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

roteague · Mar 8, 2006

Claire Senft said:
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.

Most landscape/nature photography is done on transparency film, for a number of reasons. Like anything else in life, you have to make pro/con decisions. Transparency film doesn't have the latitude or ease of making prints (at least in a traditional darkroom), but does have the advantage of being sharper, with better color reproduction as well as being easier for magazine/book printing. The top landscape/nature photographers all shoot transparency film, they must have a reason. You can consider that "heard mentality" if you wish, but I see it as photographers choosing the best materials for their particular medium.

roteague · Mar 8, 2006

Helen B said:
"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

That's OK. Some people like them, some don't. I know that Joe Cornish uses them a lot, but I don't think Jack Dykinga uses them at all. Both, excellent landscape photographers. Like them or not, the are useful for controlling exposure latitude.

Jedidiah Smith · Mar 8, 2006

Thanks for the info, sounds like I will be more satisfied with MF color negs. Wtih 35mm I have never liked the graininess that is apparent at 11x14 or above. I suppose the fact that T-Max 100 is my favorite B&W film would explain that. (Although Plus-X 125 in 35mm has nice tonal range.)

I realize that printing from color negs will be easier by far than trannys in the dark room. Definately looking forward to the experience of Medium Format color. I suppose if I find that I still like the transparancies better, I'll just have to scan 'em. But I'll give the Kodak 100UC and Portra 160 color negs a good try.
Thanks again,
Jed

langedp · Mar 8, 2006

Helen B said:
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

Helen,

I agree completely with the dynamic range point you make above. Last time I was in the Grand Canyon I shot both negative and reversal (Velvia). The Velvia couldn't handle the range between the shadows and the highlights (sunrise). The 160 VC handled it extremely well. I don't buy the sharpness and color rendition argument made earlier either.

Dave:
Lots of landscape photographers shoot reversal, no question there. How many process their own film and print their own enlargements? How many of these are shooting for submission to book and magazine editors rather than creating their own prints? I believe these are the bigger drivers behind shooting reversal rather than sharpness or color rendition. Different methods for different needs.

Dave Parker · Mar 8, 2006

I have the ability to process and print my own, but 99% of what I take is for submission to magazines, which has been my most constant form of income until I started the glass business....so I guess I do both, all of my prints currently hanging in galleries are prints from transparancies as well...and this comming weekend I will be shooting for "Bullrider" magazine and will be shooting for magazine publication and will be using provia, I guess you are right , it comes down to what the purpose of the shots are for, I would suspect that someone that wants to shoot color and do their own processing that color neg would be the easiest choice, but I still believe that slides do have advantages in many areas..

Dave

HolgaPhile · Mar 9, 2006

I thought most pro's had gone digital! I know and work with a few pro photographers and yes they do use slide. Their reason is the editors want to select the ones to be published from a lightbox before being sent of to scan. As mentioned before though most pro's have been pushed towards digital, due to deadlines and cost. Materials and processing a year can reach well over 30k, that digi back will pay for itself pretty quickly. And what labs I work with have seen a massive decline in demand for E6 film to dev to the point of not being economical anymore. Soon the only way for E6 will be to do it yourself, E6 is a PITA to dev and the materials are expensive, it will go the same route as Cibachrome... the elite.

roteague · Mar 9, 2006

langedp said:
I agree completely with the dynamic range point you make above. Last time I was in the Grand Canyon I shot both negative and reversal (Velvia). The Velvia couldn't handle the range between the shadows and the highlights (sunrise). The 160 VC handled it extremely well. I don't buy the sharpness and color rendition argument made earlier either.

One of the reasons I recommended a split neutral density filter. I shoot a lot of sunrise/sunset images, with Velvia. Like this image:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Dave Parker · Mar 9, 2006

Our local lab here, says their E6 process volume has actually increased the last 6 months, so I guess it all depends on your location, but where I live E6 is still a viable film to shoot and quite reasonable as well as easy to get processed, when shooting E6 35mm 36 exposure rolls and I have it processed for me, I only pay $5.50 which includes mounts and mount imprinting..

