Good Fine-Grained Film for Portraits

[Athiril]

Title: Good Fine-Grained Film for Portraits <-- this is what the thread is about, full stop.

I am about to start doing a portraiture project. I will be using colour 6x6 film and getting the negatives scanned and then printed. I want to make reasonably large prints - maybe 12x12 but possibly larger e.g. 16x16 depending on cost.

They will be indoor portraits, lit with a combination of flash and fixed light(s). I'll be shooting them with a Rolleiflex. I have little clue really what I am doing and I have little or no experience with colour film.

Can someone suggest a good film to use? I'm looking for fine grain, lots of detail and so on. I imagine more or less anything would do but thought I would consult the wisdom of APUG in case there are obvious ones to go for ...

Relevant information underlined.

Your problem with it being here italised.

6x6 colour, portraits, mixed lighting, fine grain & sharp film, wants to make good 12x12 and 16x16 prints, thats the relevant information and he is asking about film suitable for that, the method of reproduction is irrelevant here, he is not asking about the method of reproduction.

Let me fix that for you though.


"Folks,

I am about to start doing a portraiture project. I will be using colour 6x6 film. I want to make reasonably large prints - maybe 12x12 but possibly larger e.g. 16x16 depending on cost.

They will be indoor portraits, lit with a combination of flash and fixed light(s). I'll be shooting them with a Rolleiflex. I have little clue really what I am doing and I have little or no experience with colour film.

Can someone suggest a good film to use? I'm looking for fine grain, lots of detail and so on. I imagine more or less anything would do but thought I would consult the wisdom of APUG in case there are obvious ones to go for ..."

Now try answering that.

Because mentioning scanning is irrelevant, youre not answer what kind of scanner or scan resolution needed for good 12x12 and 16x16 prints, youre answering on what film is going to best in that mixed lighting and make good sharp prints at 12x12 and 16x16 with fine grain.

The fact if he mentions how theyre being printed is irrelevant or not, he's after the source quality, ie: the film which is exactly what he is asking about.



And if you dont know anything about scanning, then you shouldn't be suggesting that it makes any kind of difference to film choice. Thus your point is moot and not particularly valid to begin with, just answer what you can, for what he wants to know, all he wants to know is film for portraits, in colour for a specific print size from an original negative specific size, in specific lighting conditions, its not hard to comprehend.

X film is finer graind than Y film, given a perfect reproduction of both, X print will be finer grained than Y on a big enlargement.

So, if you know about scanning, then you know 16x16 might be pushing it for a flatbed scan, as they are akin to lousy soft enlarger lenses, and it'd be recommended to use a real/dedicated scanner, or get a drum scan done, which is likely possibly anyway since he said he'd be getting them scanned rather than scanning himself.

Now that is irrelevant to advise them, "oh you'll need to scan it on at least this scanner" because this is APUG, and secondly, the reproduction is not being asked about and is the OP's responsibility to ensure a quality reproduction.

It is is the same as if he said "I'll be optically printing these negatives to ilfochrome", it might be helpful, but a total shot in the dark and definately not the main focus of the topic at hand to tell him "oh dont use x brand enlarger, it's a bit too soft for 16x16 prints".

The method of reproduction is not the topic at hand, its not relevant to the OPs question, and is the OPs own responsibility, the core topic is most relevant to APUG:

"What portrait films are recommended for sharp fine grain 16x16 prints from 6x6cm negatives in mixed lighting conditions?".

That is the question you should be answering.

 

[markbarendt]

Fine grained and sharp film for portraits is going to be fine grained and sharp film for portraits, stay on topic with your answers.

You don't know and don't care to know about scanning, so dont bother trying to argue that it makes any kind of difference at all, because you don't know.

Hugh defined the topic, that included scanning and one thing I do know is that a scanner is just a specialized digital camera.

Although I'm no guru on using a scanner, and don't care to be, I am highly skilled in digital photography, color management, PS, blah, blah, blah...

I understand enough to know that there are better sources of info, on what film might be best for scanning, than APUG. Places that could and would actually give Hugh feedback on the nuances and why's one might work better for him than another.

 

[2F/2F]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop

Read what I wrote, not what you think I said. It was most moderate, and was logically and well explained. You are having a hissy fit over nothing.

Here is what I stated: "Sounds like a good question for HybridPhoto.com."

Very simple...totally non exclusionary...most helpful...and 100% correct.

...and then you said, no, it is not.

Now, again: You have stated twice that this is not a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. Please explain why it would not belong there. You cannot...because it most certainly would fit right into the pocket there; 100%, no question about it...meaning that it is most certainly a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. As I said, maybe it belongs on APUG, and maybe not. That is certainly not 100%.

