Suggest a color film that's one step better than Kodak Gold or ColorPlus?

[loccdor]

My favorite budget color film is expired Fuji Sensia 100 at $10 per roll, when it can be found. It holds up well over decades, and any cast that it develops will be less severe to digitally adjust than C-41's orange mask. I've shot stock expired from 1996, to 2004, to 2008 and it all took good pictures, if adjusting color is already part of your workflow.

 

[BrianShaw]

P 400 has a little more saturation than 160. Kodak states it correctly. But the posted chart is out of date, and refers to NC and VC versions no longer made.

Hi Drew. That chart is from circa 2011 Kodak brochure, showing the differences between the original Portra films and the "updated" Portra films. There are two horizontal axis', original and updated. If Portra has since been updated again I guess I missed any significant changes.

BTW, I much prefer the old 160NC and still have some of that and 160VC from the pre/early-release testing. I should use it one of these days...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shot a fair amount of 160VC in 4x5 and 8x10. It was a good stepping stone toward handling the present
Ektar.

 

[dcy]

Lack of shadow detail means the negative is underexposed, or the shadow detail is lopped off during scanning/printing. Blown out highlights mean that the highlight detail was lost in scanning or printing. Simply put, the problem is in exposure and how the output medium (scanned digital or print) is handled, not in the nature of the negative film. I think you're looking into the wrong direction to solve this problem.

Can you post an example of one of the shots that has given you problems, and provide some details on how you handled the digitization?

Oh!

Alright. I dug around for an example, and I found evidence that I did something wrong in the digital processing step.

While my previous post referred to infrequent cases where I have both crushed shadows and blown highlights, I want to show you a different example with just blown highlights, which is a much more frequent problem for me. I often have trouble with the sky and clouds. The shot below is one I was particularly disappointed with. Complete loss of detail in the clouds, and weirdly grainy sky.

The film was sold as "Fuji 400" bought at a time when everyone already suspected that, at least in North America, Fuji 400 is just rebranded Ultramax.

I digitized the negative with my DSLR. I dug for the negative (included below), and it clearly shows plenty of detail in the clouds. This was the first roll of film I ever scanned, so it probably has a maximum amount mistakes in it. I should go back to it and see what I can do now that (1) I have a bit more experience with the software and (2) I am aware of the issue.

I am still going to try other films --- I do very much want to try other films and see what they look like for me. But this bit about how blown highlights point to scanning + processing issues rather than film was a useful tangent.

I do not have any questions about processing right now. I want to go back and review other shots I've had with featureless clouds and see if I can fix them. If I can't, I will make a new post in the hybrid forum with questions.

 

[dcy]

Ektar is different; it's not artificially warmed for sake of that, and certainly not in the sense Gold is. And due to its high contrast, Ektar also has to be exposed more carefully or there will be hue reproduction errors. It is also more sensitive to color temp exposure errors, if you expect the most out of it.

Dumb question: What are color temp exposure errors? Are we supposed to expose Ektar differently based on the colors of the scene?

 

[BrianShaw]

Dumb question: What are color temp exposure errors? Are we supposed to expose Ektar differently based on the colors of the scene?

Let's do an experiement and see if Drew agrees with AI. LOL

Common Ektar color shifts

Blue color cast from underexposure
Ektar's color fidelity is very sensitive to proper exposure. Underexposing the film, especially in the shadows, can cause a distinct and sometimes severe blue color shift. This is particularly common when shooting in low light, open shade, or during winter.

• The fix: Rate the film at a lower ISO, like 80 or 64, to ensure adequate exposure and protect the shadows. Some photographers even rate it at ISO 50.

Blue or orange casts from artificial light
As a daylight film, Ektar is highly sensitive to the warmer color temperatures of artificial light sources like tungsten bulbs.

• Tungsten (3200K) or Photolamp (3400K) lighting: Shooting with these light sources without a corrective filter will produce a strong orange or yellow cast.
• The fix: The Kodak data sheet recommends using a blue correction filter, like an 80A for 3200K tungsten light, and rating the film at a lower ISO (e.g., ISO 25 or 32) to compensate for the filter.

