Which color negative film for snow landscapes

[umdah]

Hello,

I shall be grateful if folks would recoomend a color negative film for
snow landscapes in cold northern winter scapes.

I have the kodak portra 160/400 nc and vc.

Thanks.

 

[wogster]

Hello,

I shall be grateful if folks would recoomend a color negative film for
snow landscapes in cold northern winter scapes.

I have the kodak portra 160/400 nc and vc.

Thanks.

Snow makes things very difficult, because it's essentially ice crystals, which reflect a lot of light, you want a slow film, 400 is definitely too fast, and I would say 160 is even on the fast side, especially in bright sun. Snow is a highlight, and will really easily blow out on you, leaving it as a white blob, without texture. You need to reduce your exposure below what your meter tells you, sometimes as much as 3 stops, depending on how much snow is in the scene. You need that 3 stops room, so I would say 100 speed film or even slower is probably a better idea. A slightly warming filter is a good idea as well, as it appears bluish on film, as does anything that reflects light coming from it,
not as critical with negative films, if the guy at the lab is any good.

Keep spare batteries for your camera, and wind film slowly, to prevent static.

 

[keithwms]

Fuji pro s / 160s, or the 160 nc should be ok. Unless you are confident enough in your metering to be able to do the usual EV+1-2 compensation, then just do wide brackets (+/- 2 stops).

What you might do is set your camera to fully manual metering and determine where the snow's white point is, i.e., at what exposure the snow is on the ragged edge of blowing out. Then leave the camera locked in to that exposure for as long as the light is approx. the same. Shooting in snow is one situation when the fancy-schmancy metering doesn't usually help so I tend to go manual.

I think 400 would also be fine if shot at 400 but I wouldn't rate it slower (as I normally tend to do).

 

[MikeSeb]

Paul, with respect, for a scene in which bright snow predominates, wouldn't the correct advice be to increase exposure rather than to decrease it from what the meter indicates? Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning.

Since the meter tells you the exposure needed to render what it sees as medium gray (Zone V), unless you want your snow to look dingy gray, shouldn't you add exposure to render it as a Zone VII or VIII? Meaning, an additional two or three stops' exposure?

 

[keithwms]

Mike is right, I didn't see that comment. Most metering systems will recommend an exposure that results in the whites going grey, so yes, compensations of EV +1, +2, or even +3 are often done.

 

[umdah]

Paul,Keith,Mike..

Thanks for your responses. Paul, shouldn't I be increasing the exposure to
bring the snow from mid-grey to zone 7/8 as Mike suggests?

Thanks and best regards.

 

[wogster]

Paul, with respect, for a scene in which bright snow predominates, wouldn't the correct advice be to increase exposure rather than to decrease it from what the meter indicates? Perhaps I've misunderstood your meaning.

Since the meter tells you the exposure needed to render what it sees as medium gray (Zone V), unless you want your snow to look dingy gray, shouldn't you add exposure to render it as a Zone VII or VIII? Meaning, an additional two or three stops' exposure?

Well, your right, my bad. You need to be careful though, it's easy to blow out the highlights, and get simply white for the snow....

 

[wogster]

Paul,Keith,Mike..

Thanks for your responses. Paul, shouldn't I be increasing the exposure to
bring the snow from mid-grey to zone 7/8 as Mike suggests?

Thanks and best regards.

Yes, there is an issue though that you should make sure you don't go beyond zone 8 though, snow has texture and mini shadows, and it's easy to lose those.

 

[Claire Senft]

I find myself a bit confused by the advice that has been given. If one does not know what camera is being used, how can one say that a 400 speed film is too fast? What if I am using a 35mm camera with an 1/8000 top shutter speed? Is it still too fast? If one is using the sunny 16 rule and then increasing it by one stop for the snow so that the recommended exposure is 1/800@ f16, or 1/1600 @ 11, or 1/3200 @ 8 or 1/6400@ 5.6 then 400 speed film can be pretty workableeven with the brightest winter light. If one is using a polariser with a nominal exposure factor of 2.5x or what is actually more like a 4x factor then the 400 speed film is much more reasonable. It is also very common for users of color negative film to prefer a half stop or more of a lower speed then the manufacturers rated film speed. It is entirely possible that a 400 speed film may be preferable ...landscapes cover use in woods and forests as well as open scenes. Northern climes may be less brightly lit. Winter also provides for more darkness and for a sun that is doing more to side light the landscape with the sun never reaching directly overhead. With full winter sunlight and brilliant snow, the snow helps to serve as a natural reflector which can reduce the difference between sunlight and shadow.

My advice is qiute simple. The two films that you already have in your possession should work nicely. They have the benefit of your already being familar with them...I am assuming that you have been using these films and that you have film speeds that you have already found to work properly for you. I would, if possible, not load the camera until you get to the area you wish to photograph so that you can choose the version of 160vs400 speed and NCvsVC that is most suitable for your use at that moment. These are not the only decent films available for what you wish to do but the Potra films have been developed to be able to provide a fine rendition of delicate whites...wedding dresses...with a harsh light source...electronic flash as well as other characteristics.



Certainly, I can buy without any problem that gross over exposure will cause or make hard to print delicate and sparkling highlights. The problem that I have is that the person that asked the question never specified the use of a reflected light meter. He may be using an in camera meter...which would read reflected light... or may be using an incident meter. Getting off in to zone sytem terminology seems without knowing the practices of the person asking question and their knowledge level is problematical.