Dave

langedp · Mar 9, 2006

roteague said:
One of the reasons I recommended a split neutral density filter. I shoot a lot of sunrise/sunset images, with Velvia. Like this image:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Robert,

Very nice image. I really like the detail in the sand around the rock. Hopefully it's just my monitor, but I can't see much detail in the rock itself. This is the problem I had in the Grand Canyon with Velvia at sunrise. Too much dynamic range. My shadows were almost black. Couldn't see much of anything. Same conditions shot with Portra 160 VC did much better. No need for a split density filter.

I'd upload some of those images but all I have is a cheap scanner that doesn't do film. I don't have Photoshop either. I do have an 8x10 enlarger however and I printed 20"x24" enlargements from these 8x10 negs on Ultra Endura. Was able to burn in the shadow areas since they still held good detail. Wow!

I have nothing against reversal film. Great stuff and the best thing to use for many purposes, especially submission to publication. I just don't agree that negative film doesn't work equally well (or better) when a wet print is the desired end result.

Dave

genecrumpler · Mar 11, 2006

"Medium format Color"

My limited experience with color in Med format is shooting negative color. I only do B&W in the darkroom. I'm doing my color work with Fuji 160 NPS and scamming to a Canon i9000 printer. Lens quality is not an issue as I shot with Hassie and P67.

To see a professionals comparison see; www.dannyburke.com

He has a comparison of velvia and fuji nps scanning. The difference is dramatic. I did a recent workshop with Danny and he knows MF and LF Color photography.

genecrumpler · Mar 11, 2006

Sorry, the site is www.dannyburk.com

No "e" in his name

roteague · Mar 11, 2006

langedp said:
Very nice image. I really like the detail in the sand around the rock. Hopefully it's just my monitor, but I can't see much detail in the rock itself. This is the problem I had in the Grand Canyon with Velvia at sunrise. Too much dynamic range. My shadows were almost black. Couldn't see much of anything. Same conditions shot with Portra 160 VC did much better. No need for a split density filter.

The details are quite noticeable on the transparency - this particular image was scanned on an Epson 4990, not a high end scanner by any means.

Phillip P. Dimor · Mar 11, 2006

I used to be the lab guy/printer for the local Picture People. We shot everything with Mamiya RB67's and six-exposure rolls of Kodak Portra 160nc. The negatives were developed and printed with a San Marco combination developer/printer. I loved the quality of the prints through this machine.. Good enlarging lenses really made the difference.

Now i'm the lab guy at a one-hour photo shop and do a bit of digital editing/restoration. We take on a small bit of 120. Our printer, a Noritsu/Kodak 2711
is a DIGITAL LIGHT SYSTEM. Every roll of film is SCANNED, digitized and then printed out using a bank of fiber-optic cables. There isn't a single enlarging lens inside the whole machine. I've never been truly pleased with the output. It just seems jagged, pixelated.

We keep the machine very well calibrated.. It works well for disposable cameras and low-res digital stuff and 4x6 prints. Once I enlarged one of my own 645 negatives onto a 12x18" print and it looked awful.. *shrug*

Check into how your lab prints it's stuff.
BTW, I had a Sears/Tower TLR from the 60s and it took EXCELLENT pictures using color film. I was definitely surprised and pleased.

langedp · Mar 11, 2006

genecrumpler said:
To see a professionals comparison see; www.dannyburke.com

He has a comparison of velvia and fuji nps scanning. The difference is dramatic. I did a recent workshop with Danny and he knows MF and LF Color photography.

Gene,

Thanks for the link. Very good example of what we've been describing.

Dave

roteague · Mar 11, 2006

langedp said:
Gene,

Thanks for the link. Very good example of what we've been describing.

Dave

My only comment would be on his use of Velvia 100F - a film that has been a major disappointment to most Velvia users. IMO, 100F was never good on greens anyway. A better example would have been to use either the 50 or 100 versions of Velvia.

gr82bart · Mar 12, 2006

I personally like Kodak's Ektachrome 100G and VS films. I like the oversaturation of colours. It's not for everyone, but it's gold for me. I also like the 200G film for it's ability to be pushed a few stops.

I also use Kodak's Ektachrome 160T Tungsten film for twilight scenes. Makes the whole pic appear to be more 'night' than it really is. I do know many people don't like that effect, but I do.

I have used Fuji Velvia and Provia films as well, and I can't say anything bad about them. I think I love all slide film.

