What makes a film "Professional"?

Hey guys. I was just having a conversation with my dad about different films and the subject of "Professional" film came up. I never really thought about it, I just knew what film was and what wasn't. So what are the differences between snapshot film and pro film?

Good question, often wondered myself.

Pro films have a tighter tolerance and shorter shelf life , consumer films tend to be a tad more saturated and are said to have more latitude

aluncrockford said:

Pro films have a tighter tolerance and shorter shelf life , consumer films tend to be a tad more saturated and are said to have more latitude

Click to expand...

According to those 2 points you made, Consumer film seems to be "better" than pro film.

Well of course the difference is--when I use it it's a Professional film when everyone else uses it it's not

About $1.50 per roll.

Professional film is made to the proper color balance right out of the factory. Consumer film is deliberately made with the wrong color balance, because it is expected to sit around in room temperature and/or in a camera for some time and "age" into the proper color balance. This is why you often hear the unexplained "rule" that professional films must be refrigerated, while consumer films need not be. Pro films are already where they should be in terms of color balance, so refrigeration slows any changes. Consumer film actually "needs" to age to hit its optimum color balance.

This being said, perfect color balance is not really critical. As long as it is not way off, it can easily be neutralized in printing. What is important is consistent color balance roll to roll (or sheet to sheet) within the same assignment or portfolio/project. As long as you buy films, pro or consumer, with matching emulsion numbers and that have been stored together, the color balance will match roll to roll or box to box of sheet film. However, professional films are easy to buy with matching emulsion numbers, because they come to pro shops in matching batches, and are often sold to customers in large quantities (often by the box as opposed to by the roll). Consumer films can be bought in emulsion-matching batches, though this is usually easiest at a pro photography shop, as opposed to at Thrifty or Price Club or the supermarket. Obviously, perfect color balance roll to roll was really only a huge concern for shooting transparencies for direct viewing by clients. Color negatives are easily corrected during the printing process that must occur for them to be viewed as positives.

When it comes down to actual emulsion characteristics, there is a lot of generalization that is made. Most professional films are made with "superior" technical qualities for "serious" photographers. They are generally finer in grain and more natural in color. They often push and pull better, and they come in more formats. However, aside from the format availability, this is not really what makes them "professional" films. It is kind of a chicken and egg situation. They are not pro films because they meet certain technical criteria; they meet certain technical criteria because they were designed solely to be shot by "serious" photographers.

The greatest differences are what I named above, and consumer films are generally excellent in quality. The Superia line (which has largely been decimated, sadly) is very high quality film capable of providing "professional-quality" results. In fact, there is (or was, till recently) a professional version of the Superia films. It's the same emulsion as the consumer Superia films, with the same characteristics. The differences are what I named above: proper color balance right out of the box, and availability in large emulsion-matching batches. These Superia Press packs were bought and shot by the truckload by newspapers and magazines, so they probably got more professional use than any of the current "professional" color negative films, even though apart from a slight difference in color balance, the emulsion is exactly the same as the consumer Superia.

In short, it is not really the quality of the emulsion itself that makes it "professional." It is the little changes made to allow for differences in how, and by whom, the emulsion is intended to be used.

23mjm said:

Well of course the difference is--when I use it it's a Professional film when everyone else uses it it's not

Click to expand...

These explanations are aimed at color, I can understand that, but what about B/W?

bobwysiwyg said:

These explanations are aimed at color, I can understand that, but what about B/W?

Click to expand...

Well, Kodak calls all of their B&W film professional, if I recall correctly (with the possible exception of consumer oriented C41 B&W). Ilford calls its Delta line "professional" but not the other films they make, which are every bit as much professional. I think that the black and white market really consists of folks who are at least a little serious, at this point, so the whole consumer vs professional notion is outdated. I think that for black and white is is pretty much a meaningless marketing term.

"Professional" color films have more accurate skin colors than "Consumer" color films. And as posted above, the "Professional" films are held to a tighter tolerance.

Steve

Sirius Glass said:

"Professional" color films have more accurate skin colors than "Consumer" color films. And as posted above, the "Professional" films are held to a tighter tolerance.

Steve

Click to expand...

