Medium format color negs - are they good or do you shoot slides?

[Jedidiah Smith]

I am so close to purchasing a Bronica SQ-Ai 6x6 that I can taste it.
I have one last issue to sort out before I jump ship from 35mm, though. I would like to continue wet-printing in the darkroom, including color. I use an Agfa C66 (Durst M605) color enlarger and a Jobo ATL-2 Plus for film/print processing.

I have never been that satisfied with 35mm color negs. Slides are nicer, but harder to print traditionally (Ilfochrome is it now). With Medium Format, how do the color negs compare to 35mm? Would I still need to shoot transparency in MF to hold the edge (mostly landscapes), or will a good print film such as Kodak 100UC be nearly as good, but with better printing options?

Of course, I could just scan my color & print digitally, and keep doing B&W in the darkroom, but I'd really prefer to do both in the darkroom as I enjoy the process.
Thanks for any tips,
Jed

 

[Dave Parker]

I have shot Kodak print films in my MF gear for years now for landscape work and have been quite please with the results.

Dave

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, Jed,

As with any CN film, much depends on the quality turned out by the lab you use, but modern CN films are certainly capable of great results, especially in MF and LF.

Konical

 

[pentaxuser]

I have never tried printing chromes in either 35mm or MF but have tried colour negs in both 35mm and MF. OK my Pentax SLR lens may have the edge on my MF which is an Agfa Isolette 1 of about 1954 vintage but quite frankly I haven't been able to detect any improvement in my MF prints compared to 35mm. At least not up to 10 x 8 inches. If anything I'd say my prints from 35mm were very marginally better.

If you print bigger than 10 x 8 and if you have a better lens than was built into an Agfa Isolette then the difference might be more obvious.

Most(maybe all posts) posts in any thread on this MFv 35mm would say that the difference is very clear and certainly the bigger the neg the better you'd expect the print to be but I think the quality of lens and size of print is crucial.

Pentaxuser

 

[CraigK]

I rarely shoot transparency film in my MF cameras. I mainly shoot coulour neg and black and white neg.

Fuji's NPH and NPS are excellent films that give me great results FWIW

 

[MattKing]

In the old days, when quality custom labs were plentiful, you were likely to get better results in prints from a MF negative then a either a 35mm negative, 35mm slide or (except for certain imags) MF slide (assuming similar quality with respect to the cameras and the exposure).

I would expect, therefore, you will be happy if you shoot MF negative material and print them in your own darkroom.

There is one additional advantage over 35mm that no one has mentioned - for the same size of print, the necessary enlargement is less, so the dreaded dust on the negative or slide comes out smaller on the print.

Most of my colour printing experience is fairly dated and was in a lab environment (rather than a home darkroom), using MF negatives and machine processors, so it may not be totally applicable to you.

 

[Claire Senft]

If you want prints use color mrgative film. The more you manipulate a transparency to print on Cibachrome etc the more you make it like a color negative,

If you want to do it the hard way shoot slides and print them.

 

[davetravis]

Take this from a guy who knows...
The learning curve for Ilfochromes is long.
I don't know how much longer the paper/chemistry will be available.
I believe RA-4 and Fuji-archive will survive longer.
Do the math, and determine how long you want to invest.
Good luck.

 

[Dave Parker]

I don't know how much longer the paper/chemistry will be available.

Even with a lot of the new labs using digital printing systems, they still expose on color paper and use color chemistry, so it should continue to be around a long time, the local lab I used to work at, upgraded their machine a while back and still use RA4 paper and color chemistry..

Dave

 

[Mick Fagan]

Over the last 4 days I have been printing my brother's wedding, which I shot on 35mm, colour neg.

When I finished that I still had some spare paper so I pulled out a roll of Agfa Optima colour neg I shot on a Bronica SQ last year.

The difference was immediate, in that the degree of enlargement was far less for a given paper size, but the square format on rectangular paper is a bit of a pain.

That said I see absolutely no difference between 35mm colour neg and any other format colour neg.

I run a Durst Printo paper processor, output it to two trays of water for a wash, then whack them through a Rowi 12" wide paper dryer. Dry to dry in about 5 minutes from the time I slip the paper inbetween the rollers.

I printed my colour prints for about 5 years, using my Jobo.

I work on the basis that if you wish to hold a positive in your hand, then you need a negative in the enlarger for the best results.

Reversal processing is quite alright, but issues with colour balance in the tranny, as opposed to fiddling on the enlarger head for virtually perfect colour correctness, make it a neg to pos situation for me.

Mick.

 

[roteague]

I shoot almost exclusively LF, and 99% color transparency. I see no reason you can't do the same with MF. There is are reasons most landscape photographers choose transparency film over color negative - sharpness, color fidelity.

 

[Claire Senft]

Robert much do I respect your work. That being said I do not agree with your arguements in favor of transpariencies for those that prints their own wet work. While you may be great at making highlight, contrasr reducing and color correcting masks I do noy believe that there are many who can produce a superior print from transparencies when compared to printing megatives in their own darkroom.

