Film Types

[marton]

I've heard a lot about Velvia, about how gorgeous it is, but - stupid question coming up - I can't work out the different terminology used. Is color transparency film the same thing as slide? Also, does Fuji produce a Velvia which is a color negative film?

 

[Les Sarile]

Transparency = slide = chrome = E6
Fuji does not have an equivalent negative (C41) for Velvia. Kodak Ektar 100 aspires to be the "Velvia" for negatives. Although it is contrasty and saturated, it has a different color response.

 

[marton]

Excellent. Thanks very much. The terminology had me bewildered for some time now, but that's cleared it up.

So, if I were going to shoot a red Ferrari and a canary yellow race car against a perfect blue sky and wanted a vivid, and highly saturated look, which film would I use, Ektar or Pro 400H?

 

[Les Sarile]

Kodak Ektar 100 would be the more saturated and contrasty of the two. However, I would highly recommend you see the results from Velva (RVP50).

 

[railwayman3]

Kodak Ektar 100 would be the more saturated and contrasty of the two. However, I would highly recommend you see the results from Velva (RVP50).

Agreed. If you can manage with a transparency/slide for your finished picture, and all things being equal, a projected slide will, by its nature, appear more saturated than a print from a negative film. Same principle as a picture on your PC screen looking bright and saturated with the light effectively coming through the image, and then looking rather dull when you then send the image to your inkjet printer.

 

[removed account4]

Transparency = slide = chrome = E6
Fuji does not have an equivalent negative (C41) for Velvia. Kodak Ektar 100 aspires to be the "Velvia" for negatives. Although it is contrasty and saturated, it has a different color response.

hi les you forgot diapositive

 

[MattKrull]

Here's the question - Are you going to project this image through an analque projector (vs print vs digital projection).

Tonal repsonse aside, if you have a projector and will display it that way, go Velvia (Slide/Chrom/E6). If you don't have access to that, I say go for Ektar. It is still a very saturated colourful film, is scans very well, and it prints beautifully.

The difference between Ektar and Pro 400H is noticible.

If people are going to be visible in the photo, I'd steer clear of Velvia (I just find people look weird in it). Ektar isn't bad, Porta or Pro 400H are best for people (but the colours are definitely muted, so if the focus is the colour of the car, go for Ektar).

While not on the list, probably because it is a lowly consumer grade film, you should try a roll of Fuji Superia 200/400 if you haven't. I find it is more saturated than Pro 400H and makes a nice midway between 400H and Ektar. It enlarges nicely up to 11x14 print. I ran through a dozen rolls last spring while on a trip through Alberta, the rockies, and BC. I shot Pro 400H, Agfa Digibase 200 E6, Superia 400, Porta 400, and Ektar. I was disappointed with the 400H because in similar shots I always prefered the Superia 400 print.

 

[Les Sarile]

hi les you forgot diapositive

How can I forget . . .

Another is color reversal film -> http://www.fujifilm.com/products/films/color_reversal_films/

 

[Les Sarile]

BTW, opinions about color are influenced by so many factors that you really have to experience it yourself. That way, your workflow and end result are all accounted for. Of course there are likely more opinions on Velvia since it's been around longer than Ektar and it's evaluation - applicable to all slide films, is not influenced by workflow interpretation since you only have to look at the direct results.

 

[gone]

You're right about the differences in perceived colour. For instance, my idea of red, and the wife's idea of red are totally different. Neither of us is colour blind, we just see it differently.

If you really want to complicate your life, there's filters you can use to affect the colours of the shot, and your lighting will determine a lot of the hues as well. To clear this up, I recommend checking out a good book from your local library on colour theory. Don't forget that your eye will make judgements of colour value, intensity, and hue depending on what colour is placed next to another (see link below for a very basic run down). This placement is something the Impressionists understood very well. Also, different films are more, or less, sensitive to different colours, so you can get a totally different palette just by switching films. Freestyle sells some interesting films in this category. Oh, for the days of Agfa Optima film! I'd probably give up B&W and go back to shooting colour if I could still buy that.

http://www.tigercolor.com/color-lab/color-theory/color-harmonies.htm

 

[TheToadMen]

So, if I were going to shoot a red Ferrari and a canary yellow race car against a perfect blue sky and wanted a vivid, and highly saturated look, which film would I use, Ektar or Pro 400H?