I just wish Agfa Scala wasn't dead.

Regards, Art.

langedp · Mar 12, 2006

roteague said:
My only comment would be on his use of Velvia 100F - a film that has been a major disappointment to most Velvia users. IMO, 100F was never good on greens anyway. A better example would have been to use either the 50 or 100 versions of Velvia.

Can't comment on 100F. Never used it. I was using Velvia 50 when I was shooting chromes. I also used Ektachrome 100VS which I actually liked better. Still, I never could get good with the cibachrome process and I gave it a good try. I know others have been able to produce suberb results with Ciba but its a lot of work. Different strokes ...

pentaxuser · Mar 12, 2006

langedp said:
Can't comment on 100F. Never used it. I was using Velvia 50 when I was shooting chromes. I also used Ektachrome 100VS which I actually liked better. Still, I never could get good with the cibachrome process and I gave it a good try. I know others have been able to produce suberb results with Ciba but its a lot of work. Different strokes ...

I now have the Fuji magazine called Connect which lists all the Fuji Professional Film range. There are interesting marketing-speak descriptions for Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F which differ as follows:

Velvia 100: Ultra high saturation, intensely vivid colours, high contrast;perfect for landscapes, nature and commercial photography.

Velvia 100F High(not ultra) saturation, strong(not intensely vivid) colours, high contrast. Ideal(not perfect) for all aspects of commercial photography. No mention of landscapes or nature or use of word perfect.

Pentaxuser

mark · Mar 12, 2006

FIlm preference is about the same as opinions, everyone thinks theirs is the right choice. For them it is. I shoot both Tranny and neg in 35mm, MF, and 4x5. What I use depends on the mood I am in, and where I will be. Lately my mood has been less saturation and more scale. Because of this I am shooting a lot of 160NC. I love the colors. There are arguments for both sides of the plate. Get your camera, a couple of rolls of each and go shoot. See what YOU like best.

DOn't hesitate about getting the camera. There is a whole world of difference between 35mm and MF. Learning the square composition was my biggest hurdle and seeing that bigger transparency on the light box was all I needed to keep the MF camera and begin to lust after the larger formats.

Dave Parker · Mar 12, 2006

pentaxuser said:
Velvia 100F High(not ultra) saturation, strong(not intensely vivid) colours, high contrast. Ideal(not perfect) for all aspects of commercial photography. No mention of landscapes or nature or use of word perfect.

Pentaxuser

I have found Velvia 100F to be a bit more of a regression, than progression, depending on the lighting, it seems to be closer to provia than the velvia series of films, as far as 100 I don't find it to be very close to the ISO 50 velvia, but somewhere in between the 50 and 100F. I just got back 2 rolls of film, one of them Velvia 100 and a roll of ISO 50 pushed 1 stop and the pushed roll was actually more saturated than the straight 100. I love the VS films from Kodak, and am not fond of the G or GX versions..

But as Mark said, it is very much a personal thing when your choosing film and what type of film to shoot for what.

Dave

sanderx1 · Mar 12, 2006

pentaxuser said:
Velvia 100: Ultra high saturation, intensely vivid colours, high contrast;perfect for landscapes, nature and commercial photography.

Velvia 100F High(not ultra) saturation, strong(not intensely vivid) colours, high contrast. Ideal(not perfect) for all aspects of commercial photography. No mention of landscapes or nature or use of word perfect.

Pentaxuser

I have not used vevia 100 yet (shame on me) but i like 100f more than 50. Quite a bit more really.

Dave Parker · Mar 12, 2006

sanderx1 said:
I have not used vevia 100 yet (shame on me) but i like 100f more than 50. Quite a bit more really.

In all honesty, You are the first shooter I have ever heard say they like the 100F more than the original, Glad to hear someone likes it.

Dave

benjiboy · Mar 14, 2006

I use two bodys and shoot Fuji pro print film in one NPS or NPC, and either Fuji velvia 100 or Astia 100F if I want slides for projection I have found that this combination give me results I'm happy with.

alien · Mar 14, 2006

velvia 50 - velvia 100f

I find velvia 100f much easier for Ilfochrome prints!

genecrumpler · Apr 15, 2006

The following link will help with your decision;

www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning_color_negative_film.htm

Gene

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency