kodak portra vivid color film

[nlochner]

i am new to color enlarging (RA-4), and i have found, that when i use regular cheap kodak film i get really washed out and generally unsaturated colors, so i went to the store, and talked to a guy i trust, and he said if i wanted to stick with regular 35mm, and not slides, (kodachrome, fuji sensia etc.) i should use kodak portra vc 165 iso, and then i should set my camera iso to 100, and that will further saturate my colors. Is this true, and if not what non slide film would you recomend for good color saturation?
Thanks.

 

[Markok765]

I dont know about that.I would reccomend kodak ultra color.
llook at this: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...jhtml?id=0.1.22.14.5.16&lc=en&_requestid=3652

 

[Ed_Davor]

If you are getting washed out colors now, you'd probably be getting them with Portra 160VC too using the same processing and printing you use now.

160VC isn't really any more saturated than Gold 100 IMO.

Though some might have different observations, yes overexposing negative film by say half a stop does tend to saturated colors a bit, because underexposed film tends to be washed out, and by overexposing a bit, you are moving your shadows and low midtones away from that underexposed part of the sensitivity range. But it's barely visible.
Though too much overexposure has the reverse effect, it can further desaturate colors.

If you are enlarging yourself, try using a different paper (what paper are you using)

But if you want a saturated negative film, try Kodak 100UC instead. 160VC has moderate saturation IMO, and a moderate to high contrast (which also makes it a bit punchier).

Also, keep in mind that Portra 160VC is a very unique film, and sometimes you can recognise it just by seeing a picture. It has these signiture brownish shadows and punchy contrast and an unique look to the colors.

Finding a saturated film is easy.
Kodak E100VS (similar also to Elite chrome extra color) isa very saturated film, and then there's Velvia

 

[nlochner]

thanks for the help. I have been using kodak endura paper, but i recently switched to fuji crystal archive type c. I hope this will change my color saturation in a good way.

both post so far have recomended kodak ultra color, but i have had a lot of people tell me its one of the most grainy kodak film you can find. Is this true? Thanks.

 

[Ed_Davor]

If you think 100UC is grainy, you should try 400VC.
My flatbed scanned can actually capture the grain structure of 400VC film with its very limited optical resolution (probably below 2000dpi), and it's not noise either, it actually samples it the same way on every repeated scan, which is funny.

I've never really used 100UC much, so I can't testify how does its grain compare to 160VC, but from what little experience I have with it, I didn't notice it to be specially grainy. But some 100UC fans should correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, if you can still find it, Agfa ultra 100 is a pretty saturated film, but grainy

 

[Helen B]

I find 100UC to be one of the least grainy films around, along with Fuji Pro 160S. Certainly less grainy than 160VC. 400UC isn't bad either. Ed, if you are getting grainy scans from 400UC at less than 2000 ppi then you are probably seeing grain aliasing (or should it be 'cloud aliasing' because colour film has no grain?), not film graininess, but that's for a different forum.

Best,
Helen

 

[Dave Parker]

You guys must have a different definition of grainy than I do, the UC films as well a the NP series films from Fuji, have the least amount of grain that I have ever seen, I have never seen much grain in the VC films, as Helen Said it was aliasing....

If your going to claim a film does something in particular, you should really understand the products you are shooting...


R.

 

[Curt]

Gee Roxi you really seem to know your color films. What would be the best slide film for landscape in 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets. I haven't done color in years and could use the help. I will probably use a lab, but I used to do E6 and print so I might do some again. Have you heard of Dye Transfer? Is it hard to learn. I used to go to school with a girl named Roxi Sudden, any relation?

Curt

 

[Ed_Davor]

I find 100UC to be one of the least grainy films around, along with Fuji Pro 160S. Certainly less grainy than 160VC. 400UC isn't bad either. Ed, if you are getting grainy scans from 400UC at less than 2000 ppi then you are probably seeing grain aliasing (or should it be 'cloud aliasing' because colour film has no grain?), not film graininess, but that's for a different forum.