It is worth noting that what most people perceive as "good" skin tone is not necessarily "accurate" skin tone. The most "accurate" films, which were designed for commercial, technical, and reproduction applications (e.g. Fuji T64 or Kodak EPN) are seldom used for glamor ("making people look good") photography. The films that are known for giving "good" skin tone are not really all that "accurate" in the grand scheme of things, and this inaccuracy is, in fact, why they give such "good" skin tone.

FWIW, I find Fuji Reala to be the most accurate color negative film (and it is a consumer film to boot), but I don't use it when I want to make someone's skin tone look flattering. "Accurate," meaning giving me pretty much exactly what I see before me with my eyes? Yes, but not specifically "flattering." I do use EPN, T64, and Reala for shots of people and for portraits, but not for glamor pictures (which I rarely take anyhow, and usually only as favors). Portraits are not necessarily about making people look good; they are about saying something about a person. Glamor is just about making people look good, plain and simple.

Most portraits people shoot are glamour, glamour is about the subject, saying something about the person is glamour.

There is more to glamour than "mainstream" glamour (sexy bikini or lingerie).

I believe pro films in colour and black & white are expected to have a retouching layer, with the proper tooth to allow hand retouching.

Pro film is released from the factory in large batches close to its optimum colour palette (for B&W, it was once said that the stock is released with optimum densities, but that is circumspect). Pro level film comes with all sorts of novel caveats e.g. if not stored at its recommended storage (typically around 4°C for immediate use or freezing for long-term use) the palette will change, but by how much, and how noticeably would require quite a critical examination; and variations from one batch to another, or even within the same batch. Film will have a much longer future if we all buy the Pro level stock rather than the slow-moving, less demanding consumer-level stock often observed around here sitting in hot front windows of the local Chemist! :confused:

Acurate colour reproduction demands other things than nice, 'poppy' colours consumers like more.
So we had excellent films like Portra 160 NC (still do, luckily), which are too bland for 'general public's' taste.

Sadly, consumerism has resulted in the latter becoming dominant, pushing acurate colour out, and giving us monstrosities like Ektar 100 (and perhaps - i hope not - the new Portra 400.)

Professional film is made to the proper color balance right out of the factory. Consumer film is deliberately made with the wrong color balance, because it is expected to sit around in room temperature and/or in a camera for some time and "age" into the proper color balance.

Pro film is released from the factory in large batches close to its optimum colour palette ... Pro level film comes with all sorts of novel caveats e.g. if not stored at its recommended storage (typically around 4°C for immediate use or freezing for long-term use) the palette will change

These are often heard, but I would strongly disagree, and would ask for a reference! I really cannot find any!

I think they are just urban legends, maybe with some basis in two variations of Kodachrome way back with different color balances, but not relevant in current films. All films are best when used straight away and there is no additional "ripening" difference between pro and consumer line. And OTOH, both age in approximately the same way!

Every time I hear that the difference between pro films and amateur films is extra ripening, I ask to point out the two otherwise identical products. This always leads to a silence.

The real differences are case-to-case. Some "pro" films can be actually same products as "consumer" versions, but this seems to be quite rare now -- I would guess this is only the case with E100G & Elitechrome 100 -- while in most cases the "pro" films are just completely different products with different characteristics.

They may be of a newer generation with new innovations applied that are not applied to the "consumer" line yet.

Professionals also use consumer branded film if they find that their characteristics are best suitable for that job. And, vice-versa.

So, both film types should be considered as being in the same pool of products and then select depending on needs.

I'd bet that the films are made as stable as possible regardless of whether there is "professional" text in the box or not. "Professional" films keep just as well as consumer films, at the very same storage conditions! "Pro" films are printed with a text to keep at 13 deg.C or lower, but this is purely because of more strict requirements by clients, not because of actual differences in keeping of emulsion.

At least for me, both "pro" and "consumer" film age in the same way and at the same rate. 10 years old consumer neg stored at room temp is foggy and shifted just like 10 years old pro neg stored at room temp.

And, I really would like to see an example how a consumer neg gets better in storing (and pro doesn't!) This is a legend I would like to go into.

