First MF Color film choice

[JCT]

Within the past year I got back into shooting film and took advantage of the favorable pricing on Hassy gear to purchase the basic MF kit that I had always thought would be out of my reach financially .

For the past 6 months I have only been shooting B&W and developing/printing it myself. I am going to be in Wash. DC on business next week and realized that the cherry blossoms will be in bloom, so it seems like the perfect opportunity to shoot some color film for the first time in over 10 years.

I am completely at a loss as to what to go with and am open to suggestions. I lean towards print vs transparency, I live right outside NYC and could get prints done. On the other hand, I own an Epson V700 scanner that does a pretty good job with my B&W, so I *could* go with transparencies if that was the consensus. Subject will be DC gardens, maybe the Mall in bloom if I'm lucky.

Any and all advice/suggestions are appreciated for this semi-newbie ready to try color again.

Thanks,

JT

 

[copake_ham]

Hi JT,

Unfortunately, you missed out on the feeding frenzy this past Autumn and Winter when Kodak offered free samples of their new Porta films.

I got the chance to try both the VC's and UC's in both ISO 100 and 400 and in both 35mm and 120.

I don't have enough experience to decide b/w the VC and UC - but you might want to give these films a try. The Great Yellow Father is touting them on their website (you have to drill down a bit to get past the digital stuff) and show some great images of flowers, butterflies etc.

I'm going to try some this Spring in both 35mm and 120 myself.

Others here will have some other great suggestions too.

 

[AZLF]

My suggestion would be to shoot transparencies. I rarely shoot color print film because the results tend to vary so greatly from lab to lab and from session to session. I am always amazed that so many who post here have such difficulty having their slide film processed. Tucson, Az. is certainly not the center of the photographic world (nor even close to where ever that might be) but we have two labs in town who do excellent in house processing of slide film of every format. If I drop the film off before noon I can have it back and processed by 3:00 pm the same day though scans of 120 and 4x5" take a few days. The lab I prefer is called Photographic Works and can be found online and will process your film as well (and at what I consider to be very attractive prices). And the prints I have had made from those transparencies look very good as well.

 

[Sanjay Sen]

My suggestion would be to shoot transparencies as well. I do not shoot color print film much, but when I do, it usually is Fuji Superia 100 in 120 or 35mm. Also, since you live right outside NYC, you should not have any problems getting trannies processed. The only 'problem' with trannies is getting them printed - traditional printing options are diminishing and you would probably need to get them printed another way. I got a couple of my Velvia 50 slides printed on a Chromira, and they look pretty good (to my eyes at least).

Good luck, and hope you have fun in DC. Are you going to make the cherry blossom festival?


Best wishes,
Sanjay

 

[AZLF]

My suggestion would be to shoot transparencies as well. I do not shoot color print film much, but when I do, it usually is Fuji Superia 100 in 120 or 35mm. Also, since you live right outside NYC, you should not have any problems getting trannies processed. The only 'problem' with trannies is getting them printed - traditional printing options are diminishing and you would probably need to get them printed another way. I got a couple of my Velvia 50 slides printed on a Chromira, and they look pretty good (to my eyes at least).


I have not found any difficulty getting quality prints made from my transparencies. Neither of the two labs in Tucson use fully "traditional" printing processes when making prints. All film is scanned and the scan is used to make the print. So transparency prints are printed on the same paper as color negs are and the transparency scan (I'm guessing here) is reversed before the print is made. Thus no special paper or process is required. I was not aware of this when I first went to have a print made from a transparency. I thought that traditional enlargers were still used. However this is no longer the case in either lab in Tucson.

 

[Sanjay Sen]

Allow me to clarify: the 'problem' I mentioned in my earlier post refers to getting positive-to-positive prints, i.e., Ciba/Ilfochrome. Most all labs will do a scan-and-print, and "traditional" printing options for trannies are scarce.


Best wishes,
Sanjay

 

[DWThomas]

My first MF color was on Fuji Provia 100F and I was quite happy with it. I scanned one frame at 3200 ppi on my Epson 3200, burned it to a CD and took it to my local "pro" shop. They made me an 11 x 11 on Crystal Archive that looked as good as it's likely to get. I was impressed; this hybrid (oops!) technique could permit crops and tweaks if one really had to get into that.

I have since successfully shot some ceramic pieces and paintings on tungsten transparency film (Fuji FTP) that was quite respectable as well. I've acquired a roll of color print film to try, but have had too much fun "avoiding the distraction of color" thus far.

DaveT

 

[AZLF]

Allow me to clarify: the 'problem' I mentioned in my earlier post refers to getting positive-to-positive prints, i.e., Ciba/Ilfochrome. Most all labs will do a scan-and-print, and "traditional" printing options for trannies are scarce.


Sad to say in Tucson it just won't happen. The technolgy for positive to positive prints is no longer available. On the plus side as I said the labs put out an excellent semi traditional paper/chemical print using the technique described.

 

[P C Headland]

If you want to stick to colour negative, then Fuji Reala is a really lovely film.

