Color negative film for very large prints?

[cmo]

Currently I use Kodak 160NC for my landscape shots on 120 roll film. I prefer negative film because I believe that it can deal with higher contrast than slide film. If this is wrong, please explain.

My prints are often very large, I like to show many details, motifs often have high contrast, and I prefer natural color instead of that vivid Velvia look. Sharpness and very fine grain are important.

Other aspects - price, speed - are less important.

Is there a film that is even better suited for this purpose?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have made 16x20 and 20x24 prints from 35mm Kodacolor X which was a long time ago but still very good. Making prints that large from 120 is even better and with modern films should serve very well for you. You may want to use VC though for more saturated color.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Well, you might try Astia 100f, it may be the thing for you. Note also that you can preflash slide film, this has some benefits in a contrasty scene. But indeed, a slide film won't give you the range you may seek. The big question is how much contrast do you have in your scene; are you sure it is outside the range that a film like Astia can deal with?

But anyway, sure, you can print very large from colour print film. How large do you want? You can shoot fuji 160 in 8x10.... But even if you shoot much smaller formats, you can have your film drum scanned, and, I am told, an experienced drummer can adjust aperture to reduce appearance of grain.

 

[Pinholemaster]

I love Fuji Pro 160S on 8x10 sheet film.

 

[benjiboy]

I think I would use Fuji Superior Reala I use it in both 120 and 35mm it's 100 I.S.O is very fine grained and sharp, you don't say how big the prints you want to produce are, but I've had excellent 20"x16" from the 35mm stuff and 30"x40" from the 120 and they both were still of a quality that would would probably go bigger, try a roll.

 

[cmo]

Just some additional information:

- My biggest camera is a 6x7cm, and I have no plans to buy a camera for larger film format. 6x7 is heavy enough for my back and the biggest format I can deal with unless I use a tripod.

- I have a virtual drum scanner from Imacon and know pretty well how to use it. But I have reached the limits of this scanner and this film, I believe.

 

[craigclu]

I had some Superia 100 in the freezer when making a decision on what to use for some team photos that I was called upon to do on short notice (my son's high school ski team). They were to be made poster-sized and it was the only slow film that I had on hand (shot on a Mamiya 7 with 80mm). The results (24X30's) were quite stunning and every tiny detail of their equipment, threads in woven clothing, etc seemed to hold up well. It also handled the contrast range of a snowy background with deep colored equipment and clothing surprisingly well.

I realize this isn't a pro or esteemed emulsion but I wouldn't hesitate to go to it again for large print needs, especially when saturated colors are a benefit.

 

[Don Wallace]

Currently I use Kodak 160NC for my landscape shots on 120 roll film. I prefer negative film because I believe that it can deal with higher contrast than slide film. If this is wrong, please explain.

My prints are often very large, I like to show many details, motifs often have high contrast, and I prefer natural color instead of that vivid Velvia look. Sharpness and very fine grain are important.

Other aspects - price, speed - are less important.

Is there a film that is even better suited for this purpose?

Portra NC is one of my favourite films. I shoot it in 120, 4x5 and 8x10. It always worthwhile to experiment with different types of film. They all have their strengths, but for you purposes, Portra 160NC is an excellent choice.

Negative film does deal with higher contrast, for sure, but if you meter carefully and select lower contrast scenes, reversal film is also fabulous for landscapes. Both Kodak and Fuji have great reversal film (although I prefer the Kodak).

 

[david b]

Thanks for asking this question.

I am in the same situation. Slide film in New Mexico sun is horrible for most of the day.

I need to shoot all through the day and Fuji Astia 100f is not working for me,
so I guess I will be looking at some negative film too.

 

[cmo]

I think I would use Fuji Superior Reala I use it in both 120 and 35mm it's 100 I.S.O is very fine grained and sharp, you don't say how big the prints you want to produce are, but I've had excellent 20"x16" from the 35mm stuff and 30"x40" from the 120 and they both were still of a quality that would would probably go bigger, try a roll.

Okay, I will try that, thx.

 

[Aurum]

Biggest I have above the PC are a couple of 30x20" printed off Kodak Gold 100 35mm (IIRC-It was a while back)

They are just starting to show the limits of the machine they were done on and the limits of the lens, they wouldn't stand going much larger IMHO

With the more up to date film and bigger negatives.. Party time

 

[benjiboy]

I had some Superia 100 in the freezer when making a decision on what to use for some team photos that I was called upon to do on short notice (my son's high school ski team). They were to be made poster-sized and it was the only slow film that I had on hand (shot on a Mamiya 7 with 80mm). The results (24X30's) were quite stunning and every tiny detail of their equipment, threads in woven clothing, etc seemed to hold up well. It also handled the contrast range of a snowy background with deep colored equipment and clothing surprisingly well.

I realize this isn't a pro or esteemed emulsion but I wouldn't hesitate to go to it again for large print needs, especially when saturated colors are a benefit.

Superior Reala 100 (CS) which is the same film, is listed as a pro. film in the Fuji data guide Craig, but whatever it is I'm very impressed with it.

 

[2F/2F]

"Currently I use Kodak 160NC for my landscape shots on 120 roll film. I prefer negative film because I believe that it can deal with higher contrast than slide film. If this is wrong, please explain."

