Film for Landscapes

[cyron123]

Hello guys,

i am very new to cameras with film. It is very interessting. What brand and type of film would you use for landscape photographing? I have read the velvia is the best in color...But i have seen some colorful pictures from the Ektar too.
What is you opinon? Thank you.

Best cyron

 

[fretlessdavis]

It depends on lighting conditions and personal preference. E-6 is still the way to go for punchy colors and fine grain. Out here in the Southwest US, I rarely get the perfect lighting for Velvia, and usually stick to Provia 100. Since there is no way to print straight from E-6 anymore, it's not too hard to add a bit of contrast and saturation to the scans before printing.

I've been experimenting with Ektar 100, too, but so far, it's pretty picky with exposure, and if you get it too far off you can end up with an unnatural looking sky. I'll probably go back to Portra 400 for an all-condition general color film. It's got so much latitude that it works great throughout the day, but plan on spending a ton of time in post with the scans if you want punchy colors or contrast.

 

[cyron123]

HI fretlessdavis, thank you for your opinon. i am on the velvia film, because i could control colors on the light board better. Negative film is complicated for me. But i am at the beginning...and try to learn..

Do you have some issues to scan neagtives? What scanner do you use?
Thank you again..
Best

 

[DREW WILEY]

What are you going to do with the shots? Velvia is a very contrasty slide film, which needs precise exposure. Ektar is a relatively saturated
color negative film which needs to be scanned or printed even to view. It also needs to be carefully exposed. Neither of these are "amateur"
films in the sense of forgiving errors. So if you are interested in them, you'd need to practice some with a good light meter, and have some
quality method for printing them. These are basically "race car" films, not your standard Ford or Chevy. Learning to drive them takes a bit
of patience, but then if high performance is what you want ...

 

[cyron123]

HI Drew, this is a very good question. I am new with film cameras. And the options too make photos with film is limited. I am searched for a film with strong colors and i want to scan it later..I dont know what film is the best for this. I only know velvia have strong colors--> Yes this is not really much..

Do you have a suggestion for a film for "beginners"?
thank you.

 

[snapguy]

race car

"Race car" films. I like that. At my advanced age perhaps I need a film with training wheels. Just kidding, I hope....

 

[fretlessdavis]

HI fretlessdavis, thank you for your opinon. i am on the velvia film, because i could control colors on the light board better. Negative film is complicated for me. But i am at the beginning...and try to learn..

Do you have some issues to scan neagtives? What scanner do you use?
Thank you again..
Best

I don't scan my own stuff, actually. For my transparencies, I use a lightbox and take the frames I like to the print shop I use to have scanned. Depending on the final print size, scanning methods and resolutions vary. I usually only print 2 or 3 frames per roll of 6x9 on 120 (so 8 frames total). As you get better and have a better keeper ratio, it would probably be more worth it to scan yourself or have the whole roll scanned.

For negative film, I just discovered the F.I.N.D. lab. They have reasonable prices on pretty high-resolution scans as they have some weird caveats to their system (they only ship negatives quarterly, and you have to connect to something like an FTP to get the scans).

I agree with the the above comment. Velvia is like the Aston Martin of film, beautiful, expensive, but finnicky to use. I'd say Portra 400 would be more equivalent to the Ford Fusion that kind of looks like an Aston Martin-- cheap, efficient, and still pretty good looking.

I'd also recommend picking out one or two films and sticking with them. I think at one point I had FP4, Acros, Provia, and Fuji Pro 400 all loaded at once, which ended up being a big pain, and had plenty of lost frames forgetting to switch ASA on my meter. Plus, once you know the idiosyncrasies of your chosen film, it's easier to work with them!

 

[cyron123]

Thank you guys. Your experience is yery helpful for me..