I tend to prefer slide film though for MF, with Provia 100 and 400 being my favourites. If you want really easy to scan slide film, try Astia - not as saturated, but that is easily sorted.

 

[JCT]

This is tremendously helpful-- one of the reasons I had posted was that I had sensed the real trend towards transparencies in my reading of the forums and I definitely have less experience with that type of film.

Probably a good approach would be to get some of each and load each of my backs with a different type, though I may just bite the bullet and try 100% transparency film on this trip. I must admit that the opportunity to spread out a set of 6x6 transparencies on my light box sounds like fun .

I am looking forward to the festival-- just hoping the weather holds.

JT

 

[copake_ham]

This is tremendously helpful.....

I am looking forward to the festival-- just hoping the weather holds.

JT

JT,

Hey, do let us know how it turns out and be sure to upload some pics to The Gallery!

 

[nworth]

Transparency films have limted dynamc range. That means high contrast subjects can be dfficult and exposure must be right on. A single lens reflex helps, in that you can use gradient filters to avoid many of the high contrast problems. You can make excellent prints from transparency films, and they scan very well. I think prints from positives look different than prints from negatives. It isn't just the dynamic range, either, and it isn't the "punch" people attribute to the high saturation of transparncy films. I still prefer negative films for their broad dynamic range. It gives me more to work with in the printing process. Modern color negative films can give you similar "punch" and saturation to positive films while keeping contrast under control. Perhaps the best suggestion is to use the kind of film you're used to, changing only if you are unhappy with the results or if you want something specific that a particular film offers. For specific films, it's very much a matter of personal preference. I've been using Kodak 400UC a lot, and I think I will be using a lot of the new Kodak Portra 160NC (or maybe VC). For transparencies, I've tried Kodak E100G with good results.

 

[gr82bart]

I would go with transparencies myself, but I am biased as that is what I mostly shoot. Kodak Ektachrome 100G or VS is what I use. I like the saturated colours of the new Kodak films. I have even used Kodak Ektachrome 64T or 160T film in daylight, but crossed processed recently. Brilliant colours!

What I like about transparencies is the range of options I have in viewing and printing. With one roll of transparency film, I can make a Polaroid transfer, a 4x5 B&W negative using my Daylab and Polaroid Type 55 film, multiple print options with my scanner, a historical print like a cyanotype with a digital negative, a Cibachrome, or just a plain jane print.

Regards, Art.

 

[Hans Borjes]

I would also recommend transparencies.

If you can get hold of Agfa RSX II 50 that's an excellent choice. I have only a few rolls left, started testing Provia 100F and Ektachrome 64 EPR.

The Provia did not convince me; although it appeared realistic with some subject colour and lightning conditions, there are many other situations where EPR has more separation in similar colours. I did that comparision with 2 film magazines shooting the same scenes on both films. In the beginning I was irritated, but the more often I looked at the comparative slides the clearer became by preference for EPR. Note that E100G has competely different colours with a tendency to magenta.

Looking back into my slides boxes, it is somewhat hard to say goodbye to the Agfa RSX films. They have very decent colour.

 

[DBP]

For something like the cherry blossoms, I would suggest Velvia, and maybe Kodak 400VC or UC for a negative film. Welcome to DC. Where will you be staying?

 

[benjiboy]

Within the past year I got back into shooting film and took advantage of the favorable pricing on Hassy gear to purchase the basic MF kit that I had always thought would be out of my reach financially .

For the past 6 months I have only been shooting B&W and developing/printing it myself. I am going to be in Wash. DC on business next week and realized that the cherry blossoms will be in bloom, so it seems like the perfect opportunity to shoot some color film for the first time in over 10 years.

I am completely at a loss as to what to go with and am open to suggestions. I lean towards print vs transparency, I live right outside NYC and could get prints done. On the other hand, I own an Epson V700 scanner that does a pretty good job with my B&W, so I *could* go with transparencies if that was the consensus. Subject will be DC gardens, maybe the Mall in bloom if I'm lucky.

Any and all advice/suggestions are appreciated for this semi-newbie ready to try color again.

Thanks,

JT

I would use Fuji Reala as a general purpose colour print film, or Fuji Velvia 100 as a slide film. I have never seen them, but I once read that the flowering cherry trees all along Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington were a gift from the Japanese government.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Transparency film is more difficult to shoot, because of a narrower range of acceptable exposure...however, when you get it "right on" it really "pops", and can produce images with far more excitement than color negative film.
Also, you are not at the color-balancing whims of a lab-tech that may be having a bad day..as what you see (on transparency film) is what you get. The processing of transparency film is standardized and not subject to as many variables as occur when you are dealing with prints. It is easier to scan and print transparency film because you can look at the original transparency for a guide for color balance.

 

[sjperry]

Lots of different suggestions, and everyone has their favorites. I would suggest print over transparencies if you are only shooting one. That's because I think exposure is a little more forgiving. But why not take both? I would opt for Kodak 160VC. It's probably a litle finer grain than 400VC, and the colors are a little more vivd than 160NC (that's why they call it VC). If it were me, the last thing I would scrimp on is film. Take lots, and make a whole range of exposures. And do both slide and print.

Steve Perry