Now..this is what I mean when I say to read what I wrote...because if you read what I wrote, you will also see what I did not write...certainly not what you seem to think I wrote. Did I ever say that it is NOT a topic for APUG? I did not. I said maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, and that there is plenty of room for debate on the issue. Why do I have to spell it out so much when it is there is clear, logical, and well-written English?

Now.....I will ask the question again, and I hope that you take the time to comprehend it this time: You have twice made the assertion that it is not a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. How is it NOT a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com? How can you make that statement, knowing what Hybrid Photo dot com is all about? .....or have you not actually read what Hybrid Photo dot com is about? .....or APUG, for that matter?

 

[Athiril]

See above post:

Basically, if you dont know about scanning, dont suggest film choice is going to be different than for the same task as if he were optical printing, because you simply dont know that, and its not the OP's question anyway.

If you do know about scanning, then like I mentioned above you'll know that the film choice is going to be the same, especially for a 16x16 quality reproduction.


This is the question he is asking
"What portrait films are recommended for sharp fine grain 16x16 prints from 6x6cm negatives in mixed lighting conditions?".

He did not at any point ask which film is better for scanning. This just happens to be his choice of reproduction in this process, and it doesnt maky any difference, there isn't a better place than APUG to discuss film abstract of variables other than the variables of the film itself.

 

[mrred]

Perhaps 2F/2F was ,indeed, trying to be helpful; in that the folks at hybrid photo would have better answers. I know that I am certainly not the only apug member who simply has no idea what film would scan well.

When shopping for film to do a job, I always visit www.flickr.com for examples of what it (what ever film) can do. I vote portra 160NC for the creamy tones. Try http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=portra medium&w=all .

 

[Athiril]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop

Read what I wrote, not what you think I said. It was most moderate, and was logically and well explained. You are having a hissy fit over nothing.

Now, again: You have stated twice that this is not a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. Please explain why it does not belong there. You cannot...because it most certainly would fit right into the pocket there; 100%, no question about it...meaning that it is most certainly a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. As I said, maybe it belongs on APUG, and maybe not. That is certainly not 100%. Now..this is what I mean when I say to read what I wrote...because if you read what I wrote, you will also see what I did not write...certainly not what you think I wrote. I will ask the question again, and I hope that you take the time to comprehend it this time: How is it NOT a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com?

Take the time to read my response, the core topic has nothing to do with scanning, that is why.

Everyone here can understand what the OP means and can respond with suggestions, I dont see why you cant.

You're suggeswting that it has anything to do with scanning is incorrect, because the OP never meant that, youre failing to understand the what information the OP is after, I have had this problem a lot with photography forums, and generally make try to make my questions abstract as possible to get the information I am after thats useful, otherwise I generally get a "no you cant do that, doesnt exist" in regards to the processing experiments I like to try, or "why do that? just buy this." etc.

So I can fully feel sympathy for the OP.

The fact is you're splitting hairs and being ridiculously pedantic over a single word which if it wasn't there would 100% change the context for you, but not for the majority of us here, because we know what the OP means.

Whats even worse is youre being incorrectly pedantic, as a real pedant I can point out, that, that statement of his intentions and action is not relevant to the question and information he is after.


The core topic is about film, namely -
Grain size and sharpness vs enlargement size
Mixed Lighting response

These properties do not change with scanning, not that it matters, since the OP was not asking that.

The core topic is not about:
scanning, or techniques thereof.



The core question and information desired does not have anything to do with scanning, but soley desired properties in a film, thus APUG is the place for that and not HybridPhoto.

If you are continuing to have a problem with that I suggest you contact a moderator, because this is obvious to most of the people that have responded.


Character assassination and petty digs doesn't belong here but on *chans, so keep that in mind when setting an example for others instead of behaving like that.



I'll repeat it one more time
If you are continuing to have a problem with that idea where others dont, then contact a moderator, this discussion is no longer on topic or helpful to the OP.

 

[2F/2F]

Oh my God...at this point it is clear that you just cannot understand what I wrote in any way.

"How is it not a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com?" is the question. Just answer it. How is it not a topic for that Website?

 

[Athiril]

"The core question and information desired does not have anything to do with scanning, but soley desired properties in a film, thus APUG is the place for that and not HybridPhoto."

 

[2F/2F]

How is it NOT a topic that would work on THAT Website is the question. NOT why DOES it work here...like I said, that is grey and open for debate.......but why does it NOT work there?

This is simply going back to your main assertion with which I take issue.

It went like this:

1. I said it would be a good question for Hybrid Photo dot com.
2. You said, no, it would not be.
3. I am asking (till I am red in the face) why it would not be (because it would be, for sure).