Reddish or magenta cast from overexposure
Overexposing Ektar can shift the color balance towards warmer, reddish, or magenta tones, especially in the highlights.

• The fix: While Ektar has decent overexposure latitude, proper metering is key. For best results, use a handheld light meter and be precise with your settings. Some color shifts can be corrected in scanning or printing.

Cyan or magenta shifts in deep shadows
In extremely underexposed areas, Ektar's highly saturated dye layers can cause color crossovers, producing distinct cyan or magenta shifts. This is different from the overall blue cast of general underexposure.

• The fix: The only real solution is to get the exposure correct in the first place, ensuring the shadows receive enough light to avoid crushing and color shifts.

Scanning and processing variables
Even with perfect exposure, the final results can be influenced by the development and scanning process.

• Development issues: Errors in C-41 home development, especially with incorrect chemical temperatures, can easily introduce color shifts. Using old or depleted chemicals is a common culprit.
• Scanning challenges: Many photographers report that Ektar is more challenging to scan than other negative films. The software used for negative inversion and the scanner's color correction settings can impact the final color balance, sometimes creating an unwanted blue cast in the shadows. Careful color correction in post-processing is often necessary.

Google Search

 

[calebarchie]

Aerocolor IV == Flic Film Elektra 100 --- $14 / roll --- Accurate colors. Watch out for light piping.

In what world is aerocolour accurate? Where are you sourcing your information from, Reddit?

 

[mshchem]

never found muted colors in Portra 160, i think that's more of a youtuber's thing

Absolutely!

 

[dcy]

In what world is aerocolour accurate? Where are you sourcing your information from, Reddit?

I do not recall the source. It was not Reddit. However, it not being Reddit clearly does not ensure accuracy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sorry, Brian. Gotta disagree on a few particulars.

Overexposing Ektar to boost the shadows is likely to blow out the highlights instead, and risk color shifts or washing out there. Ektar has only about a stop further each direction of latitude than typical slide film. There is a way to selectively improve the shadows by pre-flashing the film instead; but I won't outline it here.

Ektar suffers from cyan contamination of blue, especially at the fringes of exposure latitude. Getting a magenta shift is less common. I once got an interesting blue to magenta gradient shift toward the corners of the field by employing the native fall-off characteristics of a wide angle lens near the summit of Haleakala.
It was deliberate. But on the same Island, the turquoise tropical water came out absolutely stunning due to the cyan imbalance of Ektar; yet the greens and earthtone hues in the foreground were rendered quite
accurately anyway.

Most problems with scanning are due to an insufficient sampling size in relation to 35mm film. Either pay for a higher quality scan or shoot a larger film format.

 

[DREW WILEY]

dcy - color temperature refers to the illumination involved. How the film reacts to colors in the scene is a secondary but related question. For example, Kodak "daylight" color films are balanced to a standard of 5500K. Sometimes actual light can be a higher K temp and bluer, or a lower temp and warmer (more yellow). A color temperature meter can be used for precise work, along with supplemental warming versus cooling filters. Digital cameras use a white balance control feature instead.

Traditional color neg film like Portra, or its Vericolor predecessors, or Gold, are artificially warmed so that skintones come out pleasing even if the lighting is less than ideal. A pro portrait studio would tailor the lighting or strobe itself with appropriate filtration for the exact effect they want. But Ektar is not a typical color neg film. It sees blue in the shadows of even complexions as they really are, and just like how the Impressionists scandalized the art world by making shadows under open sunlight blue, like they actually saw them.

But there is a side effect to the artificial warming of typical color neg films. It results in poor differentiation between analogous warm colors in the scene. Yellows, golds, and oranges are poorly differentiated, and in some cases, get lumped together into an almost pumpkin flesh tone effect. The entire color strategy of Stephen Shore back in the 70's relied up this symptom in Vericolor L, along with the cyanish "poison green"
contamination of natural greens.