Better yet, use Fuji PRO400H, Kodak Ektar, Fuji Velvia and Fuji Provia 100F - and see for yourself what you like best.
And a fine roll of Ilford FP4+ or Fomapan 100 while you're at it (both B&W negative film).

Info from Fuji: http://www.fujifilm.com/products/films/

 

[Alan Klein]

I suppose diapositive is what I always knew as positive as opposed to negative film.

Getting back to which film, shoot the sample image in the same light with different films but also bracket. The amount of exposure will effect hue, saturation and contrast and give a different look. More so with chromes like Velvia than negative film like Ektar.

What do you intent to do with the results? That may define which film to select.

Good luck.

 

[MattKing]

What do you inten(d) to do with the results? That may define which film to select.

Good luck.

This is the question to ask yourself first.

But before you even get to the question, you should try a couple of options, so you have a chance to decide what appeals to you.

Just make sure you use a good lab for the experiments, because poor lab work will distort the results.

My preference is for projected slides, but my preference is also for a film that isn't made any more - Ektachrome 100G.

 

[Arklatexian]

hi les you forgot diapositive

Jnanian, you beat me to it. Not everyone calls them slides, etc.....Regards

 

[Les Sarile]

I had sent out some slides to be processed through a corner drugstore. When it arrived, I opened the package to check and the uninitiated clerk said, "Cool, little pictures!"

 

[TheToadMen]

I had sent out some slides to be processed through a corner drugstore. When it arrived, I opened the package to check and the uninitiated clerk said, "Cool, little pictures!"

 

[marton]

I ordered a five pack of Ektar to test. I have used 400H before and was disappointed by its anaemic looking color palette, so it is now removed from my circle of trust, to quote Jack Byrnes. I'll be shooting landscape, some in morning light, some in evening light, as well as daylight - 120 film. I'l be using the prints for my honors research project this year, and end of year exhibit at University, therefore slides won't be a consideration. All responses here are greatly appreciated. It seems I'll get a good start point with Ektar, and as mentioned, avoiding 400H.

 

[Les Sarile]

Stephen, You owe it to yourself to experience chromes whether or not you intend to use them on this project.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is simple. Chrome means slides except Verichrome Pan with was a black & white film. Except that Velvia is not called chrome and it is a slide film. Now that is clear as mud expect there are other exceptions that I cannot remember at the moment.

 

[Truzi]

Stephen, You owe it to yourself to experience chromes whether or not you intend to use them on this project.

I agree. You really should try Velvia at least once, just to experience it.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Yup. Transparency, slide, chrome, reversal...even "diapositive" all refer to the same thing. Are there any other terms I've (we've) missed?? Probably...

 

[MattKing]

Yup. Transparency, slide, chrome, reversal...even "diapositive" all refer to the same thing. Are there any other terms I've (we've) missed?? Probably...

At one time ..... Kodachrome.

 

[ericdan]

Tonal repsonse aside, if you have a projector and will display it that way, go Velvia (Slide/Chrom/E6). If you don't have access to that, I say go for Ektar. It is still a very saturated colourful film, is scans very well, and it prints beautifully.

What does "scan very well" even mean?

All print film is difficult to scan, including portra and ektar.
The only acceptable scans I've ever seen came from Froniter or Noritsu systems.

 

[MattKrull]

What does "scan very well" even mean?

All print film is difficult to scan, including portra and ektar.
The only acceptable scans I've ever seen came from Froniter or Noritsu systems.

Flatbed scanners seem to exagerate the grain effect, and it is worse with some films than others.

I mean when I load film into my V600, the scan I get looks pretty close to a small lab print, and it takes little effort to get it there. I can send the jpg off to a lab for $0.10 prints and get something that looks as good (or a lot better with a some tweaking) than the 4x6 prints the lab gave me in the first place.

The opposite of that is something like Fuji Superia 1600. Which when scanned displays lots of coloured noise (looks more like digital chroma noise than grain). This takes a lot of work to diminish and never really goes away. The scanned images never print as well as the original mini-lab prints. Agfa Digibase slides also look far worse scanned than I would expect them too.

Obviously the best results would be from a proper RA4 enlargement, but that is getting harder to come by. The OP has since mentioned only shooting Medium Format, so that reduces the scanning issue (depending on print sizes desired).

 

[marton]

I loaded the Fuji with a roll of Velvia 100 a little while ago. Looking forward to seeing the results.