Negatives or Chromes in 6x7?

[RichardJack]

In your opinion which of these films is likely to give me a better image and scan. I have some 120 Ektachrome 200 and Portra 400, VC & NC in my refrigerator. I'd like to have some fun with my GS-1 in 6x7 but on the other hand I want the results to be as good as my D750. Down the road I'll purchase some better film.
thanks,
Rick

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I found chromes are sharper, but color negs gives better exposure latitude. If you blow out highlights on a chrome, it's gone, but on a neg it's recoverable. That's from my personal experience. I'm sure other APUGers will have a different experience.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Depends on what you're planning to do with the shots, and what is necessary to facilitating the learning curve. The selection of current chrome films
is thinning out pretty fast, and in the meantime, some color neg film has come a long ways. The nice thing about chromes is that you can judge your
progress intuitively on a lightbox, while negs have to receive either a scan or contact sheet to evaluate. Portra NC is a good starting point if you want
to evolve into current Portra 160, while NC is a good stepping off point for fussier yet more precise Ektar 100 film. Hard to say if your Ektachrome 200 is still any good or not.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... Sorry for the typo, I mean to say that VC is a good starting point for Ektar, which is even more saturated.

 

[moto-uno]

Having just developed about a dozen rolls of E-6 and C-41 at home in the last few weeks , I'm not really sure
which may be better , love to look at the chromes from the Mamiya 7 , but love the fact that the C-41 did pretty
well give me a higher success rate . I certainly couldn't tell the difference on some 24" x 30" enlargements .
Peter

 

[bvy]

And, of course, you can't print chromes optically without jumping through some serious hoopage.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

And, of course, you can't print chromes optically without jumping through some serious hoopage.

The hoopage is dead. I mean Cibachrome, Kodak R-2000 and internet film. I know I'm going to get flack for this, but if I were printing chromes, I'd scan it and send it to Shutterfly.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hard to say if the hoopage is really dead or not. But you do need to be Dr. Frankenstein with the ability to stitch together a lot of parts dug up in a
graveyard, and then shock them back to life. I sometimes do that kind of thing myself with chromes. But when I want to Get from Point A to B efficiently, I now shoot color neg film (mainly Ektar) and then RA4 print it. Or you scan either type of film and then output it to either inkjet or laser
printed RA4 paper. I just don't like the look of digital prints compared to true optically-enlarged ones.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Hard to say if the hoopage is really dead or not. But you do need to be Dr. Frankenstein with the ability to stitch together a lot of parts dug up in a
graveyard, and then shock them back to life. I sometimes do that kind of thing myself with chromes. But when I want to Get from Point A to B efficiently, I now shoot color neg film (mainly Ektar) and then RA4 print it. Or you scan either type of film and then output it to either inkjet or laser
printed RA4 paper. I just don't like the look of digital prints compared to true optically-enlarged ones.

It takes a darkroom master to shoot chromes on color neg film. I even have a old slide duper that I tried to shoot regular color neg film and it picks up a lot of contrast compared to using interneg film. I've never tried masking or pre-fogging film to control contrast. But I'm seen some very nice prints made from color neg film duped from transparencies.

 

[bvy]

Ciba/Ilfochrome isn't the hoopage I was referring to. I was referring to RA-4 reversal, making internegatives, enlarging to instant color film, etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Internegs are still feasible. Just not easy or affordable to do correctly. But back when commercial labs routinely offered them, they generally did a
half-asses job of it anyway, i.e, clock-in/clock-out. I've got a whole suite of them contact onto Portra 160 from various 8x10 chrome films, but with
very precise tone and contrast masking added. No time to print them yet, though I have done preliminaries with mixed success. Velvia is a bitch.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If you want to the results that are on a par with a digiboi's toys, then in terms of using chrome film, be prepared for some seriously involved work getting the image from transparency to print. That said, it is very easy and straightforward if your exposures are spot-on each time and every time. This implies that you may get better value for your money and efforts shooting with negative film as opposed to the precision needed to get the very best results with chrome film; exposure quality is directly proportional to the quality of the print, all other considerations being satisfied. RA-4 hybridised printing is very, very common now and has beaten that old maven Ilfochrome Classic into a distant and none-too-forelorn memory. There is nothing to say that the 6x7 format (or 6x6 or larger) is not suitable for either of the types of film you are considering. It's just the end-product -- how you are going to use it and the costs of doing so.
As opposed to the honourable member Mr Wiley's remark of Velvia, I take the other fork in the road: Velvia is a darling.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've never seen a print from a DLSR in my life that could compete with the detail of a decently made true optical Cibachrome from reasonably large film. And as far as color neg film goes, a properly focused Ektar neg from 6x9 printed onto something like Fujiflex gives any chrome film ever made a run for its money and easily skunks any comparable inkjet. Drum-scanned and laser printed Fujiflex (Supergloss) prints, in the hands of an expert, come in a close second, and are visually a worthy successor to Cibachrome. Of course, this is all relative, and anything good large format film will easily skunk anything 6x7. Roll film in general is a logistical headache compared to far more dimensionally stable sheet films, provided they are
on polyester base rather than acetate, which the last remaining Fuji chrome films are not! But alas, I've shot em all, and have a lot of 6x7 and 6x9 printing to do soon. As for Velvia, yeah, it's real cute in a slide projector or over a lightbox, but a complete bear in terms of printing or other forms of reproduction due to its very limited contrast range. I do like it for enhancing low-contrast rain and fog scenes. Nowadays, people simply ramp up the
color saturation in Fauxtoshop to the point of nausea anyway.