Ektar is far better balanced IF correctly exposed, but still suffers from some cyan contamination of blue. The late Ron Mowrey discussed that on this forum. But it is a significant improvement over the earlier Ektar 25.

 

[DREW WILEY]

tychos - Portra 160 is quite muted. It's a low contrast portrait film for heaven's sake! Sure, people punch up the saturation in PS. But to make it work well in the darkroom for me, I'd have a serious issue even if I added supplementary contrast-increase masks. That's why, prior to the current Ektar option, they offered a VC (vivid color) version of Porta 160, as well as lower-contrast NC version.

It is well-balanced, however. I use Portra 160 sheet film for precision internegatives of chrome film originals, for sake of RA4 printing.

 

[Oldwino]

Let's do an experiement and see if Drew agrees with AI. LOL

Common Ektar color shifts

Blue color cast from underexposure
Ektar's color fidelity is very sensitive to proper exposure. Underexposing the film, especially in the shadows, can cause a distinct and sometimes severe blue color shift. This is particularly common when shooting in low light, open shade, or during winter.

• The fix: Rate the film at a lower ISO, like 80 or 64, to ensure adequate exposure and protect the shadows. Some photographers even rate it at ISO 50.

Blue or orange casts from artificial light
As a daylight film, Ektar is highly sensitive to the warmer color temperatures of artificial light sources like tungsten bulbs.

• Tungsten (3200K) or Photolamp (3400K) lighting: Shooting with these light sources without a corrective filter will produce a strong orange or yellow cast.
• The fix: The Kodak data sheet recommends using a blue correction filter, like an 80A for 3200K tungsten light, and rating the film at a lower ISO (e.g., ISO 25 or 32) to compensate for the filter.

Reddish or magenta cast from overexposure
Overexposing Ektar can shift the color balance towards warmer, reddish, or magenta tones, especially in the highlights.

• The fix: While Ektar has decent overexposure latitude, proper metering is key. For best results, use a handheld light meter and be precise with your settings. Some color shifts can be corrected in scanning or printing.

Cyan or magenta shifts in deep shadows
In extremely underexposed areas, Ektar's highly saturated dye layers can cause color crossovers, producing distinct cyan or magenta shifts. This is different from the overall blue cast of general underexposure.

• The fix: The only real solution is to get the exposure correct in the first place, ensuring the shadows receive enough light to avoid crushing and color shifts.

Scanning and processing variables
Even with perfect exposure, the final results can be influenced by the development and scanning process.

• Development issues: Errors in C-41 home development, especially with incorrect chemical temperatures, can easily introduce color shifts. Using old or depleted chemicals is a common culprit.
• Scanning challenges: Many photographers report that Ektar is more challenging to scan than other negative films. The software used for negative inversion and the scanner's color correction settings can impact the final color balance, sometimes creating an unwanted blue cast in the shadows. Careful color correction in post-processing is often necessary.

Google Search

Summary:
learn to expose correctly. It’s one of the important skill of film photography.

 

[mshchem]

One thing I've learned over the years. You need to use daylight (or flash, or both) to get vibrant accurate color from daylight film.

Color balancing filters will work to a point.

Adjustments when printing (analog) works to a point.

Computer voodoo photoshop can create almost anything given a lot of skill and time.

The little felt tip red-eye pens are a thing of the past

Do people remember red-eye??? This disappeared with digital minilabs 30 years ago

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I have used the current Gold 200 (135 size) a few times, but I thought it was grainy (it is hard to see in the example below). I have a couple rolls in 120 size to try soon. In the 6x6 size, it may be fine. I wish wish wish Kodak would reintroduce the 35mm Gold 100 from the late 1990s and early 2000s.

If the weather is overcast, gloomy, or drizzly, I try to use Ektar 100 and expose it at EI=64. In bright sun, EI=100 seems to be fine. But usually in bright sun, I opt for Portra 160 at EI=125.