I read an article at a serious cinematography site that Famous Soviet Cinema Director Andrey Tarkovski had recieved a experimental film from Kodak for to record his famous film Stalkers exterior shots.
He had had been used this film for 1 year and sent all the film to process at MOSFILM.
This portion of story is quite strange and still busy my mind , films waited few weeks at MOSFILM and because of this extended wait , they had been lost their color balance and not usable.
Tarkovsky spent 2 years more to rerecord the scenes.
I think there is air in this story.

Umut

I'd be curious to know how long Kodak has had a line of "Professional" films? For example, was the Kodachrome used by photojournalists at Life different than the Kodachrome used to photograph a family's vacation?

Tim

I'll bet the term is only marketing these days. Perhaps in the past, films labelled 'professional' had the scope to be purchased in consistent batches so that the photographer could be sure of the same colours throughout a project, whereas films sold as 'consumer' didn't have the necessary stock keeping arrangements to fulfil demands for batch consistency.

I lost all respect for the term professional being applied to a product when I saw a packet of chewing gum on a work colleague's desk which was labelled as professional gum.

I think it's a bit like adding the word fine to art. A reason to add 40% to the selling price.


Steve

23mjm said:

Well of course the difference is--when I use it it's a Professional film when everyone else uses it it's not

Click to expand...

Unfortunately with me it tends to be the other way round

tim elder said:

I'd be curious to know how long Kodak has had a line of "Professional" films? For example, was the Kodachrome used by photojournalists at Life different than the Kodachrome used to photograph a family's vacation?

Tim

Click to expand...

Kodachrome Professional K25 and K64 came out in the 1980's. Before that it was all the same.
Pro's bought in large quantity, so they would get fresh film. Many would test it to see what it looked like and devise filtration or let it age. That of course necessitated buying ahead, and freezing the film when it was at the aging point desired.

Steve Smith said:

I think it's a bit like adding the word fine to art. A reason to add 40% to the selling price.

Click to expand...

What happens goes the other way round: the word "art" is added to "fine" in an attempt to make something of ... well... don't want to offend any fine artists.

hrst said:

Professional film is made to the proper color balance right out of the factory. Consumer film is deliberately made with the wrong color balance, because it is expected to sit around in room temperature and/or in a camera for some time and "age" into the proper color balance.

Pro film is released from the factory in large batches close to its optimum colour palette ... Pro level film comes with all sorts of novel caveats e.g. if not stored at its recommended storage (typically around 4°C for immediate use or freezing for long-term use) the palette will change

These are often heard, but I would strongly disagree, and would ask for a reference! I really cannot find any!

I think they are just urban legends, maybe with some basis in two variations of Kodachrome way back with different color balances, but not relevant in current films. All films are best when used straight away and there is no additional "ripening" difference between pro and consumer line. And OTOH, both age in approximately the same way!

Every time I hear that the difference between pro films and amateur films is extra ripening, I ask to point out the two otherwise identical products. This always leads to a silence.

The real differences are case-to-case. Some "pro" films can be actually same products as "consumer" versions, but this seems to be quite rare now -- I would guess this is only the case with E100G & Elitechrome 100 -- while in most cases the "pro" films are just completely different products with different characteristics.

They may be of a newer generation with new innovations applied that are not applied to the "consumer" line yet.

Professionals also use consumer branded film if they find that their characteristics are best suitable for that job. And, vice-versa.

So, both film types should be considered as being in the same pool of products and then select depending on needs.

I'd bet that the films are made as stable as possible regardless of whether there is "professional" text in the box or not. "Professional" films keep just as well as consumer films, at the very same storage conditions! "Pro" films are printed with a text to keep at 13 deg.C or lower, but this is purely because of more strict requirements by clients, not because of actual differences in keeping of emulsion.

At least for me, both "pro" and "consumer" film age in the same way and at the same rate. 10 years old consumer neg stored at room temp is foggy and shifted just like 10 years old pro neg stored at room temp.

And, I really would like to see an example how a consumer neg gets better in storing (and pro doesn't!) This is a legend I would like to go into.

Click to expand...

Haven't you read the Kodak PDF file that someone posted earlier in this thread?