In my experience, this is only largely true due to the fact that 1. transparencies are positives. You expose and process "in the dark", and thereby largely commit to your final product before you ever see it. Highlights cannot be recovered, the same way shadows cannot be recovered with a neg. With negs, you have the extra, visible and non-committal interpretive step of printing available to you. and 2. 99% of people don't bother to process transparency film any way other than normal. If you apply the theories of speed testing, tonal placement, and development adjustments, you can take care of most of the problems you run into with excessive contrast when using transparency film. When you experiment a bit and learn how to work the media with precision, you will see that the main differences between pos. and neg. are 1. one of work flow. Transparencies are more direct, or at least they were in the heyday of analog printing houses. and 2. that transparencies are more pliable in processing. My personal preference is for transparencies. They can be pulled a huge amount compared to color neg. film, so, in my opinion, are much better able to deal with high-contrast scenes, *if* you have the benefit of sheet film or interchangeable magazines so that you can apply the proper development to the right exposures. However, given that most printers wouldn't call for a transparency these days, you would end up scanning anyhow, so again, the difference is negligible. So, what I do is C-41 to save money, if I know I won't need to pull a lot, and E-6 for when I need to pull.

However, if you want to make your own analog prints instead of scanning, using C-41 films will be a huge money saver, and is much more technically easy for the printer.

"My prints are often very large, I like to show many details, motifs often have high contrast, and I prefer natural color instead of that vivid Velvia look. Sharpness and very fine grain are important.

Is there a film that is even better suited for this purpose?"

Any 120/220 film will work. Experiment. Make your own decisions. You are already making huge prints, so you should know what works and what doesn't. What are you not getting now that you want to get? I can almost guarantee you that switching films won't give it to you. A switch in format: yes, but not a switch in film type.

 

[cmo]

In my experience, this is only largely true due to the fact that 1. transparencies are positives. You expose and process "in the dark", and thereby largely commit to your final product before you ever see it. Highlights cannot be recovered, the same way shadows cannot be recovered with a neg. With negs, you have the extra, visible and non-committal interpretive step of printing available to you. and 2. 99% of people don't bother to process transparency film any way other than normal.

I do like slides, because i can see what's on the image before scanning or printing it. But that is just one advantage, and I see many disadvantages.

All my work is "hybrid", I use a drum scanner. I minimize digital "enhancement", but must maintain control over contrast and color. I don't care whether I do some dodging and burning on a scan from a slide or a negative, but high contrast of slide films will probably decrease my scope. Adding contrast or saturation is no problem, so I believe that a low-contrast chary-color film is a good choice.

If you apply the theories of speed testing, tonal placement, and development adjustments, you can take care of most of the problems you run into with excessive contrast when using transparency film.

Well, my experience was this:

For a landscape I shot 3 slides, bracketing. One was overexposed, lights were burnt out. One was underexposed, shadows too dense to recover detail. One was in the middle, lights burnt out AND shadows too dense to recover detail. That was my experience with Provia 100F, 4x5", developed in an expensive professional lab. It was not their fault, and the film is among the best you can buy.

Apart from the enormous amount of time I spent for that single shot, it had a price. Three 4x5" sheets, three times 4x5" development, no result. Each shot cost me 2.50 Euros for the film and 2.50 Euros for the lab. So I spent 15 Euros for one photo and had no result. 4x5" and slide film, that's not my cup of tea. With a medium format color negative such a backlight scene is no problem as long as you have a good lens hood.

Many photographers using slide film and digital cameras solve the problem with a color-grad filter, but that creates other problems. How do you control the effect at different apertures? What can you do if the horizont is not straight? It never is, there are always trees, mountains or whatever. I really dislike landscape photos displaying the photographer's ownership of an ND grad filter.

My personal preference is for transparencies. They can be pulled a huge amount compared to color neg. film, so, in my opinion, are much better able to deal with high-contrast scenes, *if* you have the benefit of sheet film or interchangeable magazines so that you can apply the proper development to the right exposures. However, given that most printers wouldn't call for a transparency these days, you would end up scanning anyhow, so again, the difference is negligible. So, what I do is C-41 to save money, if I know I won't need to pull a lot, and E-6 for when I need to pull.

As I do not have my own E-6 lab nor want to pay a fortune for pushing or pulling slide film every time in a high-end pro lab, C-41 seems to be a wise decision. C-41 film processing in a good overnight lab costs 1 Euro here, a 1-hour-photo will charge 2.50 to 4 Euro. E-6 costs between 2.50 and 4 Euros. The local pro lab asks for 10 Euros for E-6 and pulling.

You are already making huge prints, so you should know what works and what doesn't. What are you not getting now that you want to get?

More detail, more sharpness, less grain, enough scope to allow high contrast scenes and some dodging and burning. Natural colors, not Velvia color orgies. The lenses for my Bronica GS-1 are excellent, my Imacon scanner is excellent - and I can not upgrade them so easily. So, the logical step is to look for a film that gives the optimum results for my purposes.

I can almost guarantee you that switching films won't give it to you. A switch in format: yes, but not a switch in film type.

Large format is not for me. I tried it. 6x7 is my personal limit, and I already reached it.