Which color film has the overall best image quality?

[B&Wpositive]

A loaded question, I know.

But if you had to pick one color film for best image quality, which one would it be, and why? Please support your answer with real-world experience, RMS granularity numbers, D-Max/dynamic range figures, resolution numbers, and/or scientific tests.

Thank you.

 

[PhotoJim]

Might the question be better asked at our hybrid sister site? I have lots of answers about what films I prefer and why, but I don't drum scan any of them.

 

[markbarendt]

Might the question be better asked at our hybrid sister site? I have lots of answers about what films I prefer and why, but I don't drum scan any of them.

Ditto

 

[Sirius Glass]

But if you had to pick one color film to shoot in 35mm and drum scan, which one would it be, and why? Please support your answer with real-world experience, RMS granularity numbers, D-Max/dynamic range figures, resolution numbers, and/or scientific tests.

Sounds like a hybrid processing question. Take it to the sister site.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Ok, I edited the message to take out that part. Answer as if you were going print it via enlarger. Way more people with more collective knowledge and experience are apt to answer here than over there. And similar principles hold no matter what you're going to do with the film (print or scan). A finer grain film is a finer grain film, for example in either case.

 

[keithwms]

Just about the only 35mm films that I drum are velvia 100, astia 100F and provia 400x. In my opinion, nothing less than a professional drum scan will suffice with these films, particularly for 35mm frames. They are just too dense for flatbeds and you get a lot of unnecessary noise even if you do multiscans.

I suspect that the new ektar is probably the best all 'round, but I haven't drummed any yet.

