What film has the best dynamic range ?

[Scotthenrylabonte]

What color negative film has the best dynamic range and exposure latitude ?

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

When shooting with lower iso like 25 50 100 etc does that always mean the film will have less exposure latitude and dynamic range ? If so, is it due to there being more contrast ?

 

[MattKing]

Are you referring specifically to instant film?
If so, the answer was the Kodak instant film.

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

Oh my bad I thought this was for all film

 

[MattKing]

I'll move it for you to the Color Film sub-forum.
But you probably will want to specify whether you mean negative film, positive transparency (slide) film, still film or movie film.

 

[MattKing]

Threads merged.

 

[Scotthenrylabonte]

Thank you

 

[Cholentpot]

Vision3 line.

I've exposed 500T from 25 all the way to 3200 in 35mm. I've yet to find a way to blow the highlights with the stuff. It's bullet proof. Same for 50D and 250D in their own way. The whole Kodak cine film line is some amazing film.

250D

50D

500T

 

[gone]

Nice shots. I think it's probably true that cine film is going to be the best. Movies eat expensive film at an alarming rate. The cinematographer and director are not going to stop production for someone to make a meter reading of the clouds, the actors, etc. All they want is to make sure the principals are well lighted, and they depend on the film's dynamic range/exposure latitude to take care of all the exposure variables.

 

[Cholentpot]

Nice shots. I think it's probably true that cine film is going to be the best. Movies eat expensive film at an alarming rate. The cinematographer and director are not going to stop production for someone to make a meter reading of the clouds, the actors, etc. All they want is to make sure the principals are well lighted, and they depend on the film's dynamic range/exposure latitude to take care of all the exposure variables.

Thanks momus!

I think the range also comes because they're not shooting 'full frame' The frame is generally smaller and it needs the range. This film can be quite grainy though but for MP film it doesn't really matter. Fuji's line was really good too. Also, this film is pretty bulletproof when it comes to age, expired film is generally just fine. Downside or upside, it rips very easily. It's great for home development but I tend to have many rolls get ripped off on the last frame if I'm not careful.

 

[Mr Bill]

What color negative film has the best dynamic range and exposure latitude ?

The ones I've had the most experience with have been mainly the Kodak professional portrait/wedding films, with the last being Portra 160. I spent years at a large chain portrait outfit where we did extensive testing on any new films/papers being considered for use.

Part of this testing was to see how the film performed at exposure extremes (with literally thousands of studios it was fairly routine for someone, somewhere, to find ways to botch up the exposure). So we would do test shoots with a variety of models, different complexions and hair color. We'd include color test targets and various color fabrics. The results were evaluated by making optical prints onto pro color papers, then evaluated in color booths. Prints were individually color balanced for a best match in the skin tones.

Results... very roughly the Portra 160 could run from about 1 stop underexposed to about 3 or 4 stops overexposed while giving nearly identical color results in the prints. Professional color correctors essentially could not tell the prints apart. Now, if those exposure limits were exceeded by another stop in each direction we could clearly see results in the print. At two stops under the darkest parts of the scene were beginning to get "grainy." And at 5 stops over there was a sort of "creamy" effect in the color. So... if you consider the basic scene to cover, say, a nine stop nominal range, and high-quality results from -1 to +4 stops, you get a total luminance recording range of around 14 stops, more or less.

I can't say, for sure, about other films. And... fwiw, these tests were from roughly the mid-2000 time frame. (The company changed over to digital cameras around that time.)

Ps, I should note that these tests used electronic flash - roughly the "color temperature" that daylight films are designed for. If you use different lighting, of a different color temperature, the 3 color layers of the film won't have matched sensitivities any more - at least one will be offset from the others. So I would expect a reduced exposure latitude. Also, these tests were done on proper processing machines where the film is never "starved" for development. If one uses a system with limited developer volume it's gonna be more limiting with heavily exposed film.

 

[cmacd123]

My understanding is that Cine film is often deliberately overexposed by a stop just to center the latitude. ALSO the REM jet backing on MP film helps give it better latitude by keeping reflections from the inside of the film down.