Artist studio in Hoquiam, Washington, USA, in the Olympic Peninsula. Kodak Retina IIa, 50mm ƒ/2 Schneider Xenon lens

 

[dcy]

One thing I've learned over the years. You need to use daylight (or flash, or both) to get vibrant accurate color from daylight film.

I have noticed that my indoor shots consistently look awful (underexposed and grainy) compared to daylight ones. Either my camera's light meter or the film ISO must be wavelength-dependent.

I was thinking of maybe adding a +1 stop exposure when I'm indoors.

Do people remember red-eye??? This disappeared with digital minilabs 30 years ago

I remember red-eye. I always wondered why they disappeared.

I remember cameras that had a feature that would do a small flash before the real flash to shrink your pupils that was supposed to reduce red-eye.

 

[MattKing]

I have noticed that my indoor shots consistently look awful (underexposed and grainy) compared to daylight ones. Either my camera's light meter or the film ISO must be wavelength-dependent.

I was thinking of maybe adding a +1 stop exposure when I'm indoors.

It probably is more related to the nature of the lighting distribution, the metering, and most importantly the scanning and post processing.
Indoor lighting tends to be much less even, so meter readings are often misleading - the reading being fooled because it is based on areas of the subject that are not illuminated as well as areas that are brightly illuminated.
And then the problem is compounded when you scan, because any built in auto adjustments in the scanning process get fooled by similar things.
If the lighting inside is nice and even, you shouldn't have the problem.
But when it isn't, I tend to prefer incident metering, when possible.

 

[mshchem]

Wein WP-500 Flash Meter with Original Case and Instruction Manual | eBay

Tested and working. Operates on one 9V battery (included). Includes the original case and printed Instruction Manual.

www.ebay.com

 

[tykos]

tychos - Portra 160 is quite muted. It's a low contrast portrait film for heaven's sake! Sure, people punch up the saturation in PS. But to make it work well in the darkroom for me, I'd have a serious issue even if I added supplementary contrast-increase masks. That's why, prior to the current Ektar option, they offered a VC (vivid color) version of Porta 160, as well as lower-contrast NC version.

It is well-balanced, however. I use Portra 160 sheet film for precision internegatives of chrome film originals, for sake of RA4 printing.

the bunch of prints i posted above are ra-4 prints (my negatives, not my prints), no photoshop in them.
Looking at them in person i wouldn't refer to them as "muted", not at all. Well balanced yes, color accurate yes. But they're not muted and, more than everything, they're not that pastel look everyone on the internet says is the typical portra. Colors are quite vivid and brilliant.
And some of those (the lake one, for example) were shot with an old and beaten Nettar 516 or 517 definitely not a modern lens with tons of contrast and color control.
Maybe we call the same thing differently.

 

[dcy]

Wein WP-500 Flash Meter with Original Case and Instruction Manual | eBay

Tested and working. Operates on one 9V battery (included). Includes the original case and printed Instruction Manual.

www.ebay.com

I am embarrassed to admit that I had never heard of a "flash meter" before. I found a YT video that explains what they do.

Indoor lighting tends to be much less even, so meter readings are often misleading - the reading being fooled because it is based on areas of the subject that are not illuminated as well as areas that are brightly illuminated.
...
If the lighting inside is nice and even, you shouldn't have the problem.
But when it isn't, I tend to prefer incident metering, when possible.

I found this article explaining the difference between incident vs reflective light meters. It explains a bit about why incident is better.

The flash meter @mshchem found on eBay is just $25. There are others on Amazon at a similar price. I would be happy to grab one and learn to use it. The problem I have is that my camera doesn't have traditional manual controls. Instead of aperture + shutter, I have to guess what the camera's light meter is thinking and use one dial to adjust exposure, and another to toggle between slow shutter or wide aperture.

In a previous thread you explained to me how to adjust exposure when photographing something like white snow vs a scene that is very black.

Can you think of a way that I could use either a flash meter or a spot meter to better guess how to adjust exposures with the camera controls that I have?

Perhaps I can take two measurements: one in a relatively well lit part of the scene and one on the subject. The difference between the two exposures would give me a rough measure of how much I might need to compensate.

