just I usually spend more time metering for it to make sure the exposure is good. And crack out the GND when necessary.

 

[nickandre]

I think i should see what is the slides or sheet and how they develop it, mostly by seen i can learn faster and understand more than i don't know what the items are, all what i know that negatives is that has to be scanned and processed to see the photo, or printed by a way to get the pics back out from the film roll or so.

A slide is a white square of plastic or cardboard with a hole in it which has a transparent image contained in it. When you shine light through it, you can project it on a wall much like digital projectors today. A transparency or chrome refers to any transparent image. Sheet film refers to larger sizes of film, 4x5 inches or 8x10 or 11x14 or larger.

To get film to work, you put it into a camera, take pictures, and dunk it in chemicals at the correct temperature for certain amounts of time. You either get a negative, which you make prints from, or a slide, which you project. You can't really see any of that, besides what you get out of it. It's kinda dark.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I like Fuji Pro160S and Pro400H. Almost perfect films for my tastes. Ektar 100 is also very nice for certain subjects, but for landscapes and portraits I'll take the fuji films.

 

[jdimichele]

For colour film I only shoot slides, and my favourite film is Fuji Astia. It has extremely fined grain (currently the best RMS value) and has a very wide exposure latitude. It is a low contrast film which makes it all the better for scanning. It is also readily available. Compared to the other Fuji films, it doesn't have as much punch, but the colours are very nice and there are ways to get the desired saturation with post processing if desired. The one advantage to Astia being lower saturated is that it can be used for a wide variety of subjects from landscapes to portraits.


Cheers,
Jay
www.jasondimichele.com

 

[TareqPhoto]

I think i should get Fuji Astia, it seems one of great film all the time.

 

[Vonder]

You know, I used to recommend Fuji Reala as the best film in the world, but apparently it's not going to be sold in the USA any more. That's left me very sad. I ADORE that film. Fuji recently dropped it in 120 size altogether. Fuji Astia is my favorite slide film - I love the subtle colors, the way it projects and scans - but I doubt it will be available much longer either. No real reason for that doubt, just a gut feeling and dread.

Kodak 200 Gold is a good solid film. You could shoot a lot of it before you needed to look at anything else.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I like to use Velvia 50 or Porta.

Jeff

 

[TareqPhoto]

For now, because i love Landscapes Velvia 50 or Provia 100 will be the favorite for me, for something else [portraits, indoor,...] i will see which color film will satisfy me.

 

[maximus]

I think, that good recomendation for landscapes can be Fuji Reala from negatives, Kodak E100VS or Velvia from reversal films. For portrait better are Fuji Astia or Kodak E100G.