As for numbers, you really don't want to get into that here (APUG)... it's something that has been hashed and rehashed and served with mayonnaise on the hybrid site.

~~~~

Ok now I'll answer the new version of the question

I again suspect that for 35mm, ektar 100 will be at the top of the heap. For MF and LF, I doubt it makes any difference what you use, ektar or the Kodak or Fuji 160 films, they're all superb. But if you wanted to do res tests, my money would now be on the ektar.

That said, for what I do, the slide films are still my preferred films. It has nothing to do with numbers etc. but rather how *I* use the slides. I project them (as God intended); I make b&w dupes; I make fuji transfers, etc.

 

[PhotoJim]

Ektar 100 will be the sharpest and finest-grained... but I prefer to project (and I can use off-topic methods to get prints if I need) so I tend to prefer Velvia 50 (when I find the colour palette works for me, which is most of the time) or Velvia 100 (when I need the extra stop). Provia 400X is more than up to the task if I need to shoot a fast emulsion.

 

[MattKing]

Even if you aren't scanning, the only appropriate answers to your questions must start with questions themselves.

Such as:

1) What will the lighting conditions be like?
2) What will your resulting product be? Slides, prints, web presence?
3) What are you photographing?
4) What sort of colour saturation and contrast are you looking for?

For me, the Ektachrome 100 films are my current favourites for transparencies, and the Portra NC emulsions are best for negatives.

 

[JBrunner]

Although negative films have progressed by leaps and bounds, I still prefer chrome. A chrome film appropriate to the palette and speed requirements in a pro green or yellow box is hard to beat, unless you need the latitude, in which case I prefer Portra. These are my opinions based on results, not numbers. If you are into numbers, with chrome films the RMS granularity number is the most useful IME. Properly exposed, chrome films deliver almost exactly to specs. With neg, results can vary significantly from spec, not because of the film, but other variables.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Velvia 50, 100F, never scanned. All direct to Ilfochrome.

I don't give two hoots about this "RMS granularity numbers, D-Max/dynamic range figures, resolution numbers, and/or scientific tests". Professional experience and application over a long period of time carries more weight.

 

[patrickjames]

There is more to film choice than resolution. That said, I would prefer Reala or Ektar for print film and Astia for slide.

 

[perkeleellinen]

RMS granularity numbers, D-Max/dynamic range figures, resolution numbers, and/or scientific tests.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of machinery is needed to obtain these figures?

 

[lxdude]

Numbers be damned, my favorite's still Kodachrome!
I mean that.

It's subjective, really. Look how many still prefer Tri-X over more "modern" films.

The way a transparency film renders color is more important to me than any other single factor. That's why I luvs mah Kodachrome.

There are many excellent choices, and the opportunity to see for yourself is right there with a couple of rolls of each. For grain, the spec sheets will tell you which is fine grained, which is medium, etc. But if you don't like the color, what's the point of fine grain?

I don't like Velvia 50 or 100 in normal daylight, but think they do nicely on dark days. After Kodachrome's gone I expect to use Elitechrome in 35mm and E100G in MF, Provia 400X when I need higher speed.
For night shots, Provia because of its 2 minute long resistance to reciprocity failure, especially helpful when using a filter to correct tungsten light. I'm starting to experiment a little with Astia because there are subjects I'd like to depict with lower color saturation.

I use color negative film for pictures of animals and kids running around because I can take advantage of its wide latitude. I put the camera on AE. Sometimes I set the exposure compensation to ensure that I get well exposed shadow areas and let the latitude take care of the highlights. Those usually get scanned so I can send them to family and friends, and a really good one will have the negative available for an excellent enlargement. For my purposes, it doesn't matter who makes it.

Just as with equipment, I don't think there's one best for all situations. If you give specific applications you will get good recommendations.

 

[Bruce Watson]

A loaded question, I know.

You got that right.

But if you had to pick one color film for best image quality, which one would it be, and why? Please support your answer with real-world experience, RMS granularity numbers, D-Max/dynamic range figures, resolution numbers, and/or scientific tests.

It depends of course on what you are trying to accomplish. Negative films and trannies are really different, with strengths and weaknesses that are different enough that comparisons are nearly meaningless.

RMS granularity numbers can generally be obtained from the manufacturers. What these numbers don't tell you is the range of dye cloud sizes, and therefore have little meaning if you are trying to figure out which film will be "more grainy" than another.

Dmax is probably more interesting for tranny films. With negative films it's considerably more variable.

Dynamic range is hard to quantify. Tranny films have less than negative films in general, but how much is useful in negative films is difficult to determine because the harder you work the film, the more likely are color shifts and crossovers. There's no hard and fast line in the sand here -- depends on what you can live with.

Resolution numbers are way more interesting when you include the entire system -- that is, nearly all photographic resolution is limited by something other than the film.

This leaves you with real-world experience which, if you get enough answers, reduces down to a popularity contest.

The bottom line is you're going to have to do some testing and experiments yourself, with your own photography, and your own workflow. What works for others might be interesting, but may not pertain to your personal situation. The only way to find out what will work best for you, is for you to do some testing yourself.

All that said, personally I use 160PortraVC for my work. I shoot a fair amount of scenes with large subject brightness ranges so I want the large dynamic range (I've recorded 11 stops for some of my images, without any noticeable color shifts or crossovers). The negative film gives me excellent color fidelity also (that's in part what the orange mask is doing). Finally, I'm shooting 5x4, so graininess really isn't an issue for me. Sharpness is however, and 160Portra is surprisingly sharp. Nearly as sharp as TMY-2, which tells me that I'm probably optics limited (OK, OK, technique limited, I'll admit it!) and not film limited. But mostly I like the pallet. It handles a wide range human skin well, under a range of lighting conditions, and it also renders landscape well. A nicely well rounded film IMHO.

 

