Slide film for reproducing fine art

[JohnBrew]

Looking for a recommendation for a slide film for reproducing fine art. I've been shooting an artist friend's output for several years now and digital is just not cutting the mustard with color reproduction. So I am going to re-shoot her entire catalog using slide film. I currently use Velvia 50 & 100 and Astia 100. The Velvia is probably too saturated to use, but the Astia seems okay. Can anyone propose an alternative and why?
Thanks.

 

[Vaughn]

Kodak 64T (with tungsten lights, of course) has always given me accurate reproductions.

Vaughn

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

You should use Kodak Ektachrome EPN. It was meant for copying applications. In terms of accuracy, I always found Kodak's offerings to be superior to Fuji. For general photography it is not the case but for sensitive applications I would rely on ektachrome EPN in 4x5.

Kris

 

[rjphil]

I've been using EPN for about 10 years for artwork. Astia was my choice until they "improved" it - after which I saw a yellow-green cast. The problem is that Kodak discontinued EPN last year. I bought a supply from Calumet at that time, you might check with them for stock. When my stock runs out, I'll have to go back to Astia, but will have to filter each batch.

 

[papagene]

I have used regular Ektachrome 100 iso daylight film along with 4 5000k photo-blue bulbs in reflectors with great results. This is a method I used through out college (I have a MFA in Sculpture and took plenty of painting classed) and I am pleased with the slides I have of my work.
Photographing artwork paid for most of my darkroom and a couple of cameras as I used to do this as a part-time job when my kids were small.

gene

 

[2F/2F]

I copy artwork all the time for students, usually during the spring and summer. I use Fuji T64, usually with bounced 500W Smith-Victor photofloods, and any problem I have ever had has been my own fault screwing up the lighting at first, not the film's. It is perfect film every time.

That being said, there is no reason that digital shouldn't work as far as getting accurate color. I shoot just as much on digital for this stuff as on film, and even when I shoot film, often I will also shoot digital while things are already set up, just so the student has a digital copy as well as a physical copy. The only reason I use film at all is 1. because schools often still want transparencies in portfolios, and 2. over all, it is cheaper and faster than digital. All I have to do is drop it off, pick it up, put the slides in a printfile page, and hand them over. With digital, I have to do all the post-shoot work myself, which is no fun at all (although you don't end up with a lot of files to work on when copying artwork, so it is pretty fast). However, I am not going to shoot film if the final product is going to be digital. Digital works fine unless you just need a simple slide in hand.

In short, I would look into why you aren't getting good results from digital, as well as exploring your film options.

 

[eddym]

You should use Kodak Ektachrome EPN. It was meant for copying applications. In terms of accuracy, I always found Kodak's offerings to be superior to Fuji. For general photography it is not the case but for sensitive applications I would rely on ektachrome EPN in 4x5.

Kris

Ditto. I've been shooting art work for years for magazine reproduction in 4x5 and also for artist's portfolios in 35mm, and I have always used EPN. The color reproduction is perfect.
Unfortunately, it is now discontinued, and I have only about 3 rolls of 35mm and a few sheets of 4x5 left. Honestly don't know what I will go to when that runs out.

 

[CBG]

Kodak 64T (with tungsten lights, of course) has always given me accurate reproductions.
Vaughn

Ditto....

I have shot the Fuji 64T side by side with the Kodak 64T and the Kodak won hands down. Something was "off" with the Fuji. Just couldn't get the color right. I've never found a better color reproduction.

C

 

[Terrence Brennan]

In short, I would look into why you aren't getting good results from digital, as well as exploring your film options.

I agree. Until we went digital in 2002, we used to use Kodak Ektachrome EPN in 8x10, 4x5 and 35mm for most reproductions, with Fuji Velvia, in the same formats, whenever we wanted more contrast and saturation. We photographed all manner of subjects: sculpture, paintings, photographs, drawings, as well as works in situ, and events, et cetera, with the same films. FWIW, we used Kodak Tri-X Professional in sheets and 120 rolls, Tri-X 35mm, as well as Ilford FP4-Plus in 120 rolls and 35mm for B&W work.

We are 100% digital now, and the results, especially for catalog photography have never been better. I just finished a shoot for a catalogue and saw the finished book yesterday; the results would not have been possible without digital--but I digress.

As much as I love conventional silver halide photography, some things do work better in digital.

(Note to all readers: PLEASE don't bring down the wrath of the conventional community on me!! I promise to be good!! I'm going home tonight to work in my darkroom, honest I am! I have 15-odd contact sheets to make!)

Anyway, drop me a PM if you would like more information on reproducing works of art digitally...it's what I do for a living.

 

[keithwms]

Fuji 64T, version 2. (rtp2)

 

[Michael W]

To the original poster - there is a book by Sheldan Collins called 'How to Photograph Works of Art'. I have the 1992 edition. He used to be an in-house photographer at the NY Met Museum of Art. You might find it helpful re technique & that might be as useful as any film choice.

 

[Rob Vinnedge]

I use Astia almost exclusively for two dimensional artwork, but Velvia 100F for most three dimensional works of art. It(Velvia 100F) has the least amount of contrast of the Velvias and I can more easily achieve neutrality in the greys.

 

[JohnBrew]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I have a pretty good stock of Astia and Velvia 100F, but I will try the Kodak 64T. However, I should note that earlier this year I experimented with the "Tungsten" white balance setting in the studio on my digital and found it way off, the fluorescent setting being better. I did order the Sheldan Collins book, perhaps it will provide some assistance. For some reason my Leica M8 has not been near as effective as the replaced Nikon D200 (in studio), and while I've always continued to shoot film the client wanted the files ASAP. But even the client is excited about going back to slides