 

[Trail Images]

I've used Velvia 50 for so many years I can barely remember my days using Kodachrome. I used Kodachrome with 35mm on wildlife, but when I moved to MF & LF gear I'd also transitioned to all landscape work with V-50 and have not looked back.
I tried Velvia 100, 100f, Astia, and Provia, but remained with Velvia 50. If I had a second choice I'd use Provia and work with filters if necessary and obviously post processing needs in PS too.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Velvia is like the Aston Martin of film, beautiful, expensive, but finnicky to use. I'd say Portra 400 would be more equivalent to the Ford Fusion that kind of looks like an Aston Martin-- cheap, efficient, and still pretty good looking.

No, no, no, no, no. Aston Martin is too elegant and dignified to be associated with Velvia. Velvia is too saturated, unnatural, and in-your-face. Ken Rockwell likes Velvia for that reason and oversaturates his digital images that way. No: Velvia is like a Subaru WRX STI driven by chavs and ASBO's.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Velva is great for intense colors but it is slide film. Do you want slides or prints?
Ektar has intense colors for prints but not always so great with skin tone.
I generally use Portra 400 for color prints for everything. However if I am shooting red rock in the US western states [Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado] I have a stash of Kodak Vivid Color and Kodak Ultra Color which are no longer manufactured.

 

[DREW WILEY]

People tend to call Ektar the Velvia of color neg films. But that is misleading, because it happens to have more exposure latitude than ANY
transparency (slide) film. But it does help to have slide exposure experience when using it, because it is fussier than most color neg films.
But the result is cleaner colors. Not the best choice for high-school yearbook pictures of kids with bright zits, however! Scanning complicates the problem, because the smaller the film, the better the scan you need to get good results. I won't go into the technical reason here. I print my own Ektar shots, and use this film clear up to 8x10 sheet film size. But with small camera film, I sometimes like to order up a preview disc along with the C41 processing, in lieu of a contact proof sheet. At the cost of a mid-level scan, I find that 120 film reproduces on the disc quite accurately, but 35mm does not, nor can it. That's why I like to do experimenting on 120 Ektar, as a nice compromise between film price and scanning ability. But since most of my serious work is done on expensive sheet film, I've been forced
to learn Ektar correctly, which mean also understanding color temperature.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Velvia 100 (without F!) for me.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Horses for courses, of course of course.

Here's a shot that I took with both Ektar and Velvia 50, you can easily tell them apart.

Both 4x5", Fujinon SWD 90mm, less than a minute apart, just change the shutter speed one stop and shoot again. Probably had an 81A because it's almost glued to that lens, and pretty sure no polariser.
The Ektar is slightly cropped because I got it done in a Dip'n'dunk lab and that puts holes in the corners of the film.
The Velvia is slightly magenta in the clouds, but that's because it expired in 2003. I could correct it after scanning but I kinda like it the way it is (it looks fine on its own, but really shows up side-by-side).

The thing about Ektar is that it just doesn't get that deep blue sky that you get with Velvia, they're always more cyan, polarisers can help bring out a deeper sky but it'll never be as blue as Velvia.
The greens are also different, Velvia is a lot darker and deeper. Reality was probably halway in between these two renderings.

 

[cyron123]

Ahhh. The blue I'd totally different. Looks like polarizer and not... I like the colors of the velvia. What scanner have you used?

 

[Dr Croubie]

Ahhh. The blue I'd totally different. Looks like polarizer and not... I like the colors of the velvia. What scanner have you used?

V750Pro, silverfast 6.6, betterscanning wetmount, Lumina fluid, IT8 calibrated (for positives). Both are direct film scans (one day I'll RA4 contact print my LF Ektars).
Without getting too much into scanning because we'll get told to shut up:
It takes a lot of skill and practice to shoot chromes, with such a narrow range, screw your light metering up by a stop and it's trash. But it scans really easily if you've got an IT8 target to calibrate it.
It's easier to shoot most negs, with more latitude it's harder to muck up metering (although still looks better if you get it right). But it takes a lot of skill and practice to scan negatives, and just as much hassling around with chemicals and Jobos to print RA4.

In short, nothing's free, you'll expend just as much energy learning either method in total before you get a good print.

 

[mrred]

I'm surprised no mentioned BW film, or even IR.