 

[Alan Klein]

Depends what you're shooting. If people, Portra does the best with flesh tones and scans pretty easy (the newest Portras). I shoot landscapes mainly so find Portra too neutral. Ektar 100 is more exciting but I had trouble scanning and getting the colors right. I like Velvia because it "pops". Also, since it's a chrome I can tell immediately which of my bracketed shots is exposed the best. I also seem to get the adjustments easier from the scans. Try them all but it's good to settle on one and work with it until you get the scan adjustments right. Jumping all over the place with different films and trying to get the scan results consistent will drive you nuts.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

As for Velvia, yeah, it's real cute in a slide projector or over a lightbox, but a complete bear in terms of printing or other forms of reproduction due to its very limited contrast range. I do like it for enhancing low-contrast rain and fog scenes. Nowadays, people simply ramp up the
color saturation in Fauxtoshop to the point of nausea anyway.

Huh?! "A complete bear in terms of printing"??
Where is this coming from? What are you doing? In my work it is extremely uncommon for anybody else producing similar work to complain about Velvia unless they are shooting in conditions completely and entirely adverse to its intention and bum up everything. Yes, then they have a problem. I certainly do question people who wantonly pan Velvia and soon discover the problem is with the photographer — not the film!

Then there are those like me who like to make Velvia look more akin to Reala (no, no Fauxtoshoppe needed at any time), which is very easy in one ideal condition that you have mentioned: low contrast, rain and fog scenes. I love this. Then, there is no hypersaturation, just a gentle nudge. There is no dramatic featureless shadows. But if you blithely shoot against what Velvia enjoys, expect the bear to rise up and bite you on the asterisks! The alternatives are there and should have been used in the first place (e.g. Provia 100F, Provia 400X, Rollei CR200...), and Portra (for me, that comes out at Christmas time). To the OP, if you have more than one 6x7 or MF body, shoot chromes in one camera and negatives in the other, parallel of the same scene. Then wait for judgement day on the lightbox.

 

[Johnkpap]

The Bronica GS-1 is a very nice camera, I have one and have found it give very sharp and pleasing results, the other good thing is you can get most of the lenses for as little as a $100 !!!! when new these lenses sold for between $2000 and $4000 each !!! I have had great results shooting Colour Neg and Slide as well as B&W film, your C41 neg film you have will work fine, I have been getting my best results on Ektar 100 film as the grain is low and it scans and optically prints very well.

With regards to making internegs I found that AGFA 160 gave very good results many years ago (I have a Frozen supply for this reason) Kodak portra 160 would be a option and so would Fuji 160

Have fun with the bronica

Johnkpap

 

[Kirks518]

I'm not on the level as some of the others who replied, but for me, I find negatives are easier to work with when getting them to look 'right' for the web. Slides/chromes are beautiful in person, but I am always disappointed in a scanned chrome. They always seem to be flatter then the original. With a negative, there isn't the same ability to compare once it's scanned, so IMO, a scanned negative is more successful then a scanned chrome. In other words, a scanned chrome looks blah compared to a chrome on a lightbox.

 

[wiltw]

I find the fundamental question/response that applied 'in the old days' to still apply...WHAT is the ultimate PURPOSE of the image?

