Suggestions for color negative film with a 'vintage' look

[logan2z]

I shoot black and white negative film exclusively (HP5+) but have started to think about shooting a bit of color for a long-term documentary project I've been working on. The subject of the project is vintage racing so I'd like to try and find a color negative film that has a bit of a vintage vibe. I did a bit or research and thought that maybe something like Kodak Gold 200 would be a decent choice, although I'd prefer a 400 speed film given the lighting conditions I generally encounter.

I'm going after a look something like this:

Can anyone suggest a fairly fast color negative film stock that might give me the look I'm going for? I plan to make RA4 prints so digital post-processing to get the vintage look I'm after is not an option.

Thanks in advance.

 

[BrianShaw]

I don’t know if it’s still readily available, but Kodak ColorPlus might be worth a try. Vintage look and reasonable speed - 200. For the type of photo in your example there isn’t a great need for 400.

There are many reviews of both Gold and ColorPlus online. This one compares the two. Hopefully it will help understand the similarities and differences.

Kodak ColorPlus 200 Film Review

Kodak ColorPlus is a relatively affordable 35mm film sold primarily in the US and Asian markets.

www.analog.cafe

 

[logan2z]

I don’t know if it’s still readily available, but Kodak ColorPlus might be worth a try. Vintage look and reasonable speed - 200. For the type of photo in your example there isn’t a great need for 400.

Yeah, that wasn’t a great example of a photo that requires 400 speed film. But I often shoot in conditions that do, like a dark-ish team garage. I’ll check out ColorPlus, thanks.

 

[BrianShaw]

Understood. In garages you’ll likely experience a variety of lighting types, many of which can be quite challenging to balance. Light level may be the least of the worries. Potentially difficult environments.

 

[logan2z]

Understood. In garages you’ll likely experience a variety of lighting types, many of which can be quite challenging to balance. Light level may be the least of the worries. Potentially difficult environments.

Very true. I’ve been shooting in these environments for several years and they can be challenging for the reasons you stated. Fun, though

 

[MattKing]

The "look" will depend more on the printing/post processing choices you make than the film you choose.
You will probably have more trouble emulating the clothing and haircuts!
I'd suggest either Kodak UltraMax 400 or Kodak Portra 400.

 

[Paul Howell]

Your best bet might be a vintage lens rather than a vintage film. I would consider a Kodak Retina reflex, lens will be coated but not multi coated. 50s vintage. For that matter a Argus C3. In terms of film, a C41 version of Kodak Movie film, without the ram jet backing will have a bit of glow and you get it ISO 500.

 

[koraks]

Orwo NC500 and NC400 will give low saturation and somewhat coarse grain.

Another option is Kodak Vision3 developed in ECN2; you can tailor development to the contrast you like. The Vision3 films are a bit more muted than regular CN/C41 films, which helps to offset the very high contrast and saturation of modern RA4 papers.

If you go with a more middle of the road film, it'll help if you use plain-Jane Crystal Archive paper instead of something like DPII. The difference is subtle, but the lower end papers are a little more muted and lower in saturation (and with weaker blacks, too).

Modern films like ProImage, Gold, Portra, UktraMax, ColorPlus, Superia, C200 etc. etc will look modern, crisp and rich on modern RA4 papers. I don't think you'll find what you're looking for in those regions. You'll have to stray from the beaten path.

 

[koraks]

Your best bet might be a vintage lens

Too subtle; may help a tiny bit but it's not going to get him close to the example he showed.

One more thing - you can use preflashing to reduce contrast as well as saturation. If this is done subtly, the overall cast introduced won't be recognizeable as such and will just create an overall more muted result. The subtle cast can be filtered into any direction desired. Having a second enlarger for this purpose is convenient, but it can also be done with a single enlarger and a diffusing filter under the lens. Flashing is extremely powerful, but surprisingly few people actually do it.

 

[BrianShaw]

ColorPlus has not yieled modern or rich results in my experience. Prior discussions on Photrio, including with PhotoEngineer (RIP), seems to point to it being a less modern implementation of modern films; at least one version prior to the Gold products.

Here are a couple of examples:

The lighthouse image mprobably was taken with a Kodak Retina IIIc; the bacon-wrapped turkey leg image was Nikon FE with Nikkor 1.4/50

 

[blee1996]

@koraks has very good suggestions (Orwo NC400/NC500). In addition, Lomography's 400 and 800 color negative film in 120 seems to have a bit of vintage look. I have not tried their 35mm variants.

Kodak Vision 3 500T will be another strong candidate. And you can color grade like a pro.

 

[koraks]

ColorPlus has not yieled modern or rich reuslts in my experience

Printed on what papers?

 

[chuckroast]

I shoot black and white negative film exclusively (HP5+) but have started to think about shooting a bit of color for a long-term documentary project I've been working on. The subject of the project is vintage racing so I'd like to try and find a color negative film that has a bit of a vintage vibe. I did a bit or research and thought that maybe something like Kodak Gold 200 would be a decent choice, although I'd prefer a 400 speed film given the lighting conditions I generally encounter.

I'm going after a look something like this:

Can anyone suggest a fairly fast color negative film stock that might give me the look I'm going for? I plan to make RA4 prints so digital post-processing to get the vintage look I'm after is not an option.

Thanks in advance.

I tried much the same thing last month with Portra 160 and was wildly unimpressed. The colors were muted and the stuff lacked contrast. It looks to me like this would best be used as a studio portrait film in the tradition of something like Vericolor Professional. Since I do not print RA-4, though, it could also be the lab's opinion of what "correct" printing looks like.