Some PFX200

 

[DREW WILEY]

Neither film is a piece of cake to scan. For a beginner it's a lot more convenient to deal with a good lab that can provide both the development
and a professional scan at the same time. Provia would be a less fussy chrome film, and Portra 400 a less fussy neg film, though a bit less accurate in terms of landscape colors. Learning to master Ektar is more tricky than learning a chrome film, because you can simply slap a
chrome on a light box and see what you've got, and quickly adjust the learning curve. With a color neg, you're totally dependent upon the
quality of an intermediate scan or proof print to judge what is going on. Additionally, those complaints about blue balance with Ektar are easy enough to fix, but you have to understand how this film responds to actual color temperature variables - a common enough pool of knowledge to a studio photographer or Hollywood filmmaker, but intimidating to a beginner. Or back to my first analogy - a little twitch in
steering a car that goes 150 mph has much greater consequences than steering one that tops out at 55mph. But if you want performance,
you first need to learn how to handle it. Most people don't bother and then blame the film for their own mistakes.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

No, no, no, no, no. Aston Martin is too elegant and dignified to be associated with Velvia. Velvia is too saturated, unnatural, and in-your-face. Ken Rockwell likes Velvia for that reason and oversaturates his digital images that way. No: Velvia is like a Subaru WRX STI driven by chavs and ASBO's.

Haha! Good one. I think I agree.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Velvia can get garish in open sun; but it can be a dream film on foggy days when the contrast is very low and you need to bring out subtle details. It can also resolve some very subtle shades of green IF you have a lens capable of the same task and some way of printing such distinctions. When I printed mainly chromes, I found Velvia appropriate about 5% of the time. Looking good on a light box or in a slide projector is one thing, being ideal for printing is another.

 

[cyron123]

Hello @ all,
i have made some pictures with the velvia 100. With a lightmeter..And they looks cool. I like the "feeling" of this film. I hope my learning curve is good enough. Not to destroy too much film rolls to get more experience with this "racing car".
I have asked myself: Why should i buy an other film type for learning? Could i learn with this film too? Is this impossible? I dont know.. I will post my experience with it..

 

[TheToadMen]

I had good results with Fuji 400 NPH, nowadays called Fuji PRO 400H. Good film for landscapes.

(old type)

(new type)

 

[DREW WILEY]

You make your own rules. If you happen to like Velvia, then continue experimenting with it. One thing you'll quickly discover is that in higher
contrast situations you might need to sacrifice the shadows to pure blackness, and will have to use black shapes as part of your composition.
This strategy generally work better than letting the highlights blow out to hopeless white. But experiment and have fun!

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I had good results with Fuji 400 NPH, nowadays called Fuji PRO 400H. Good film for landscapes.

(old type)

(new type)

I agree, wonderful film. But no where near as saturated as Velvia, which is what I liked about it. But I preferred more subtle tones and color in my color landscape work for the most part.

Before so many people went digital Outdoor Photography magazine was a cluster of over the top Velvia photos. For a while there I don't think they published you if you did not send Velvia chromes in. To me it got really old, like the overuse of HDR nowadays in so much digital work. That said I'd often scan my NPH and could always add a little saturation if needed.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

You make your own rules. If you happen to like Velvia, then continue experimenting with it. One thing you'll quickly discover is that in higher
contrast situations you might need to sacrifice the shadows to pure blackness, and will have to use black shapes as part of your composition.
This strategy generally work better than letting the highlights blow out to hopeless white. But experiment and have fun!

Good advice. If you can learn to meter properly and understand the way Velvia reacts in different light it's not too hard to dial in. I used to spot meter the brightest highlights I still wanted detail in and then opened up 2 stops from that reading. Worked fine as long as things were not too contrasty otherwise I would lose the shadows but that's the limitation of the film. Another method was a sort of pre-digital camera HDR: shooting on a tripod, shoot one frame exposing best for the highlights, then another one of the same scene exposing best for the shadows. Later scan both and "sandwich" them in PS and sort of tweak up or down the layers to your preference. Sort of widens the latitude in a way...

That said when I shot chromes I bracketed the heck out of everything.