 

[2F/2F]

The idea that any film is "too fast" for the situation is crazy. That line of logic would only make sense if you had a camera with very minimal (or no) exposure controls, like a Brownie or a Holga. It is the contrast of the film that matters most, not the speed. Therefore, since as a rule of thumb faster films are lower in contrast, they are better than slower films for retaining highlight detail.

Personally, my first choice would be Provia 400 or 400X. I would place a low tone, see where the snow fell, and pull the development if necessary to get the snow to land where I wanted it tonewise. I have pulled this film 2 stops with no major color problems, and 2.5 stops with a correctable shift. (3 stops is right out, however.)

However, since you want a negative film, I would go for a warm-balanced, but low saturation film such as Kodak 400NC.

It is in no way easy to blow out the whites in this situation. You are far more likely to underexpose than overexpose when photographing light-toned surfaces. You would have to be very deliberate or just out to lunch to do it using an in-camera reflected meter.

Also, there is nothing wrong with your snow falling above zone VIII with negative film. In fact, "overexposure" to move your whole tonal range up the S curve can be a very effective way to deal with high contrast highlights, although it does give slightly more grain.

 

[thebanana]

1 or 2 stops over the meter reading should do the trick. An incident meter reading of the subject is even better.

 

[wogster]

The idea that any film is "too fast" for the situation is crazy. That line of logic would only make sense if you had a camera with very minimal (or no) exposure controls, like a Brownie or a Holga. It is the contrast of the film that matters most, not the speed. Therefore, since as a rule of thumb faster films are lower in contrast, they are better than slower films for retaining highlight detail.

Personally, my first choice would be Provia 400 or 400X. I would place a low tone, see where the snow fell, and pull the development if necessary to get the snow to land where I wanted it tonewise. I have pulled this film 2 stops with no major color problems, and 2.5 stops with a correctable shift. (3 stops is right out, however.)

However, since you want a negative film, I would go for a warm-balanced, but low saturation film such as Kodak 400NC.

It is in no way easy to blow out the whites in this situation. You are far more likely to underexpose than overexpose when photographing light-toned surfaces. You would have to be very deliberate or just out to lunch to do it using an in-camera reflected meter.

Also, there is nothing wrong with your snow falling above zone VIII with negative film. In fact, "overexposure" to move your whole tonal range up the S curve can be a very effective way to deal with high contrast highlights, although it does give slightly more grain.

Depends on the camera, with MY film camera, which has a top shutter speed of 1/1000 @ F/16 it becomes an issue, when the meter says that it can't determine an exposure. If the fact I have an older camera disqualifies me from being able to advise someone on something, then please let me know, and I will just go away.

 

[2F/2F]

Depends on the camera, with MY film camera, which has a top shutter speed of 1/1000 @ F/16 it becomes an issue, when the meter says that it can't determine an exposure. If the fact I have an older camera disqualifies me from being able to advise someone on something, then please let me know, and I will just go away.

With a 400 film, '1000 at f/16 is just about perfect for the snow in clear sun. According to sunny 16 guidelines, this exposure would be a 1/3 stop underexposure for the conditions. In fact, '500 or '250 would probably help you retain highlight detail better. I said nothing about your camera, except that your logic would only apply if you had limited exposure controls, as with a Brownie or Holga.

 

[Richard Harris]

I agree with the idea that 400 speed film can easily become too fast for snow scenes but it depends on sunlight levels just like any other situation. As far as metering goes; If you have a nice blue cloudless sky then meter of the blue It's close enough for any negative film and stops you having to second guess what the camera is thinking. If you are in shade or other closed situations then the snow is your best metering aid. Just fill the lens with the white stuff in the same light as your subject, meter then open up the exposure by a couple of stops. It's as accurate as you will get for anything but very accurate for negative films.

 

[keithwms]

So, metering technique aside, I'd think that the slower film (e.g. the 160 options) will provide better overall range per detail, from highlights through shadows, than their 400 cousins. 400 can give you a less contrasty rendering but is that what you want when you shoot in snow? It may be what you want when you're shooting wedding portraits, but... snowy scenes are naturally crisp and contrasty and look best when rendered as such. People shoot snowy scenes with slide film, for crying out loud.

You can use the 160 films like pro s at 160 and get very nice results in just about subject brightness range. Seriously, you'll be very hard pressed to blow the stuff. The bigger risk is that you wimp out and let your meter think for you... and then you get murky highlights. Fresh snow in sunlight is about the whitest and brightest thing that our eyes can experience, so let it be predominantly white! 160 print film will give you nice transitions to white and also some good texture, fear not.

Just place the snow ~2 stops over metered medium grey and off you go. If that really worries you then bracket a stop above and below that exposure value.

 

[2F/2F]

I agree with Keith Williams. Pick a film based on the contrast and saturation that you want.

My suggestion for 400NC was based on what I thought would be the best tool to capture the range of the scene for later printing for someone who is not using tonal placement techniques, and based on how I would personally like the shot to look. I prefer to make a contrasty print from a flat film than a flat print from a contrasty film. However, any film will work if you know how to work it. That is the real message of this thread: Exposure will be more important than film selection.

I find the S and NC varieties in both speeds to be more versatile, but I also use C when I want that look. Film selection and exposure is even more important now that Kodak has discontinued both their Ultra high-contrast high-saturation paper and their Portra low-contrast low-saturation paper, leaving us only with their Supra medium-contrast medium-saturation paper.