Seeking advice on fuji 400h vs kodak gold vs kodak ektar in the fall

[hankchinaski]

Hello dear film addicts,

in your experience, which of these films is more adequate for fall sun situations? (weak sun of the fall, November sun etc)

I am under the impression that the grayish light of the fall will make the fuji go into an unrealistic even-grayer tone, the ektar will pump up colors in a way that is not realistic, and maybe Gold will stay more or less faithful to the scene.

Should I make a difference between specific times of the day? Morning vs noon vs golden hour?

My specific situation will be the beach in the fall.

 

[dokko]

these questions are very difficult to answer in a general way, because it depends a lot on workflow and personal taste.

are you doing analog prints or planning to scan the films?

if you're scanning, then the scanners color rendering will actually make a bigger difference in colours than the film stock itself.
Very broadly said, Kodak Ektar is quite difficult to scan in general, Gold 200 usually will tend towards a more monochrome yellow/orange look, and Fuji Pro400H will emphasise blue/green more (the Fuji is also quite hard to find now).

my personal preference in those situations would be Kodak Portra 160 as I prefer the colours over the ones you mentioned. It's also easier to scan/print and has fine grain in case you want to make larger prints.

But the best is probably shoot a roll of each, run it through your prefered workflow and see what works best for you.

 

[hankchinaski]

these questions are very difficult to answer in a general way, because it depends a lot on workflow and personal taste.

are you doing analog prints or planning to scan the films?

if you're scanning, then the scanners color rendering will actually make a bigger difference in colours than the film stock itself.
Very broadly said, Kodak Ektar is quite difficult to scan in general, Gold 200 usually will tend towards a more monochrome yellow/orange look, and Fuji Pro400H will emphasise blue/green more (the Fuji is also quite hard to find now).

my personal preference in those situations would be Kodak Portra 160 as I prefer the colours over the ones you mentioned. It's also easier to scan/print and has fine grain in case you want to make larger prints.

But the best is probably shoot a roll of each, run it through your prefered workflow and see what works best for you.

Hello Dokko,

mixed process with scanning.

From looking at portra 160 photos on flickr (I know I know, it's unreliable etc) it seems that it does render skin exceptionally, but not the rest of the scene (In this case I am doing landscapes). You mean to say that for my particular case (landscapes in the fall) it would work?

 

[BrianShaw]

Gold

 

[dokko]

From looking at portra 160 photos on flickr (I know I know, it's unreliable etc) it seems that it does render skin exceptionally, but not the rest of the scene (In this case I am doing landscapes). You mean to say that for my particular case (landscapes in the fall) it would work?

sure, it's a fantastic film for landscape too (i my opinion the best one currently available). as mentioned the scanner will be the bigger factor than the film, most photos on flickr are from Frontier scans which I personally don't like a lot.

here some pictures on Kodak Portra 160 from my flickr page:

 

[hankchinaski]

sure, it's a fantastic film for landscape too (i my opinion the best one currently available). as mentioned the scanner will be the bigger factor than the film, most photos on flickr are from Frontier scans which I personally don't like a lot.

here some pictures on Kodak Portra 160 from my flickr page:

Very nice!

Would you mind sharing the scanner you use?

 

[dokko]

It's a proprietary scanner that I've built because I was not happy with the current available solutions. some info can be found on the link in my signature and also in the thread about resolution and grain texture:

Scan of Grain Texture at 11'000ppi

I recently did a comparison of Kodak T-Max 100 vs Delta 100 developed in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX. Since the discussion involved scanning questions, it was suggested that I'd start a new thread in the scanning forum. The original discussion with the detailed info about the film...

www.photrio.com

 

[George Mann]

I vote for Ektar shot @ 80iso if you don't want the full saturation.

 

[hankchinaski]

I vote for Ektar shot @ 80iso if you don't want the full saturation.

Would you have samples?

 

[George Mann]

Would you have samples?

Not currently, but someone here probably does.