What makes a film "Professional"?

[wclark5179]

When I was only film based I associated "Professional" film with better consistency from batch to batch. But I did try to complete each job with the same batch of film. Perhaps this is the result of stricter tolerances from each batch to batch, including the products used in process to manufacturer the films.

 

[Diapositivo]

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

This is verisimilar as the decay of film after exposure is much faster than before exposure.

 

[Diapositivo]

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

I think all that was said was mainly true in the '70 and '80. If I remember well, around 1985 you would buy a professional film and it had an expiry date which was much shorter than what you would have found on a "normal" film. Let's say around one year instead of around 2,5. Can't be more precise because I would not buy many films, and even less of "professional" grade.

On a magazine of the time I read that commercial film had to withstand hours in a overheated car, in a camera in the sun at the seaside etc. So it was the entire chemistry of the "normal" film which was thought to be less perishable, more chemically stable in dire conditions.

It is likely that in this decades progress in emulsions has made those difference thinner. In the Kodak sheet that was posted it is said that, given the same conditions, professional and normal film would age basically the same way.

So professional films are different recipes, and are made according to tighter tolerances, but the difference in "maturing" and in "perishability" is probably something of the past.

Fabrizio

 

[2F/2F]

As mentioned, Superia and Superia Press are the same emulsion with the same characteristics, and are consumer and pro versions of a film, respectively. There may or may not be a difference in color balance, since it is a Fuji film, and not Kodak, which is who published that data sheet on what the differences are. But they are the same emulsion and the same price. Also, using another example from recent history, Kodachrome 64 came in consumer and pro versions, with the difference being only color balance, according to Freestyle via Kodak.

 

[patois]

The price

 

[hrst]

As mentioned, Superia and Superia Press are the same emulsion with the same characteristics, and are consumer and pro versions of a film, respectively.

After the discontinuation of Press series, I think that there is only one such a case left: Elite Chrome 100 vs. E100G. Not sure about it, even, but the data sheets look exactly same.

All the other pro vs. consumer products are very different, such as Superia vs. Pro series, or Gold vs. Portra vs. Ektar series; or Sensia vs. Astia/Provia/Velvia and so on. They are completely different emulsions with different characteristics.

Firstoff, Kodak PDF is from 2002, when Kodak did had much wider E6 range. The information is becoming obsolete when the product range for both Kodak and Fuji is going to a direction where pro and consumer products are different emulsions.

From Kodak PDF, I cannot find anything that would support the usual claims (1) professional film is "post-ripened" after manufacturing, (2) consumer film needs to be stored at the store shelf for optimal color balance, (3) pro film ages faster than consumer film. Well, the (2) gets some sort of support as ---

"Kodak builds a small manufacturing bias into
films for general picture-taking to compensate for changes
produced by typical storage conditions and delays between
purchase and processing."

--- but it doesn't clearly indicate that the color balance and other features would be non-optimal if used "too quickly".

For (3), the opposite is clearly indicated; "If they are stored at the same temperature, both types of films will age at the same rate." So, as I said, the differences in keeping comes from the differences of accepted variation, rather than the variation itself.

All of the usual claims have some basis, as I said before, but are either misinterpreted, exaggerated or have become totally obsolete as of today.

Also, it's often heard that pro films have less exposure latitude, and almost as often I can hear that pro films have more exposure latitude. Neither is true and it's easy to check the characteristic curves for any particular product. There are higher and lower contrast pro films.

For these reasons, every time I hear someone asking "what's the difference between pro and consumer films?", I answer; they are both high-quality products but different product ranges with different characteristics, and you may find you favorite from any range. I don't say that they are same products with different ripening, as it is mostly untrue.

 

[Q.G.]

(3) pro film ages faster than consumer film.

You're misrepresenting that 'usual claim'.

What's said is that pro film only goes downhill, while amateur film first gets better a bit, then starts going down the hill.
That has nothing to do with the rate at which they do that.

The net result however is that you can't keep pro film as long as amateur film.
(Which still has nothing to do with the rate at which they go bad.)

 

[MattKing]

Nowadays, "Professional Film" refers more to the distribution channel, packaging and customer support resources than it does to the film itself.

You are unlikely to find any of it for sale in the few remaining general purpose retail outlets (grocery stores, drug stores, etc.) who still sell a few rolls from time to time.

 

[nickrapak]

In terms of E100G vs Elite Chrome, there are slight differences in the chemicals used to make up the emulsion that allow Elite Chrome to stay at room temp for longer unexposed. These chemicals do have a slight effect on color balance, but it's not very noticeable. You can see the difference if you look at the characteristic curves very closely.

 

[2F/2F]

"From Kodak PDF, I cannot find anything that would support the usual claims (1) professional film is "post-ripened" after manufacturing, (2) consumer film needs to be stored at the store shelf for optimal color balance, (3) pro film ages faster than consumer film. Well, the (2) gets some sort of support as ---"

1. I did not say it is "post-ripened." I said it is made with a slightly different color balance. Who said that it is "post-ripened?"