Perhaps it is Kosher on both Websites...that is not really the argument I am making, nor did I ever. I don't see why you think it does not belong there, but does belong here. It certainly belongs there more than it does here...therefore even if it belongs here, it belongs there.

 

[markbarendt]

If you are continuing to have a problem with that I suggest you contact a moderator,

Done

 

[SuzanneR]

The OP's question is appropriate to APUG, and to Hybrid Photo, so let's get the thread back on track, and keep it cordial.

 

[2F/2F]

"The core question and information desired does not have anything to do with scanning, but soley desired properties in a film, thus APUG is the place for that and not HybridPhoto."

Ah...but he did not "solely" bring up the properties of the film. He mentioned scanning. Since we cannot discuss scanning here, but can discuss it at Hybrid Photo, and we can discuss film at both, would not Hybrid Photo be a good (better?) place to have the question answered in context? The answer is nothing but "yes", due to extremely simple logic. So.....why do you say that the answer is "no, it isn't", if it is obviously "yes, it is"?

 

[Athiril]

How is it NOT a topic that would work on THAT Website is the question. NOT why DOES it work here...like I said, that is open for debate.......but why does it NOT work there?

This is simply going back to your main assertion with which I take issue.

It went like this:

1. I said it would be a good question for Hybrid Photo dot com.
2. You said, no, it would not.
3. I am asking (till I am red in the face) why it would not.

If you are going to continue this open a thread in feedback/discussion etc for it.

I have answered that over and over.

But it seems you have trouble with sentences that contain more than one idea.

I'll modify my sentence for you.

"The core question and information desired does not have anything to do with scanning, but soley desired properties in a film, thus HybridPhoto is not the place for that."


What HybridPhoto strives for is an archive of the combination of analogue with digital processes, this topic is really just about basic film properties.

It's not for hybridphoto just because part of the process involves that combination, that would be a separate thread (what scanner for x task, settings, colour correction, digital ice yes no, fluid mount yes no, to sharpen or to not sharpen, worth a drum scan?) etc.

The current question, has no information of value that would be a use contribution to the body of knowledge on HybridPhoto.

It would generate information of value to contibute to the body of knowledge on HybridPhoto - but those kind of responses would be focussed on scanning the film etc.



That is like posting the Rodinal as a colour developer thread on hybridphoto because all of us were checking our results and general density with scanning.

Or posting something like this on hybridphoto:

"Hi all,

I like to scan my film, because scanning is fun and offers new flexibility.

During one of my processing experiments involving a first developer of rodinal with some additives, then fixing and bleach, re-exposing and using Kodak E6 CD as a colour developer to make a colour negative with a greyish/very pale greenish base, its only using half the histogram of the scanner's range.

I need to stretch out the density range somehow, will adding table salt as a restrainer help in this regard?

Or any suggestions on how much of a minute amount of benzotriazole I should add?"


I'm optimising the film development for the scanner for scanning purposes, this is not a question for HybridPhoto either, it would probably not get answered there that well.

This is something few could or would try and help and speculate on, PE being one of them.

Ah...but he did not "solely" bring up the properties of the film. He mentioned scanning. Since we cannot discuss scanning here, but can discuss it at Hybrid Photo, and we can discuss film at both, would not Hybrid Photo be a good (better?) place to have the question answered in context? The answer is nothing but "yes", due to extremely simple logic. So.....why do you say that the answer is "no, it isn't", if it is obviously "yes, it is"?

Yes he did, this is his question condensed
"What portrait films are recommended for sharp fine grain 16x16 prints from 6x6cm negatives in mixed lighting conditions?".

His question doesnt contain the word scanning, a statement did. Which may as well say optical printing, or completely removed, it has no bearing.

You do not need to discuss scanning at all to be able to completely answer every aspect of information wanted. It wouldn't even be that relevant to even mention scanning in a reply.

The OP's question is appropriate to APUG, and to Hybrid Photo, so let's get the thread back on track, and keep it cordial.

My apologies.

 

[MikeSeb]

The OP's question is appropriate to APUG, and to Hybrid Photo, so let's get the thread back on track, and keep it cordial.

THANK YOU. Adult supervision definitely need here. Ungracious welcome for a newcomer I'd say.

You'd think we'd be encouraging anyone who wants to use film rather than quibbling about a hybrid/digital back-end process. If it takes hybrid shooters to keep Kodak et al making film, we shouldn't get exercised at the mere mention of digital when it's not even the primary focus of a question.

Sheesh.

 

[Jeff L]

I thought the new colour films out there were made to scan well. I'd shoot Kodak Portra or Fuji without a worry at all.