• if you want to project images or publish via offset press, shoot chrome
• if you want a print, shoot color negative

For example, for a portraiture client, shoot color neg.
Of course, I used to love shooting chromes and then printing them large myself on Cibachrome for wall display. But I wanted the chrome first for projection, secondarily for print. It had its limitations, but Cibachromes could be glorious.

Digital images are pathetic for projection, since an affordable digital projector does not equal the ancient Canon 20D for resolution, and you need to spend and arm and leg and sell your firstborn, for 4K projection capability.

 

[polka]

To my opinion, slides are best for "analog" projection. Since it is difficult (maybe even impossible) to find slide projectors for 56x72 slides, I prefer to shoot negs (color and B&W) in this format.
But as I own projectors both for 24x36 and (up to) 56x56 slides and could compare, I find that medium format projection (even 645) is a lot more fun than 135 film formats.

Paul

 

[RichardJack]

Wow...didn't expect so many replies. It's nice to see so many people still into film.
My intention is to scan the slide or negative. I was a fool to sell my Nikon 9000 scanner but have a Epson V850 on order. Most images will make their way to the web, some might get printed. I have a pro lab that I use that prints on conventional enlarging paper from my tiffs. But I don't think I will ever print anything larger than 20x30". Ektar 100 is my film of choice in 6x7, I've never shot a chrome with that camera. The two films mentioned are taking up space in the refrigerator and I figured I use them. Years back I shot 6x6 slides with my Rolleiflex that projected beautifully, there is nothing like a medium format slide show.
I'm going to shoot them both and make my own comparison. I was tempted to put the sealed brick of Ektachrome on EBay and use the money for some fresh film.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Rick

 

[MattKing]

The 6x4.5 and rare 6x6 backs for the RB67 give you the option to easily project wonderful slides.

As far as printing from 6x7 slides, a flatbed scanner will be okay for web use, but marginal for prints.

Shoot the negative film for prints.

 

[mshchem]

I've never seen a print from a DLSR in my life that could compete with the detail of a decently made true optical Cibachrome from reasonably large film. And as far as color neg film goes, a properly focused Ektar neg from 6x9 printed onto something like Fujiflex gives any chrome film ever made a run for its money and easily skunks any comparable inkjet. Drum-scanned and laser printed Fujiflex (Supergloss) prints, in the hands of an expert, come in a close second, and are visually a worthy successor to Cibachrome. Of course, this is all relative, and anything good large format film will easily skunk anything 6x7. Roll film in general is a logistical headache compared to far more dimensionally stable sheet films, provided they are
on polyester base rather than acetate, which the last remaining Fuji chrome films are not! But alas, I've shot em all, and have a lot of 6x7 and 6x9 printing to do soon. As for Velvia, yeah, it's real cute in a slide projector or over a lightbox, but a complete bear in terms of printing or other forms of reproduction due to its very limited contrast range. I do like it for enhancing low-contrast rain and fog scenes. Nowadays, people simply ramp up the
color saturation in Fauxtoshop to the point of nausea anyway.

You are a wise man who speaks with authority. Cibachrome was absolutely amazing. Secondly, if you want to make prints shoot negative film. Then print it in a darkroom with a lens . If you are going to go through all the photoshop work why not shoot digital. I still shoot a few rolls of Fujichrome every fall and make 6x6 slides. They are gorgeous..
Best Regards Mike

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Color neg has arrived IMO. It has the resolution of slide film with the inherent malleability and latitude that neg film is known for. It can produce amazing prints. I really don't see any reason to shoot chromes anymore unless you want that to be your final product or you want to project them. You could make a case back in the day for the inherent aesthetics of Cibachrome, and they were amazing, but that ship has sailed. If I were you OP, I would sell the chrome films and get some fresh neg film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's a tough spot to be in. Cibachromes have superb dark storage life, and good display life if you keep them away from UV. Fuji CA Supergloss allegedly has better display life, but will probably begin to yellow within a few decades. Cibachrome had to be beaten into submission with drastic
masking (esp Velveeta!), while RA4 paper is relatively easy to print in the darkroom, though I do often fine-tune mask it. The big disappointment with color negs for we landscape photographers is that they were engineered for pleasing skintones at the expense of overall hue accuracy. But Ektar has changed that, provided you take the time to understand it. I do have a few boxes of truly versatile 8x10 chrome film left in the freezer, namely Astia
100F and Kodak E100G, which I'll eventually use for those handful of dye transfer prints warranting this. Sadly, no more of these specific chrome film in 120 roll version. I can't complain. Had many years of fun printing chromes. Now I'm having equal fun with color negs.