Need help selecting a slow-ish color film.

[jffielde]

New Friends,

I’m a long-time digital shooter, who’s finally coming around to the brilliance of film and I need a little help choosing a low-ISO color film.



I’m still in the process of choosing b&w films I like. The problem here is that I love lots of options. I like the grainer FP4 and HP5 (and the PanF for that matter), which are my current favorites, but I also like the Tri-X 100 and 400. Neopan is also nice! Though not quite as much, I also see the value in the smoothness of the Tmax and Delta films, and I’m warming up to them, too. Such choices!


With color films, I have the opposite problem. I can’t find a single ISO200 or slower film that I really like. I like Porta 400 and 800, and I mostly like the 160. In fact, Porta 160 is my favorite, but the colors are a little subdued. Ektar 100 has far too much saturation for my taste (the Porta is only a little low). I like the look of Porta 400 and Fuji 400H, but there’s no Fuji 100 speed film. I have tried the Kodak Gold (and newer) Fuji superia lines, and don’t really like them either.


Are there color films that you would recommend trying at ISO 200 or slower? Thanks.

 

[Roger Cole]

There is no such thing as Tri-X 100. I've no idea what you mean by that one really. There used to be Plus-X which was a great film but (heresy though it is) not really anything that different from FP4+ to get worked up about. (Ok, ok, it had more shoulder and was more pushable in some developers but if shot at box speed most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in the prints.)

I don't know of anything 200 or slower that is more saturated than Portra 160 and less saturated than Ektar 100. If you like Portra 400 just shoot it at 200, or even 100. The only really noticeable result with proper printing will be a slight lowering of contrast.

 

[Tom1956]

He means T-max. And yes, Portra NC is the only color film left for consideration. And if you can live with the graininess of 200 film, go to Wallyworld and buy some Fuji 200.

 

[Roger Cole]

He means T-max. And yes, Portra NC is the only color film left for consideration. And if you can live with the graininess of 200 film, go to Wallyworld and buy some Fuji 200.

He listed T-Max films separately.

The new Portras don't have the NC and VC designations and are somewhere in between those (which weren't that different to begin with IME.)

I'd just shoot Portra 400 and overexpose a stop (or two if needed) but you can always also do that with the Fuji consumer 200 too. Overexposure also tends to reduce grain, or at least the look of it, in color neg, opposite to black and white.

 

[jffielde]

Thanks. Sounds like I'm a Porta man all they way, as I cannot live with the graininess (or color) of the drug store color films. Thanks.

 

[Tom1956]

Thanks Roger. Didn't know about the VC-NC situation. They're all dropping like flies so fast these days I can't keep up. If "technology" keep advancing like it has, some day we'll be coating our own Daguerreotypes and loading our equipment in solar-driven carriages.

 

[Roger Cole]

Well I've been asking over on the LFPF if the wet plate workshop they are doing this month will be repeated later in the year as I'd really like to attend one and learn wetplate.

But I certainly don't want to make that my only photo material!

 

[BrianShaw]

Didn't know about the VC-NC situation. They're all dropping like flies so fast these days I can't keep up.

That was a couple of years ago and rather than "drop like flies", they replaced two 160ASA products with one that is even better... and did the same with the 400 ASA Portra products. It was a very positive event (even though I REALLY like the old NC version for portraits).

 

[jp498]

I suspect most users of portra 160 are using it in a hybrid fashion, like me, and then adjusting contrast is easy to do after the scanning.

 

[BrianShaw]

Uggg... I suppose so.

 

[MattKing]

Actually, the change from two versions of Portra two one (for each ISO version) changed the saturation more than the contrast - NC = natural colour, VC = vibrant colour.

The colour printing papers are somewhat more contrasty and saturated than the older versions. So optical prints from Portra 160 will probably result in significantly more colour saturation than Portra 160 NC.

Of course, if you are printing using a digital intermediate step, than saturation and contrast are more easily adjustable.

 

[sepiareverb]

Sounds like you need an ND filter. Then the 160 can become an 80 or a 40 speed film...

 

[RattyMouse]

New Friends,




Are there color films that you would recommend trying at ISO 200 or slower? Thanks.

135 or 120?

If 120, you might have luck finding Fuji Reala or 160NS. Both I find are excellent color films. I love Reala so much that I just dropped $50 for 10 rolls and have issued a request to my wife for her to buy 20 or so more rolls for my birthday. 160NS is still very easy to find where I am, so perhaps by you too. Stock up while you can.

This image here is from Reala 100 film:

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I would second reala its my fav color film! Really great tones and great saturation thats not over the top.

 

[cl3mens]

You can try Kodak Profoto XL 100 (or proimage 100, it's the same) if you are shooting 135. I am curious at trying them for a more neutral color palette, but I have way too much film as it is.

 

[Roger Cole]

Sounds like you need an ND filter. Then the 160 can become an 80 or a 40 speed film...

Well he doesn't like the 160 so much and wants something more saturated than 160 but less saturated than Ektar, which is pretty much Portra 400. (I haven't hot a roll of Fuji color neg in more than a decade so I can't comment on those.)

The ND filter idea works with Portra 400 of course. So does just overexposing it.

 

[Alan Klein]

What format film? What subjects are you shooting? Will you print chemically or scan and print digitally? (Chromes might then provide what you want).

 

[Roger Cole]

I thought if recommending transparency film but with Astia and E100G gone the lowest saturation available is Provia 100F and if Ektar is way too saturated then 100F is likely to be as well, not to mention contrastive and far more critical of exposure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jffielde]

I'm shooting people and landscapes, and the more I shoot the Porta 160 the more I like it. I think the whole Porta line is working for me. I'm shooting 35mm (scanned and digitized for now), by the way.

On the B&W front, I really like PanF, FP4, HP5 and TriX very much. Delta 3200 sometimes looks hazy or foggy (with gray "film" over the prints, so the blacks aren't dark enough). I may abandon Delta 3200 in favor of pushing one of the others, if I see more of this behavior. I shot a roll pushed to 6400 and a roll pulled to 1000 just to see how it behaves, but I don't think the 3200 is for me. Thanks for all the advice. Joe.

 

[destroya]

not sure if it was made in 35mm, but Fuji pro 160c has good saturation without being over the top. i like what i shot with it
[TABLE="width: 163"]

[TD="class: xl66, width: 163"][/TD]

[/TABLE]
[TABLE="width: 163"]

[TD="class: xl64, width: 163"][/TD]


[/TABLE]

 

[Roger Cole]

Are developing your own Delta 3200? It sounds like the contrast is a bit low like it needs another stop of push. I like it a lot but find it's best when I develop for a stop more - that is I shoot at 3200 and develop per instructions for 6400 and so on.

Definitely grainy as to be expected for the speed but I love it in 120.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jffielde]

No, I have Richard Photo Lab do the processing. I'm fine with the grain, and I'll give it a try. Thanks for the suggestion.