I know of a small group of 4x5 landscapers who are using color negative film in situations with a lot of dynamic range. We are all scanning the film and printing digitally.
Just wondering how many more "deviants" might be lurking on the LFInfo forum?
Matthew
Why would you shoot colour film then scan to print digitally?
Would you not get better results to shoot digitally and then print from your file and skip the scan stage?
I would think you deviants would get better results than this second stage method?
If you want to print digital , for sure you should be capturing with a phase and going direct.
Bob,
Why would you drive a lexus to the supermarket? Wouldn't you get better results with a Bentley or Rolls Royce?
I doubt most of us on this forum could afford to spend $30,000 on a digital back. Furthermore, even if I had the means (and the desire) to buy one, I doubt that I'd take it on backpacking trips and expose it to the elements.
Melchi
If ultimate quality and reproduction is of any concern to you for digital printing then I would indeed invest in my equipment and go to a phase. Otherwise I would shoot traditional film and optically print.
I would not be suprised to what people on this forum would be able to afford , for their photography pursuits.
I primarily shoot 4x5 Tri-X, but on those rare occasions when what's interesting to me is the color, I shoot 4x5 160PortaVC negative film. I've never used chromes, because I don't want to be limited by a chrome's lack of dynamic range (I like the sun), and saddled with a chrome's massive density.
I've never understood the so called WYSIWYG aspect of chromes, since I shoot in natural light. In natural light, WYSIWYG is a myth - we hardly ever shoot in light conditions that the film was designed for, unless we are shooting at 10:00am on the equinox (which is coming up in a few days). For landscape work, some color correction is almost always required, chrome, negative, whatever. So... if you aren't going to get the WYSIWYG advantage, why put up with the disadvantages of limited dynamic range and huge density?
This is what I'm talking about. It measured 10 stops of SBR IIRC - can't be done with a chrome. So, include me in your list of "deviants" if you please. I'm already known as a heretic; what's one more data point?
Bruce Watson
I use Portra VC 160 and scan it with an Epson 3200. I prefer the greater latitude of color negative film, and I don't have to worry about dmax when scanning. I don't find the lack of a slide to compare color to to be an obstruction. Slides rarely present an accurate rendition of colors in a scene. See the example, Fall at Northwestern,2004 in the color gallery at www.midwestlargeformat.com.
When full size 4 x 5, moderate priced, light, scanning backs become available I will be happy to switch from film, but right now film+scanning is a good way to do it.
I normally use chrome film, but always keep a couple holders loaded with Portra 160VC for high contrast situations. I still send out my "keepers" for high-end drum scanning, and in this workflow transparency film tends to give slightly more saturated and slightly less grainy results than C-41. But the Portra has proven highly useful where contrast is high and use of an ND grad filter is not feasible.
Also, I am shooting more 8x10 these days, and Portra gives me the added option of contact printing. An 8x10 color contact print is absolutely gorgeous!
I'm using Fuji NPS 5x4 (aswell as FP4) to photograph the landscape here in Yorkshire, England. I wanted to make colour prints with lowish contrast and saturation, muted is the word I think. So far the results are good - and unlike tranny film, 1 shot will do, without bracketing. Like you I'm planning on scanned negs and digital (possibly Lambda) prints. In theory this is a good route to take - but possibly a little expensive.
Like the others here, I find it difficult to live with the lower dynamic range of transparency film. Portra NC is my standard colour film in 35 mm, 6x6 and 4x5 - I use the 160 speed for most things, some 400 now and then. It is a bit weak with saturated reds, but it does nice things to my kid's skin and Scottish beaches so I stick with it. I scan on an Epson 3200 and either print at home on an Epson 2100 or upload scans to online Fuji Frontier merchants.
Portra Vc in 4x5 works fine for me. I can print it with my Chromega or scan it with my Epson 4870. Plus exposures can be off a little or I can expose for the shadows and just burn in the highlits if I need shadow detail. Masking also works.
There is no reason to use transparency that I can see for my use.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks