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

[dcy]

I have shot Kodak Gold and Color Plus and they work well enough. I am mostly happy with my photos. A couple of times I've been disappointed by the dynamic range. I shoot half frame and the grain of Gold & ColorPlus is fine, but I wouldn't complain if it was smaller. I want to try something better (more expensive) than Kodak Gold to see if I like it. This is 100% casual use. I just pop the film into my camera and spend 2 weeks shooting a roll. I mostly shoot in sunny conditions, so I'm looking at low-ISO films. Here are the options as I understand them:

• Ektar 100 --- $15 / roll --- Great for landscapes. Makes people look like lobsters.
• Portra 160 --- $15 / roll --- Great for portraits, but you're expected to post-process its muted colors to get the result you want.
• Aerocolor IV == Flic Film Elektra 100 --- $14 / roll --- Accurate colors. Watch out for light piping.
• Vision3 50 D == Flic Film Cine 50 D --- $11 / roll --- Finest grain. ISO 50 may be limiting. Develop in ECN-2 or cross-process in C-41.
• Pro Image 100 --- $10 / roll --- Larger grain (same as K. Gold), but with much better dynamic range.

My question is completely subjective: Which film(s) do you think I should try?

 

[MattKing]

Portra 160 - because if you are scanning and then working from digital, every film's result requires post-processing.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have used Pro Image, seems to be similar to Ektar 100 with larger gain, color was close to Ektar as well. If you print then printing Vision 3 or any repurposed movie film without the orange mask can be an issue. If you scan and print then I would give Vision 3 a try, the few rolls I have shot were printed using a Frontier which did a good of balancing the colors. To be truthful, I no longer shoot color film, just too expensive. If I want color I use a DSLR.

 

[BrianShaw]

Portra 160. I agree with your impression of “muted color” but you might want to review Koraks posts on that topic as he may have a different opinion/experience.

 

[dcy]

Thanks!

Yes, I am scanning. No current plans to try RA4 (I don't even have the necessary equipment). I will try Portra 150, and also Vision 3 and see how it goes. Thanks for the help!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ektar is a trickier film to work with. But If people look like lobsters, it's certainly not the fault of the film. Maybe the camera wasn't intended for underwater use in a boiling pot. You might try something more forgiving of error like Portra 400, which is also a little more saturated than Portra 160.

 

[mshchem]

Portra 160 is capable of extraordinary color. It's the most accurate col9r negative film available today.

Ektar is extraordinary as well.

 

[brian steinberger]

I would recommend portra 160. My favorite.

 

[halfaman]

I would not say Portra 160 has muted colors, it simply does not have the artificial warmth of Color Plus and Gold. Ektat is weird for me, tones differ considerabley with the type of lightning.

Portra 160 is my favourite too.

 

[brbo]

Fujicolor 100. But, since it will be very hard to get any of that, get Kodak Portra 400.

 

[koraks]

Portra 160 --- $15 / roll --- Great for portraits, but you're expected to post-process its muted colors to get the result you want.

All color negative needs to be 'post processed' to make the colors look less muted and correct. There's also nothing inherently muted about Portra 160. Print it optically on RA4 paper, you'll see. We just get to see a lot of photos that people made on Portra and that ended up looking desaturated and we've started to associate that look with 'Portra'. I've never found it an accurate assessment.

Aerocolor IV == Flic Film Elektra 100 --- $14 / roll --- Accurate colors.

Aerocolor does not give 'accurate colors'. It's prone to quite serious color shifts and crossover, as you'd expect from an unmasked film. If unmasked films would give accurate colors, no manufacturer would have gone to the lengths of figuring out dye masking.

Vision3 50 D == Flic Film Cine 50 D --- $11 / roll --- Finest grain. ISO 50 may be limiting. Develop in ECN-2 or cross-process in C-41.

Opinions vary, but I've never found ECN2 film to perform optimally in C41 developer. It can look OK in many cases, but ultimately I've always ran into crossover problems that made e.g. cloudy skies look particularly yuckie.

Pro Image 100 --- $10 / roll --- Larger grain (same as K. Gold), but with much better dynamic range.

'much better dynamic range'? What does that mean, really? What I do see is that Gold has a sloped-off curve, so it's effectively self-compensating similarly to B&W films like Delta 3200 (just less strongly so), whereas ProImage has more linear curves - albeit diverging ones, so you can run into crossover issues at very high SBR's and/or overexposure. The term 'dynamic range' as applied to color negative film is rather tricky and its meaning ultimately depends strongly on what happens with the negative - how it's turned into a presentable image afterwards. Overall, I wouldn't get too stuck on it.

What's not clear from your post is what you're looking for and what you expect from a color negative film. Overall I'd expect you're looking for a decent all-round film, in which case Gold is just fine, ProImage is a decent alternative if you want a very slight improvement in grain, and Portra is the logical conclusion if your budget allows for it. They're all subtly different in terms of contrast, color rendition etc, but especially in a hybrid workflow, most of these differences end up being barely relevant and most of what you end up noticing is the evident difference in film speed and fineness of grain - although the results aren't that dramatically variable w.r.t. that last bit either.

A couple of times I've been disappointed by the dynamic range.

You're better off investing your time into learning how to optimize your scanning and digital post processing instead of going into the minutiae of film differences. Even Ektar has massive dynamic range if you scan it properly.

 

[dcy]

'much better dynamic range'? What does that mean, really?...

What's not clear from your post is what you're looking for and what you expect from a color negative film.

A couple of times I've had a situation where a shot has blown highlights and crushed shadows, at the same time. I interpret this to be a sign of limited dynamic range of the film. --- Dynamic range being the range of exposures where the film can capture detail.

With regards to grain: With Gold, ColorPlus, and UltraMax, I essentially do not notice the grain for outdoor shots, which is most of my shooting. But indoor shots with limited lighting often look quite grainy. I've learned that adjusting exposure helps mitigate that issue, but it does not eliminate it.

It's just enough to make me want to try another film or two and see how it performs in these two areas.

Overall I'd expect you're looking for a decent all-round film, in which case Gold is just fine, ProImage is a decent alternative if you want a very slight improvement in grain, and Portra is the logical conclusion if your budget allows for it...

I haven't decided. In general, I am stingy and I shoot more B&W than color. But the truth is, even if I shot Portra exclusively, $15 every 2-3 weeks (how long it takes me to shoot a roll) isn't going to break the bank. But I'm still not going to default to the most expensive option if I find that I am satisfied with a cheaper one.

 

[Agulliver]

I'd probably stick with Color Plus and Ektar, while optimising my scanning techniques though I do know what you mean about white people on Ektar if the exposure isn't dead on.

If it ever becomes available again, Fuji Superia 200 or Superia 100. Even Fuji C200. Not that there's anything wrong with Kodak's fine colour films, but the colour palette does tend to the warm/red side.

 

[dcy]

I'd probably stick with Color Plus and Ektar, while optimising my scanning techniques though I do know what you mean about white people on Ektar if the exposure isn't dead on.

I didn't know that this was exposure-dependent. The information I got came from this article. It compares Ektar 100 vs Portra 160 and it says that Ektar is great for landscapes but not at all good for portraits because it renders Caucasian skin with a reddish tone. It presents this example as evidence:

Honestly, the reddish skin doesn't bother me too much and between these shots, I love the greener grass from Ektar. Do you think the skin would have been more accurate with better exposure?

 

[koraks]

A couple of times I've had a situation where a shot has blown highlights and crushed shadows, at the same time.

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?

By means of illustration, this is Kodak Ektar, which supposedly has low dynamic range:

Note lack of lobster-like appearance and differentiation in deep shadows ranging all the way to sunlit cityscape in the background. Saturation could be added as desired. Color balance can be altered as desired. Both, and many more, can be done selectively in parts of the image and/or parts of the tonal scale. The possibilities are infinite.
This is an example I had handy without having to dig too much for it. Exposure was deliberately held back on the shadows because, well, they're shadows. I could have given more generous exposure and still ended up with plenty of differentiation in the highlights. It was a choice, not something 'programmed' into the film.
Open up the shadows a little and more contrast in background? Sure. Quick & dirty:

It's still "low dynamic range, lobster-generating Ektar".

The information I got came from this article.

There's a lot that can be done differently, and arguably better, in both exposing and digitizing the film than how it's done in those examples. The first example shown suffers from severe underexposure on the Portra shot and a little less so (but still) on the Ektar. The color balance on the Portra shot is horrible and it's not due to the film; it's due to the lack of sufficient exposure combined with unfortunate choices in digital processing. There are similar problems with almost all of the following examples. There's an overall severe bias towards yellow in all examples shown. That's not inherent to either films being analyzed. Etc. etc.
I'm not saying this to poo on the author of that article - anyone is free to handle the materials they have access to in any way they want and have their own preferences etc. What I do want to do is caution against drawing conclusions about the film as such based on assessments like the one you linked to. The problem is that choices in the handling of the material end up having far more influence on the outcome than the choice of film.

 

[tykos]

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

 

[BrianShaw]

I would not say Portra 160 has muted colors, it simply does not have the artificial warmth of Color Plus and Gold. Ektat is weird for me, tones differ considerabley with the type of lightning.

Portra 160 is my favourite too.

I would agree with that notion that it all has to do with context. The fact that some folks are quite adept at making any film look like any other via postprocessing is a testement to their skill and/or the inherent flexibility of current photographic materials and processes. I like to think that Portra 160 ALLOWS me to do the softer (more muted) color scheme a lot easier than any other film.

It is important to note, though, that it's not just a Youtube or forum "thing" as the softer natural color saturation been part of the Kodak marketing since the inception of Portra... in context of their other films. Is that the "inherent nature" of Portra could be debated, I suppose but what a waste of time that would be. I've been using Portra 160 since before its release exactly for that characteristic as promoted by Kodak.