I have the necessary punch, pin glass and registration carrier etc to make and use masks. I have printed both transparencies and color negatives. I disagree with you.

Keep up your good work Robert.

 

[langedp]

I shoot almost exclusively LF, and 99% color transparency. I see no reason you can't do the same with MF. There is are reasons most landscape photographers choose transparency film over color negative - sharpness, color fidelity.

I shoot LF almost exclusively and 90% color negative. I bought into the "landscape photographers shoot Velvia" story for awhile. If you do your own wet prints, this doesn't hold true. Color negative (Portra 160 VC) film and RA-4 prints works much better for me than Cibachrome. If you use a lab and let someone else print your images, transparencies may be the better choice.

 

[roteague]

I shoot LF almost exclusively and 90% color negative. I bought into the "landscape photographers shoot Velvia" story for awhile. If you do your own wet prints, this doesn't hold true. Color negative (Portra 160 VC) film and RA-4 prints works much better for me than Cibachrome. If you use a lab and let someone else print your images, transparencies may be the better choice.

Christopher Burkett

 

[Dave Parker]

I bought into the "landscape photographers shoot Velvia" story for awhile. If you do your own wet prints, this doesn't hold true.

Well I have to say I know quite a lot of landscape photographers that shoot trannies, I sell a heck of alot of glass to some of the big time landscape shooters, so I really don't think there is "any buying into it" it is still quite prevelent to see a landscaper shooting trannies...I also shoot trannies when using LF for landscape, but I have also shot print as well, maybe it makes a difference that I have the equipment to process my own stuff, when I have the time.

Dave

 

[127]

Above 6x9 I HATE HATE HATE 35mm colour prints. However even moving up to 645 the difference is massive, When you put two similar prints next to each other there is no contest.

The grain clouds are (effectivly) smaller, so you don't get that mottled effect 35mm can give, plus of course the resolution is greater. Gamut on the other hand remains unchanged - you don't say WHY you don't like 35mm neg film, so you may still dislike it in MF.

However there's really no point in not makeing the jump and finding out.

Ian

 

[Claire Senft]

Mr Burkett is a fine photographer and a especially good printer. I believe that he is doing it the hard way.

 

[HolgaPhile]

It is possible to get excellent 35mm negs that print beutifully especially with modern emulsions, just develop your own film. There are also some fantastic papers out there on RA4 including Ilford Digital, which is similar to Ilford 2000 with its Cibachrome look. To answer your question though, I almost exclusively print on colour and nearly always on 6x6 or 6x9 format and the beuty of MF over 35 is it is so much easier to print, so imagine how they compare when you hit the sweet spot in your processing. Big dissadvantage though is you will only get between 15 and 8 shots per roll depending on your camera.

 

[Robert Brummitt]

I use both type of color. It depends on the subject and what I want to do. I use trans for most of my landscape and color neg for my people photography. But, sometimes actually many times, I will photography my landscape with negative film. I find that it has a softer feel to the print. A much more water color painting then a strong color of oil paint.
What I use to do was make Internegs from my trans then print Type C. But, I don't think Fuji makes I-neg film anymore. I probably wrong on this. But, I watch my lab switch to scanning trans and printing from files.
Why don't you photography a subject or subjects with both and do a side be side comparison. Then you can go from there.

 

[Helen B]

I prefer negative fiim over reversal film because of the increased dynamic range. My current two favourite films are Kodak Ultra 100 and Fuji Pro 160S. The latter has the advantage that it is available in 220 and 4x5. I'll put some of my snaps into the gallery here soon, but in the meantime you can see examples of both films if you follow the link below and look in the Garden Notebooks portfolio.

Best,
Helen

 

[roteague]

Mr Burkett is a fine photographer and a especially good printer. I believe that he is doing it the hard way.

I do too, but he feels that his work needs that process.

 

[roteague]

I prefer negative fiim over reversal film because of the increased dynamic range.

Graduated neutral density filters are your best friend.

 

[Helen B]

"Graduated neutral density filters are your best friend."

They are my worst enemy. Dislike them strongly. And they only come with straight lines - joking aside, they wouldn't work for me.

But it all depends on personal taste.

Best,
Helen

 

[Claire Senft]

I do agree that starting with a slide and printing on reversal paper not only gives but makes mandatory a large range of steps.

If I were to choose to print slide on reversal paper here are a small number of things I could do to control the print.
Make highlight masks, make extreme highlight masks. make contrast reduction..or extremely rarely increasing mask, make color correcting masks, do color isolation masking, increase selectively the color of a finished print by exposing, developing and rolling into place with a registration system a dyed matrix from dye transfer technology.

Which of these things can not be done with RA4? In addition to that one could seperate their transparency into separation negatives and make RA4 printing even more a pain in the ass than making a reversal print.

That being said I hope that Mr. Burkett keeps on doing what he is doing so very well indeed.

 

[sanderx1]

They are my worst enemy. Dislike them strongly. And they only come with straight lines - joking aside, they wouldn't work for me.

Best,
Helen

OT! What shapes would you like to have? I'm too not happy with just stright ones.