[keithwms]

Bruce makes many excellent points regarding format and grain and resolution.

Personally, I shoot 35 mm for reasons totally separate from many of the original questions in this thread. Resolution etc. is the absolute last thing I think about when using 35 mm. Instead, I am concentrated on immediacy, versatility... and how transparent the gear is to the process of making photographs. 35 mm is the hummingbird of the formats, you can work out almost any perspective, any frame rate and exposure very efficiently.

[I have never understood this business of using 35 mm to try to do massive enlargements of landscapes, nor using LF to do try to capture fleeting expressions... when you use the right tool for the task, the images just flow from your head to the film effortlessly, and the gear is there but not limiting]

It's totally fair to ask what's 'The Best' for 35mm, but... many of us use multiple formats, and for good reason.

 

[Athiril]

Pro 160S or Reala, and Astia 100f.

I guess there is also Kodak 50D and Fuji F-64D, which isnt impossible, Im currently bulk-loading my way through 800ft of old 500T.

 

[B&Wpositive]

Thank you to all who replied.

I appreciate it. I've heard what I needed to hear.

 

[lxdude]

When do we get our biscuit?

 

[Photo Engineer]

A loaded question, I know.

But if you had to pick one color film for best image quality, which one would it be, and why? Please support your answer with real-world experience, RMS granularity numbers, D-Max/dynamic range figures, resolution numbers, and/or scientific tests.

Thank you.

This sounds like we are answering an exam question on a test you got in school! Well, actually, you can find the answers yourself on the Kodak web site with the whole data set you ask for. The rest you can get yourself by buying a roll of a given film and taking some photos of charts to verify what you want to know.

Try page 8 here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4040/e4040.pdf

After all, unless you trust these, you won't get much hard data as measurements such as you ask require very expensive equipment and a lot of test film. This is usually done by product design engineers.

PE

 

[tkamiya]

Thank you to all who replied.

I appreciate it. I've heard what I needed to hear.

Com'on.... This is an Internet forum! We need to discuss this subject to death, bringing up all very minute point and continue to do so until none of us are sure what the initial question was anymore!

 

[donbga]

Since I can't use the D word I won't. So I'll say that there are a lot of good color negative films out there these days, (I no longer shoot reversal film).

So start shooting different films and make your own assessment. That way you will help consume film which means you have to purchase film. And when you purchase film you extend the likelyhood that film will continue to be manufactured.

Besides evaluating film is part of the fun of serious film photography. And after you've done your thorough evaluation of films you can make authoritative posts on APUG when someone asks questions about film. Which will encourage them to purchase film and test it. And then they can make authoritative posts about film which will encourage others ...

 

[steelneck]

As i see it, you are asking a question that can not be answered, to pick a film for the best image quality. There are way to many parameters making all kinds of films "the best". If it is quite dark and i do not want to use flash for hand held shots, then Superia 1600 could be one of the "best", just as well as Reala or Ektar has their resp, qualities when there is plenty of light.

If we talk about negative color film and grain is all that counts, then yes, Ektar is the finest qrain i have ever seen in the focuscope under my enlarger, but on the other hand i have the impression that Reala is sharper with just a little bit more grain. Ehh.. well, if grain really was all that counts, even above color, then there are some really fine grained BW-films too, that also is very sharp.

What the best image quality is also differs a lot, sometimes you actually want a lot grain, and/or a short dynamic range rendering a contrasty image but with a very special tonality that you hunt for with different developers, different papers and what not. Some pictures is all about colors, some all about lines and shapes, and some about mood, some just straight documentary and some all the above. No film will be "best" in all these circumstances. There is no magic bullet.

 

[Athiril]

Pro 160S has finer grain Reala and is as just as sharp

 

[2F/2F]

I cannot imagine any 100, or even 400, film not being good enough in "quality" for almost any application. Thus, I would choose a film based on its other characteristics (contrast, saturation, etc.).

FWIW, I have to really try to see grain or a loss of sharpness from the original even in my 12x linear enlargements of 35mm Provia 400X. This is cross processed, overexposed by two to four stops, and printed optically. I did two things to it that I thought would make it grainier, and was foiled on both counts.

So, if the 400 films are that good, imagine what the 100 films are like. Imagine what an Ilfochrome from a properly processed (i.e. not cross processed) transparency would look like? I think you will be hard pressed to find much practical difference in "quality" with 100 films. Choose from the 100 films. Choose a film based on its contrast and saturation. You will end up much happier choosing a film based on its "qualities" than you will choosing one based on its "quality."

For color negative, when I want a super sharp and grainless, neutral-as-can-be, medium contrast image, I shoot Fuji Reala. However, IME the professional 160 films from Kodak and Fuji are almost indiscernible from Reala in terms of sharpness and grain. The biggest difference in my eyes is Reala's more natural-looking contrast and saturation. I find that the S and NC films subdue a scene, the C and VC films exaggerate a scene, and Reala is right in the middle.

P.S. As I remember, Fuji listed the RMS granularity of Reala as being less than (by one numeral), or equal to Pro 160S (I cannot remember which), and calls Reala "our sharpest film."

 

[Athiril]

OT: I'm planning on hammering some 400X in Rodinal 1+100 2 hour semi-stand, exposed @ 6400, and re-developed to a colour neg (maybe with some hydrogen peroxide added as for the tip on increasing density), once I have some free time from this hell of report writing and finishing overdue work.