Best,
Helen

Not UC, but 400VC, an its not grain aliasing because the grain particles are large and get sampled the exact same way every time (even on a sloppy scan motor)

But hey It's a 400 speed negative film, so you can't expect it to have grain like Astia

 

[Ed_Davor]

I have never seen much grain in the VC films, as Helen Said it was aliasing....
R.

Well the your taste in grain is different than mine, E100G, that's fine grain, most of these negative films are grainier than that, and I think can be proclaimed grainy for 35mm.

Ask yourself, can you make a grainless (or with barely visible grain) 2000dpi scan of your favorite 400ISO negative film? I mean really smooth and without grain?
No tricks, I mear really a raw scan (downsampling or otherwise) without grain?
Well if you can, then show me, I'd be glad to consider myself a fool.

 

[Mick Fagan]

N Lochner, I think that if you are getting unsaturated colours using Kodak normal colour negative film, you may possibly have a developing problem.

All of the Kodak colour negative film meant for the retail shops is, as far as I know, high contrast with snappy colours. All of the ones I have used in the Gold family of films are certainly snappy and colourful.

Perhaps you should do a search in the colour forums regarding colour prints and/or colour negative developing and printing. After doing some reading there come back and ask some more questions.

I'm assuming that you are developing your own negatives and also enlarging your own prints. What kits are you using for both of these processes?

Mick.

 

[Dave Parker]

Ed,

I scan all of my weddings which are shot on either ISO 160 or ISO 400 and the perceivable grain is very small, myself personally would say if your getting high grain, then something is possibly going on in the processing, and I worked in a pro lab for quite a number of years, I would agree E100G is a very fine grained film as is a great many of the slide films, anytime I see a lot of grain in the newer color print films I suspect processing, bad storage or something of that nature, because normally these films exhibit what is considered fine grain which is why many pro's choose them for wedding and studio work. I would be interested in seeing some of your scans to see your definition of grainy.

R.

 

[Ed_Davor]

Roxi, I'll see what I can do about posting an example of 400VC as I get it out of the lab

But my definition of grainy is very simple: you can see grain even at smaller resolutions. (around 2000dpi) That's grainy.

Some films look like images from DSLR's at smaller resolutions in terms of grain or lack of it. That's fine grain for me.

another example of what I mean by grainy:

grainy: 35mm Gold 400 @ 3200dpi

not-grainy: 4x5 Velvia @ 600dpi

 

[Dave Parker]

Ed,

I think scanning at high resolutions is going to show grain in just about any film, there is no reason to scan at 3200 dpi and really not a representation of what the film is truly like

Comparing an image from a DSLR to a film scan is like comparing apples to oranges, digital cameras don't have grain at all, but you can get noise problems.

Why would you scan print film at 3200 dpi and then only scan slide film at 600 dpi? I can scan velvia at 3200 dpi and it will show grain as well, for print purposes, you don't really need to go above 400 dpi for most commercial labs or even for your inkjet prints...and if you do, you will start to see artifacts and grain..another thing, your comparing a 4x5 to 35mm which is comparing apples to oranges again, why not scan the print at 600 and a 35mm slide at 600 and compare, at this resolution, they would both make acceptable prints up to 8x10, at least they did when I work in the lab.

R.

 

[Ed_Davor]

Ed,

I think scanning at high resolutions is going to show grain in just about any film, there is no reason to scan at 3200 dpi and really not a representation of what the film is truly like

Comparing an image from a DSLR to a film scan is like comparing apples to oranges, digital cameras don't have grain at all, but you can get noise problems.

Why would you scan print film at 3200 dpi and then only scan slide film at 600 dpi? I can scan velvia at 3200 dpi and it will show grain as well, for print purposes, you don't really need to go above 400 dpi for most commercial labs or even for your inkjet prints...and if you do, you will start to see artifacts and grain..another thing, your comparing a 4x5 to 35mm which is comparing apples to oranges again, why not scan the print at 600 and a 35mm slide at 600 and compare, at this resolution, they would both make acceptable prints up to 8x10, at least they did when I work in the lab.