2. I said simply that consumer film is made to age into its textbook "proper" color balance. The Kodak data sheet states this: "Under normal temperature conditions of 24°C (75°F) or lower, Kodak color films for general picture-taking do not require refrigeration. Storing them at room temperature allows the film to mature to its aim color balance and speed."

3. I did not say that consumer film ages more slowly than professional film. I said that it is made to ship with the textbook proper color balance, hence any aging only moves it farther from this, while aging moves consumer film toward it, until it is reached, then away from it again (moving in the same direction as it was when heading toward the point, but now moving away from it). Kodak says the same in the PDF file: "Under identical conditions, the stability of professional and general picture-taking films is essentially the same. If they are stored at the same temperature, both types of films will age at the same rate." Who made your #3 claim?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

You're misrepresenting that 'usual claim'.

What's said is that pro film only goes downhill, while amateur film first gets better a bit, then starts going down the hill.
That has nothing to do with the rate at which they do that.

The net result however is that you can't keep pro film as long as amateur film.
(Which still has nothing to do with the rate at which they go bad.)

Oh? That's quite a revelation, almost like drawing a long bow. :confused:
I've got Velvia in the deep freeze from 1997 as part of an experiment. A roll from that batch was exposed on a recent long weekend here and the colour balance and density is identical to a 6/2010-expired roll. Should we be surprised? Since I do not have any consumer-level film I can't make a comparison.

I have not used any consumer film since 1995 (first trip to Tahiti; none of its charm was carried through on that film, not even the gyrating girls...).

 

[Q.G.]

Oh? That's quite a revelation, almost like drawing a long bow. :confused:
I've got Velvia in the deep freeze from 1997 as part of an experiment. A roll from that batch was exposed on a recent long weekend here and the colour balance and density is identical to a 6/2010-expired roll. Should we be surprised? Since I do not have any consumer-level film I can't make a comparison.

So what's the surprise?

And what are you talking about? What in all of the above discussion are you addressing?

I have not used any consumer film since 1995 (first trip to Tahiti; none of its charm was carried through on that film, not even the gyrating girls...).

You must know, then, what the difference between pro and consumer film is. So why don't you join in and tell us?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

So what's the surprise?

And what are you talking about? What in all of the above discussion are you addressing?



You must know, then, what the difference between pro and consumer film is. So why don't you join in and tell us?

Line 1: Where is the concrete proof that "pro film doesn't keep as long as amateur film"?
Line 2: cf. Post #16.

Now, go out and shoot some film. I don't care what film you use. Less debate, more shooting.
I've shot 2 rolls this afternoon, now signing off for 3 more over the weekend. Ciao.

 

[Q.G.]

Line 1: Where is the concrete proof that "pro film doesn't keep as long as amateur film"?

It says so on the boxes the stuff comes in?

What in you post was relevant? What did you tell us that could shed some light on the matter?

Line 2: cf. Post #16.

There we are:
Pro film is released close to or at it's optimum. Others have contributed the bit about consumer film being released before. And that the rate at which both go bad is the same
It should be simple enough to put those little factoids together and not be surprised at the conclusion.

Now, go out and shoot some film. I don't care what film you use. Less debate, more shooting.
I've shot 2 rolls this afternoon, now signing off for 3 more over the weekend. Ciao.

Before you go, a quick question: why, believing that we shouldn't debate but go out and shoot something, are you here debating?
Why (maybe you, as a representative of the 'species', can tell) do some people keep doing that?

 

[hrst]

2F/2F, I didn't quote you, nor did I say I did; Similarly, I didn't quote anyone in this thread. I wanted to answer to some usual claims that factually are surfacing every now and then, maybe before they would surface in this thread.

Some of yours were quite close to them, so I thought we were near the "danger zone" so to speak . This is why I wanted to clarify things just to reduce the risk of misunderstanding. You see, someone who has previously heard the claims I denoted with (1), (2)*, (3) somewhere, might find that your well-founded post would agree with them, if they don't read it carefully. This is why I wanted to give extra clarification, not to disagree with you.

(*) whereas (2) have some truth in it

These concepts are in fact very concrete and I'm not very fond of the fact that they are mostly given between the lines of general marketing-type wordings , instead of "pure technical facts" --- after all, these are very concrete technical concepts. This is why I don't find the Kodak PDF very useful; it just keeps repeating what consumers do, what pros do, and what Kodak think when designing products, without giving too much thought of what the exact, technical differences in the films are -- in the end. And, it also doesn't speak anything about different product lines (eg. Gold vs. Portra) and their characteristic differences (lower-saturation portrait film for pros, etc.), but again, it is an E6 manual and Kodak E6 line (in 2002, when there still were quite a bit more products) may have been of this "same product, slightly different version for pros and consumers" concept, which is not true anymore but to one product or so, even if we count both Kodak and Fuji!

I find that all films are at their best as fresh as possible, and that both types have the same usable life if we have the same quality standards. This is also technically understandable. Minor edits in "consumer version" color balance is also understandable, but that is still quite far from claim (2). And, I don't find it giving much extra total shelf life. In fact, I have usually had better luck with expired pro film than with expired consumer film.