 

[fschifano]

I suspect you're right Jeff. Scanning and digitizing are parts of the standard workflow in a commercial lab. Optical prints from color negative are the exception, not the rule. It only makes sense that films would be optimized for that. Wasn't it only recently that Kodak discontinued RA4 papers that were more suitable for analog printing? The current crop of papers is optimized for laser output. That ought to tell you right there where the market is.

 

[keithwms]

Those of us who sometimes use the word 'scan'... why don't we write 'thcan' instead. Then anyone who has an allergy to thcanning can get a giggle and leave uth in peath.

 

[hughitb]

It's safe to come out now, right?

Thanks for all the helpful info .. will probably have a few more questions shortly. I just got hold of a Metz flash, hooked it up to my Rolleiflex and it seems to work nicely. I do have a question about Flash sync but I'll head over to the MF Camera forum to ask it ...

 

[mopar_guy]

I have really liked the results from Portra 160 NC. I will be using several rolls of 120 over the next month.

 

[BradS]

We don't talk about digital here! If you wanna talk about that or do it....fine but, don't talk about it here on APUG! (FULL_STOP).


Why can't people honor that simple wish? It is about courtesy, plain and simple.

 

[mr rusty]

We don't talk about digital here!

I must say as a newbie here, and a recently returned convert to film, I find this argument quite bizarre

I was just looking at Fuji's new film and they say;-

Fujicolor Pro 160S Professional is an ISO film speed 160 daylight-type color negative film designed for professional use, featuring more highly optimized skin tone reproduction and neutral gray balance, especially important for portrait photography.

Through its use of Fourth Color Layer technology, the newest emulsion technologies and new coupler technology, this film is able to deliver better grain quality and smoother skin tone reproduction than current films.

Moreover, thanks to its well-controlled gray balance, it provides a wider exposure latitude that makes it more suitable for digital scanners. The further addition of single-channel printing results in uniform printing efficiency with other films in the FUJICOLOR PRO series.

Oh no!! they mention the S word! I really don't understand this segregation at all. Surely this forum is about film? If Fuji understand that one of the reproduction techniques for their *professional* film is s*****g, why can't we here?

 

[Dave Pritchard]

I must say as a newbie here, and a recently returned convert to film, I find this argument quite bizarre

I was just looking at Fuji's new film and they say;-



Oh no!! they mention the S word! I really don't understand this segregation at all. Surely this forum is about film? If Fuji understand that one of the reproduction techniques for their *professional* film is s*****g, why can't we here?

mr rusty,

I suggest you visit hybridphoto.com, and even get an account there. I have an account there, and enjoy reading the posts.

Take a good look at the topic areas while you are there. There are discussions about monitors, scanners, operating systems, scanning software, photoshop, mac vs pc, and numerous other topics which are pretty far away from film and light.

I personally don't want to have to wade through lots of posts about computers in order to get information on film and film cameras. We would have to add all those topic areas to our list in order to do justice to hybrid techniques.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There are many venues for discussion of all aspects of digital photography on the internet. Many APUG users come here precisely to get away from that and to stay focused on the matter at hand, even if they also use digital techniques in their work.

After some experimentation with an area for discussion of hybrid film and digital techniques on APUG, we decided to create a separate forum for that discussion at http://www.hybridphoto.com . There are many knowledgeable participants on that forum, many of whom are also on this forum, who can help anyone with issues relating to hybrid digital/traditional workflow.

This way, we don't have to worry so much about where to draw the line on the hybrid forum and it can be a bit more wide ranging in consideration of digital topics that also involve a traditional component, and we can maintain an information rich analogue photography resource here, so that if someone wants to learn about something like Ilfochrome or RA-4 printing with an enlarger, they won't have to wade through a forest of threads on digital printing and won't have to worry about the hostile response that traditional photographers sometimes meet on other forums.

 

[keithwms]

I agree Mr. Rusty, and I think anybody who wants to rehash these points or propose rules about what we can or cannot say. This is not a thread about shooting with a DSLR and drastically manipulating it with photoshop and so forth. This is about someone who wants to do his work on film and then use scanning to present it. Just like all of us who show our work in the APUG galleries and portfolios... it's all scanned... all of it.

 

[BradS]

I agree Mr. Rusty, and I think anybody who wants to rehash these points or propose rules about what we can or cannot say. This is not a thread about shooting with a DSLR and drastically manipulating it with photoshop and so forth. This is about someone who wants to do his work on film and then use scanning to present it. Just like all of us who show our work in the APUG galleries and portfolios... it's all scanned... all of it.

Keith...really? You've been here long enough to know this is not new...not by a long shot.

David summarized the situation very well in his post just above.

The way I see it, it's like keeping your voice down in the library, or keeping your feet off the seats in the train. It's all about respect.

This place is an oasis in the desert of digital noise (pun intended!). Please, just respect the intent of the site.