R.

It was not supose to be a fair comparison. I was just trying to illustrate the kind of image I percieve as grainy.

I've scanned some 400VC, and I'll post it in just a second.

 

[Dave Parker]

It was not supose to be a fair comparison. I was just trying to illustrate the kind of image I percieve as grainy.

I've scanned some 400VC, and I'll post it in just a second.

Ok, if we are not working on a fair comparison, then I am really lost...

As I said, I think most film will show grain at 3200 dpi and even at 2000 dpi....

R.

 

[Ed_Davor]

Dead Link Removed

Here is the method. To avoid grain aliasing, this was downsampled from a 3200dpi scan down to 1200dpi.
What you see is a 1200dpi CROP

At 1200dpi a "fine grain" film should not show ANY grain.
If this were Portra 160NC, or E100G or Astia, this crop would be perfectly smooth at 1200dpi

You say it could be the processing. I don't know. I DO get fine grain from portra 160NC using the same processing

 

[Ed_Davor]

As I said, I think most film will show grain at 3200 dpi and even at 2000 dpi....
R.

Yes most films, but those with really fine grain would not show it, and those are the ones I call "fine grain", while I call others grainy.

 

[Dave Parker]

I see alot of noise in that image, which could be caused by high resolution scan, and possibly there are some problems in the processing, because, I never have any of my scans of 400 look like that, I will dig one out and post it.

R.

 

[Ed_Davor]

Like I said, I'm not getting that "noise" with 160NC

 

[Dave Parker]

Yes most films, but those with really fine grain would not show it, and those are the ones I call "fine grain", while I call others grainy.

At 3200 dpi even Velvia, Provia and E100VS will show grain, grainy is not determined by scans in the real world, but what the film prints like all films will show grain at that resolution. But it really does not matter, I know what works for me when I am shooting for money and my clients are happy....

R.

 

[Ed_Davor]

yes, but the discussion was not about what works for you, but wheather 400VC is a a grainy film or not.

Compared to those films you've mentioned, 400VC IS grainy (or are you suggesting 400VC has the same kind of grain as Velvia?)

Plus, I wouldn't put E100VS in the same cathegory, because it's a bit grainier for a 100ISO slide film. (RMS 11 and it does show under the loupe when you compare it to E100G)

 

[Dave Parker]

Okay Ed,

That is fine, what your parameters are don't make sense to me, I have only been making my living with a camera for over 25 years now and what you say is grainy I know many Pro's including myself don't consider it grainy, I never said 400VC is in the same grain catagory as Velvia, I really don't care what catagory you put the films you shoot in, my opinion of 400 VC is a lot different than yours, I don't think 400VC is grainy and neither do my customers or the fellow pros that I shoot with. Myself personally think E100G is a piece of crap and have thought so, every since it came out. But again, we are talking personal opinions.

Here is a link to a discussion on RMS values, you might want to read it..

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007W1x

Good bye.

R.

 

[Ed_Davor]

No problem..

though I'd like to ask you one question: which film do YOU consider to be grainy (where's your limit of what you call grainy?)

And as for RMS values, I wouldn't quote the RMS number unless I saw the difference with my own eyes on film.

p.s. I guess with your long experience with film, Portra 400VC would not seem so grainy compared to old Kodacolor and Vericolor emulsions that you were probably used to.
Maybe I'm just spoiled by the newer emulsions.

 

[Dave Parker]

For practical purposes, I consider most films of ISO 800 and above grainy by todays definition, when I started shooting the many of the ISO 100 and 200 films from various manufactures were grainy to my eyes, to me grainy really depends on subject matter and intended use of the pictures, I shoot for a local newspaper and most of the stuff I shoot for them is B&W at about ISO 1600, now that stuff is real grainy, there is just to many things that come into the equation of perceived grain, it depends on light, exposure, subject matter, etc....

I guess it just comes down to what the intended use is.

I don't consider scanning to be a true representation of grain, I proof all of my stuff including print on the light table with a 10X loupe and make my judgements from there.

Have a great day Ed.

R.