I'm told that Ektar might be more to my liking, but it may not be fast enough for you with an ASA of only 100.

My friendly local AI recommends I try Kodak Gold 200, though

 

[BrianShaw]

Sounds as if Portra performed exactly as advertised.

Gold 200 would be a rather good option for warmish rendering. Its a decent film for general-purpose photography.

 

[chuckroast]

Sounds as if Portra performed exactly as advertised.

Gold 200 would be a rather good option for warmish rendering. Its a decent film for general-purpose photography.

The problem wasn't the color balance. It was a lack of contrast, at least to my taste.

But I would absolutely consider Porta 160 as a wedding/portrait film (shudder).

 

[logan2z]

Flashing is extremely powerful, but surprisingly few people actually do it.

I've used it when making several of my B&W historic racing prints. I've found it very helpful to get detail in the highlights while retaining shadow detail in the high contrast scenes that are common in this work . I usually go up a half to a full grade in order to avoid a lowering of contrast when using the technique (I know you've suggested it to lower contrast when shooting color film, that just hasn't been my goal when making B&W prints). I have a spare enlarger permanently setup to pre-flash which makes it very easy.

I've been very happy with the results, despite the fact that much of what I've read on the subject implies it should only be used as a last resort and can have a detrimental effect on print quality.

 

[MattKing]

This is the older, Portra 160NC.

Orchid2

• MattKing
• Feb 21, 2012
• 2

At last year's Orchid show

 

[logan2z]

Orwo NC500 and NC400 will give low saturation and somewhat coarse grain.

Another option is Kodak Vision3 developed in ECN2; you can tailor development to the contrast you like. The Vision3 films are a bit more muted than regular CN/C41 films, which helps to offset the very high contrast and saturation of modern RA4 papers.

If you go with a more middle of the road film, it'll help if you use plain-Jane Crystal Archive paper instead of something like DPII. The difference is subtle, but the lower end papers are a little more muted and lower in saturation (and with weaker blacks, too).

Modern films like ProImage, Gold, Portra, UktraMax, ColorPlus, Superia, C200 etc. etc will look modern, crisp and rich on modern RA4 papers. I don't think you'll find what you're looking for in those regions. You'll have to stray from the beaten path.

Thanks, great input!

 

[logan2z]

You will probably have more trouble emulating the clothing and haircuts! .

True

 

[chuckroast]

This is the older, Portra 160NC.

Orchid2

• MattKing
• Feb 21, 2012
• 2

At last year's Orchid show

Interesting. Certainly more snap than I got from the lab that printed my stuff. It may be time to do a bit of scanning to see what the negs actually hold.

 

[BrianShaw]

Current Portra 160. Hasselbald with 150 lens. Matt may have used a "snap" filter, LOL

 

[MattKing]

Matt may have used a "snap" filter, LOL

Nope - just diffused electronic flash illumination.
This too is Portra 160NC - but the light is really different, so the colour palette of the result is too:

Deltaport

• MattKing
• Aug 9, 2005
• 5

A very still night at the Port

 

[koraks]

Current Portra 160. Hasselbald with 150 lens. Matt may have used a "snap" filter, LOL

The bottom 15% of the tonal curve is simply not used in that image, resulting in a washed out look (the same is true for your earlier examples btw, which also have an overall yellow cast). Optically enlarged Portra 160 looks nothing like this at all! If you set the black point of that scan to where the deepest shadows are, which you'd do when printing this (as you'd otherwise blow out the highlights on the edges of the petals; RA4-paper is steep), you'll end up with something entirely different to what's shown here. It'll also become apparent that the tonal distribution in that image is downright weird and totally unrepresentative of how enlarged Portra looks.
I see scans being offered by means of illustration of the color palette of these films as if scans are representative of optical prints. They are not! Anyone who scans and prints side by side knows how different the output can be, and usually is. Yes, you can get them to render similarly, but you have to have the print (or at least a lot of experience printing) to get there.

Matt's example of the orchid is somewhat closer to how today's Portra will print on today's papers. Punchy, saturated and contrasty. Of course, the main difference between your shot and Matt's is the lighting, which makes a world of difference.

Mind you, there's nothing wrong at all with scanning CN film. It's great fun and great results can be had that way. But @logan2z is specifically intending to optically print his negatives. That makes this an entirely different ballgame.

I've used it when making several of my B&W historic racing prints. I've found it very helpful to get detail in the highlights while retaining shadow detail in the high contrast scenes that are common in this work

Yes, and that works for color printing too, although with color, there's the additional dimension of, well, color. This makes flashing even more relevant, as you can impart a subtle cast that will be undetectable unless you do a side-by-side comparison, but that does succeed in muting most of the hues.

 

[Kino]

Check out @pentaxpete latest gallery shot using Fuji NPC 160:

The Old Post Office, St Mawes

5 day trip to CORNWALL England based in the former Fishing Village of ST MAWES the POST BOX isstill dated with King George VI on it not even Elizabeth II !

www.photrio.com

Where you'd find a stash is anybody's guess.

 

[loccdor]

Kodak Portra 800 is based on an older Kodak recipe than Portra 400 or 160. It also handles mixed lighting well. Rather expensive, though.

Pushing Kodak Gold 200 is a more budget option. I personally don't like UltraMax 400 much, the colors are crazy.

I believe there's a Lomo film which is an older stock, Color '92? Don't have that much info about it. https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/new-lomochrome-color-92-negative-film.200259/