 

[GLS]

I remember reading a Tim Parkin article in which his tests showed Portra 400 was capable of recording around 17 or 18 stops.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If so, Tim Parkin is fulla you know what. Just getting "something" on the film does not equate to decently REPRODUCIBLE color or detail !!!!!!! And remember, the wider the "latitude" of a color film, the lower the contrast and less saturated it's going to be. Equate that to a soft image. Portra 160 has a wider range than Porta 400, but is also intentionally softer. "Portra" stands for portrait usage. Amateur films like Kodacolor Gold are designed with a lot of exposure error in mind, so are also low contrast, long latitude films. I'm not going to get into cine film options.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I remember reading a Tim Parkin article in which his tests showed Portra 400 was capable of recording around 17 or 18 stops.

I think that I have gotten to the 14 f/stops SBR aka SLR on Kodak Portra 400 and Tri-X 400 films. Of course putting in on paper is something else completely when getting 6 f/stops can be a big deal.

 

[GLS]

Just getting "something" on the film does not equate to decently REPRODUCIBLE color or detail !!!!!!!

I know that, and in fairness to Tim he wasn't claiming such either; just that there was information recorded over that approximate range.

Is that not more or less the definition of dynamic range? If one limits it to the range over which "acceptable" levels of colour reproduction, detail and so on are recorded the issue gets murky rather quickly (no pun intended).

 

[nickandre]

Kodak Portra 160 has pretty crazy overexposure latitude. Testing with a regular densitometer it kept going pretty linearly up to like EV +7 or 8. Beyond that it starts to taper but one could correct digitally.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'll just say that what some people call digitally recovering or correcting something way off in exposure to begin with is sorta like microwaving the same stale TV dinner over and over again, or using the same dirty dishwater for another month. In the case of CN film you get serious curve crossover issues, or "mud" as I tend to term it, along with inevitable grain artifacts. And with reference to mud, it's really more like concrete : once all the cement, sand, and gravel hardens up together, you're not going to realistically get them apart. Or at least, it would be a thousand times easier to simply correctly expose the film in the first place than to try to post-correct it. "Digital post-correction" is far too often simply a poor excuse for outright sloppiness. Real light meters were invented for a reason.

So GLS - I'm aware that Tim wouldn't imply any "usable" film range that extreme, just that something was there. But from any reasonable standpoint, actual color repro quality is the only way to express CN film "dynamic range" without being misleading. That has always been the case from any professional standpoint. If what is in the extremes is effectively worthless, why bother? The manufacturers published film curves don't take extremes into account, at least at the upper end. Even with black and white film, that's the case. I certainly know how to use a densitometer and make plots, but also realize just because something is measurable doesn't mean its usable in any ordinary fashion.

And if you want to talk about "murky", its not the vocabulary as much as the inevitable mess that gross exposure errors themselves introduce. Sure, I get pushback to that opinion all the time nowadays; but I also scratch my head over just how mediocre and fake so much of that "digitally corrected" stuff really looks, especially via inkjet. People need to do their homework in advance, and not think their software is a miracle-working Wizard of Oz in the land of make-believe. Time to wake up in Kansas. Besides, this is on the "analog" side of the border, and I think in terms of real prints, not vacuous cyber-pixels lost in the cloud somewhere, along with instantly vaporizing crypto-currency.

 

[nickandre]

I'll just say that what some people call digitally recovering or correcting something way off in exposure to begin with is sorta like microwaving the same stale TV dinner over and over again, or using the same dirty dishwater for another month. In the case of CN film you get serious curve crossover issues, or "mud" as I tend to term it, along with inevitable grain artifacts. And with reference to mud, it's really more like concrete : once all the cement, sand, and gravel hardens up together, you're not going to realistically get them apart. Or at least, it would be a thousand times easier to simply correctly expose the film in the first place than to try to post-correct it. "Digital post-correction" is far too often simply a poor excuse for sloppiness. Real light meters were invented for a reason.