This is from the updated Portra 160 and shows the "inherent characteristics" of both the original; Portras and the updated/current Portras. One can easily use their judgement as to where Gold, ColorPlus or Ektar might fit in these continuii.

But the question in this thread is not about the characteristics of Portra; the question is what film is a step up from Gold/ColorPlus. I think the answer has been given much earlier in the discussion: Portra or Ektar.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I will take the liberty to state the cited article is misleading in several respects, although certainly not everything is incorrect. If I might be allowed to give my own tweak to one of its statements, Ektar is not a good film for high school yearbook pictures of kids with zits, because it will represent those complexions as they actually are, and not suppress facial flaws with a softer look. There's no boiling of a lobster involved, and there's certainly no "purple" bias - I have no idea where that notion comes from. And Ektar is good for a lot more than landscapes; it's basically Kodak's attempt to make a color neg film fill in a niche ordinarily consigned to slide films.

Simple facts : Portra 160 is a relatively low contrast film; Ektar is relatively high contrast for a color neg film,
and more saturated. Both are much better balanced than Gold. How people manipulate or torture these things in post is really an separate subject with its own set of variables.

"Portra" stands for "portrait" - films in continuity with Kodak's previous films designed to render "pleasing skintones" as a priority. 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.

 

[Paul Howell]

I didn't know that this was exposure-dependent. The information I got came from this article. It compares Ektar 100 vs Portra 160 and it says that Ektar is great for landscapes but not at all good for portraits because it renders Caucasian skin with a reddish tone. It presents this example as evidence:


View attachment 407536

Honestly, the reddish skin doesn't bother me too much and between these shots, I love the greener grass from Ektar. Do you think the skin would have been more accurate with better exposure?

The skin tones can be corrected in post, for that all can adjusted in post. I would be looking at contrast, grain, and cost.

 

[blee1996]

I really like Fujicolor C100 and C200, which are made in Japan instead of repackaged Kodak film in US. But it is getting harder to source them here in the US.

 

[brbo]

Fujicolor C200 is not produced anymore.

 

[halfaman]

I would agree with that notion that it all has to do with context. The fact that some folks are quite adept at making any film look like any other via postprocessing is a testement to their skill and/or the inherent flexibility of current photographic materials and processes. I like to think that Portra 160 ALLOWS me to do the softer (more muted) color scheme a lot easier than any other film.

It is important to note, though, that it's not just a Youtube or forum "thing" as the softer natural color saturation been part of the Kodak marketing since the inception of Portra... in context of their other films. Is that the "inherent nature" of Portra could be debated, I suppose but what a waste of time that would be. I've been using Portra 160 since before its release exactly for that characteristic as promoted by Kodak.

This is from the updated Portra 160 and shows the "inherent characteristics" of both the original; Portras and the updated/current Portras. One can easily use their judgement as to where Gold, ColorPlus or Ektar might fit in these continuii.

View attachment 407548

But the question in this thread is not about the characteristics of Portra; the question is what film is a step up from Gold/ColorPlus. I think the answer has been given much earlier in the discussion: Portra or Ektar.

The Kodak graphic confuses me. Portra 400 has less saturation than 160 in my experience.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Paul - it's a myth that everything can be corrected in post, at least in any straightforward easy sense. Improperly exposed or color temp balanced, due to its higher contrast, Ektar can experience cross-over issues. These are far easier to correct at the time of exposure using appropriate filtration rather than in post.
For those of us who optically print instead, it's blatantly apparent.

 

[Prest_400]

Better than Gold would be Ektar or Portra.
By Mentioning Fuji, oh, Fujicolor 100 is the only available option (Or Superia Premium), gray market?
Historically, 160NS was their top performer. Superia 200 then mid tier. C200 is very beloved in the net but it looked consumer to me and grainy.

Ektar is amazing, just that requires very good exposure and workflow.

With regards to grain: With Gold, ColorPlus, and UltraMax, I essentially do not notice the grain for outdoor shots, which is most of my shooting.

I haven't decided. In general, I am stingy and I shoot more B&W than color. But the truth is, even if I shot Portra exclusively, $15 every 2-3 weeks (how long it takes me to shoot a roll) isn't going to break the bank. But I'm still not going to default to the most expensive option if I find that I am satisfied with a cheaper one.

I just, how do I notice Gold is grainy even in 6x9?!?!
I agree even as a 120 shooter. Would love to do Portra all day but in there it's more of an expense and I just restrain shooting a bit much.

Aerocolor does not give 'accurate colors'. It's prone to quite serious color shifts and crossover, as you'd expect from an unmasked film. If unmasked films would give accurate colors, no manufacturer would have gone to the lengths of figuring out dye masking.

Side topic: Just reminds me of someone with "a lot of experience" lecturing people in other forums about what a waste that the new color negs come with a mask. Because it complicates simple inversion. And so on and so on.