What should I be looking for in an incident light meter?

 

[koraks]

I dug for the negative (included below), and it clearly shows plenty of detail in the clouds.

Thanks for including the illustration; it does indeed demonstrate what I hoped you'd take from this - that there's plenty of room to play with the film(s) you've been using so far.
As you observed, the clouds are not the problem in that negative (or indeed its digitization). The lack of shadow detail is a more pressing issue, in my view.

Evidently, it's a tricky scene with a rock face that's hidden in deep shadows adjacent to sunlit clouds. The main issue here is metering.

I do very much want to try other films and see what they look like for me.

Of course; I can only encourage this. I've had a lot of fun doing the same; I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from doing so. At the risk of waving the normative finger some more - as long as you keep a clear eye on what kind of characteristics you're really looking for, and what the effect of handling/processing the film is. The latter is such an overpoweringly strong set of factors that it's easy to draw a wrong conclusion about the former.

I have noticed that my indoor shots consistently look awful (underexposed and grainy) compared to daylight ones. Either my camera's light meter or the film ISO must be wavelength-dependent.

Metering can be tricky; in indoor environments, meters are often thrown off by bright light sources in or near the frame - think of windows, bare light bulbs etc. The grain in the resulting underexposed shots generally originates from three factors, all of which ultimately track down to the issue of underexposure:
1: The red channel will be dominant in indoor shots if they're artificially illuminated (warm light, after all). The red channel is generally more grainy than the other two on color negative film.
2: Since capture will only have occurred on the faster elements of the film emulsion, and these elements are more grainy, the image will overall be relatively grainy
3: To salvage the image digitally, you'll have to boost contrast, emphasizing grain - and since you're basically working right at the noise floor (of the film), you end up emphasizing the grain a lot.

The nice thing about color negative film is that overall, it tends to tolerate overexposure fairly well - especially films like Gold, and especially if you use digital tools to optimize the output. So err to the side of overexposure in tricky situations, and you usually end up with at least a salvageable result, if not something downright acceptable.

 

[Agulliver]

I know a lot of us like to say that modern films offer great exposure latitude, but scenes with bright skies and darker shadows still need to be carefully metered. After a while you'll probably develop an instinct for how your camera(s) meter various scenes and know when to compensate.

It is often a good practise to over expose a bit when there's a considerable portion of bright sky. The highlights almost certainly will be retrievable with a little editing or skill in the darkroom, and you'll get better shadows.

Ektar is a funny beast because it does have the saturation dialed up. But it's a great film once you learn how to use it. Color Plus and Ultramax are really the "everyday" films that can be adapted to just about every situation. I've never been a fan of Gold and it's whole mission to make dull days look bright. But many do love it and again it does it's thing in virtually all conditions.

Indoor lighting is often inconsistent, from windows and lamps. the lamp temperature may well not match natural light and while our eyes/brains automatically compensate, film does not.

In your position of using the half frame camera, I'd probably stick to Color Plus and Pro image 100 most of the time for colour film and learn to nail the exposure.

 

[Samu]

never found muted colors in Portra 160, i think that's more of a youtuber's thing

These are more like scanning issues with people using digital workflow. I find Portra 160 a good all-around film with natural colors ehrn printed optically. Same goes with Ektar, and the red skinned people. It is a scanner issue, not a problem with the film.

 

[tykos]

These are more like scanning issues with people using digital workflow. I find Portra 160 a good all-around film with natural colors ehrn printed optically. Same goes with Ektar, and the red skinned people. It is a scanner issue, not a problem with the film.

even when scanned (not by me, not edited by me) i have similar results to ra4 prints. The first picture i attached is a scan, i don't call that muted.

 

[BrianShaw]

... The problem I have is that my camera doesn't have traditional manual controls. Instead of aperture + shutter, I have to guess what the camera's light meter is thinking and use one dial to adjust exposure, and another to toggle between slow shutter or wide aperture.
...

Addressing this potential issue might make many of your current problems vanish. Seriously consider getting a camera that gives you control.