The horrifying look you refer to is the “garbage disposable camera vibe” and is responsible for quite a lot of film sales keeping Kodak afloat

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sure, breaking the rules and having fun with film is a legitimate activity if that is your goal to begin with. But if so, why do people whine and complain so much about the result, and go around constantly accusing Kodak and others of incompetence? Or why do they think they need to post correct it? If people like dirty dishwater and photographic mush, they have that right. But then why has Kodak spent decades trying to develop film more and more immune to that? But yeah, perhaps more than ever, lets be happy that 99% of photos stay in the cyber realm and never disgrace actual photo paper. And I very much doubt that disposable camera film is keeping Kodak afloat, ever has, or ever will. Let's face it, the era of cell phone photography has arrived, and those are good for something else too, like skipping across ponds and cutely sinking. But I don't even know how to take a cell phone photo, so am satisfied with real pebbles for ponds - they're a lot cheaper. Disposable cameras tend to float, so aren't as much fun.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'll just say that what some people call digitally recovering or correcting something way off in exposure to begin with is sorta like microwaving the same stale TV dinner over and over again, or using the same dirty dishwater for another month. In the case of CN film you get serious curve crossover issues, or "mud" as I tend to term it, along with inevitable grain artifacts. And with reference to mud, it's really more like concrete : once all the cement, sand, and gravel hardens up together, you're not going to realistically get them apart. Or at least, it would be a thousand times easier to simply correctly expose the film in the first place than to try to post-correct it. "Digital post-correction" is far too often simply a poor excuse for outright sloppiness. Real light meters were invented for a reason.

So GLS - I'm aware that Tim wouldn't imply any "usable" film range that extreme, just that something was there. But from any reasonable standpoint, actual color repro quality is the only way to express CN film "dynamic range" without being misleading. That has always been the case from any professional standpoint. If what is in the extremes is effectively worthless, why bother? The manufacturers published film curves don't take extremes into account, at least at the upper end. Even with black and white film, that's the case. I certainly know how to use a densitometer and make plots, but also realize just because something is measurable doesn't mean its usable in any ordinary fashion.

And if you want to talk about "murky", its not the vocabulary as much as the inevitable mess that gross exposure errors themselves introduce. Sure, I get pushback to that opinion all the time nowadays; but I also scratch my head over just how mediocre and fake so much of that "digitally corrected" stuff really looks, especially via inkjet. People need to do their homework in advance, and not think their software is a miracle-working Wizard of Oz in the land of make-believe. Time to wake up in Kansas. Besides, this is on the "analog" side of the border, and I think in terms of real prints, not vacuous cyber-pixels lost in the cloud somewhere, along with instantly vaporizing crypto-currency.

That is why I am interest in what the film can capture with the SLR and worry about printing later and NOT seeing how far I can push the film until it all falls into a dirty chamber pot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sure, breaking the rules and having fun with film is a legitimate activity if that is your goal to begin with. But if so, why do people whine and complain so much about the result, and go around constantly accusing Kodak and others of incompetence? Or why do they think they need to post correct it? If people like dirty dishwater and photographic mush, they have that right. But then why has Kodak spent decades trying to develop film more and more immune to that? But yeah, perhaps more than ever, lets be happy that 99% of photos stay in the cyber realm and never disgrace actual photo paper. And I very much doubt that disposable camera film is keeping Kodak afloat, ever has, or ever will. Let's face it, the era of cell phone photography has arrived, and those are good for something else too, like skipping across ponds and cutely sinking. But I don't even know how to take a cell phone photo, so am satisfied with real pebbles for ponds - they're a lot cheaper. Disposable cameras tend to float, so aren't as much fun.

 

[Jon Buffington]

For a visual of portra 160 range, this was shot directly into the sun. The waterfall was in deep shadow. I metered for the shadows, highlights were maintained. All of this was a single exposure, scanned with a kodak pakon f135+. Canon 7ne film back and I believe the 24-105L w/ CPL. I just love this film!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Don't you have to add contrast and saturation to this Cine type of film to make it more appealing for most viewers?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For a visual of portra 160 range, this was shot directly into the sun. The waterfall was in deep shadow. I metered for the shadows, highlights were maintained. All of this was a single exposure, scanned with a kodak pakon f135+. Canon 7ne film back and I believe the 24-105L w/ CPL. I just love this film!

Nice shot Jon. The soft look is very appealing.