I don't have time or desire to start a debate, I think we have formed quite a good "big picture" now.

 

[ruilourosa]

professional should mean that you use it in your profession, your job. amateur means that you love what you do (in italian, spanish, portuguese, french, love is: amore, amor, amor, amour, and amateur is the one who loves) nowadays amateur is depreciative and means that you don´t know what you are doing but in the XIX century when you said that you were an amateur it meant that you loved your job.

with that being said i think that convention to call a film professional is erroneaous and a cheap form of marketing, a film that preserved a chromatic characteristic for a determined period of time should be called other thing, and other characteristics should also be described on the box, as saturation, grain, pushability, resolution, tonal characteristics or for what is intended for.

as being pro or not that is not a characteristic, and since i do not work comercially and never quite did every film is amateur or professionalas you wish.

it´s a bit like cameras, i have sold lots of images shot on cameras that are not professional, but then they were, because i was using them in my job.

the thing to look for is consistency, and that can be achieved buying lots of film from the same batch and then test one in your regular developer/processing scheme, the other film should have the same characteristics.

i never found this very important, but i never shot too much slide film

once you use it for the money it´s a professional film, and if you love what you are doing it´s an amateur one also

 

[Dan Grisez]

I'll bet the term is only marketing these days.

Ding ding ding ding ding ding!!!!! We have a winner!!!!!

When a company wants to charge more for a product, the marketing department calls it "Professional" and marks the box accordingly.

 

[Q.G.]

Catalogue photograhy and holiday snap photography put very different demands on how a film produces colour.
Imagine how many complaints and returns you get if your catalogue pictures show the thingies you hope to sell in the garish colours produced by those terrible films consumers seem to like. A catalogue should show things the way they are, as best as possible.
Imagine how many disappointed holiday snappers you would have if their holiday snaps turned out having such well balanced, true colours like Portra NC.

And that is the difference between a consumer and a professional film.

Now, film is a niche thing. Films like Ektar (and hopefully not the new Portra 400) try to please all, and, with such contrary demands, don't succeed.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Catalogue photography is a nice example because it shows the importance of consistency - a red dress has to be the correct red across many rolls of film on the photo editors light table. In order to achieve this 'professional' films were (are?) stored by batch number for consistency. Professionals bought film by the batch number. Consumers are less concerned by consistency and possibly couldn't even spot the deviations which professionals go to great lengths to avoid. In fact, for a consumer, lab-to-lab inconsistency is a greater concern.

 

[hrst]

Now, film is a niche thing. Films like Ektar (and hopefully not the new Portra 400) try to please all, and, with such contrary demands, don't succeed.

Ektar seems to have succeeded very well, and is a truly new product in the "professional" range. As we already have neutral-colored, low-speed film as Portra 160 NC, why would we need another? Ektar was/is truly something that wasn't available, making it very successful product. Of course it cannot please all.

 

[lxdude]

Kodak calls its E100, etc. "Professional". No problem there, except they also call their Elitechrome "Professional", while listing it among their consumer films, thereby making the word meaningless as a way of distinguishing anything about the differences between the films.

 

[wblynch]

Since so few professionals use film anymore, perhaps the marketing advantage would go to the company that labels its film as "advanced amateur" or "neo-artiste" ?

Or even (cough)... Holga!

 

[Q.G.]

That might work.
People already pay ludicrous amounts for crap stuff having the name "LOMO" attached to it.
So why not?

 

[Q.G.]

Ektar seems to have succeeded very well, and is a truly new product in the "professional" range. As we already have neutral-colored, low-speed film as Portra 160 NC, why would we need another? Ektar was/is truly something that wasn't available, making it very successful product. Of course it cannot please all.

Ektar is also a product that pleases people who don't like colour.
So though you may think it is in the "professional" range, it sure is a made-to-please-amateur-taste film.

Why would we need it indeed... ?


We also already had a 400 speed neutral colour film. Why would we have needed to have that replaced?
See where this is going?


But i guess people who like colour, who need accurate colour, are 'postprocessing' anyway, leaving the straight film thing for those who don't (like colour, that is).

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I agree with QG. I watched many new movie films and they dont have color. Lots of movies have like colors at terrible outdated and broken digital camera. I am an member of Leica Forums and I really scared to the people says what to crap as good photograph . Electronic colors , like fluorecense , football stadium led wall colors are making people happy.
Look at 1950s technicolor movies and look at Da Vinci Code or Matrix or Star Wars. All electric colors or no color , dark , death indoor shots.
I think this is due to Kodak Movie films , I visited many galleries with code numbers and some films are discusting.
I think in ten years , there would be no film and digital camera remaining to give the flesh tones of Rembrandt or Vermeer.
New Leica cameras are worst and even terrible than canon. If you pay 10 grand , you dont get point and shoot film quality.
I think I will move to RG two color filter photography at the future. Even at 1920 , colors were far far away superior to today. Hey , why not try today ?
People scaring to take peoples photographs and turned to mountains , bridges , wall papers.
I dont think skin color is an issue at todays films.
If you want to shoot like a lemonade , its another story.

Umut