Recommendations for color neg film for scanning

[paulr]

I'm getting ready to work on a color project, which is brand new to me. I plan to scan the film using vuescan, and will worry about how to print it later. I'll probably start out using rollfilm (a good friend is lending me a hasselblad, so I don't go broke buying sheet film) but would like the option of moving to 4x5 at some point.

I'm used to b+w film in the asa 50-100 range, so unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, I'll stick to that. Other than that, I want the usual uninteresting qualities: sharp, not grainy, wide exposure range, etc...
Since I'll be working with it digitally, I don't imagine I need to be too fussy about its color rendering, but all else being equal I prefer subtlety to whiz-bang saturation.

Any thoughts? My biggest concern is being able to reverse the scans without crossed curves and other major irritations.

[David F. Stein]

The Kodak Portra films have scanned well for me in 120 and 4x5. In 35mm, I've done well with Fuji Superia 400, the consumer film.

[David Luttmann]

Paul,

Give Fuji Astia a try. Scans well, and nothing has finer grain in Chromes. For negs, I've always loved Fuji NPS, or Fuji CS Reala.

[Kirk Gittings]

I am very fond of Fuji NPS. It is the standard now for most architectural photographers that I know of. I virtually shoot nothing alse in color anymore. I shoot it in 4x5 readyloads and 6x9 120 rolls at ASA 100 and it scans beautifully at that speed with the Silverfast profiles. I don't know about Vuescan. I find that I can make a scan that will match the Fuji trans. films quite easily.

What is the subject matter.

[julian_4860]

Hi Paul,
I've just switched from the fuji films to KodakPortra NC - I use neg cos the Bracelona sun is so intense. I've also changed my workflow and use a 16 bitlinear scan and then do the neg conversion to positive using something called Negpos. Not for the beginner, but a great tool. Once you have everything measured you get conversions where all the 3 histos are in a line

[Paul Butler]

Paulr, I know you probably have reasons for wanting to use negative film. However, let me relate my own experience. I switched from negative film to transparency film for scanning in 2002 and have been using it ever since (in my case Velvia 100F or Kodak EPP for medium format but I like the color saturation). I can get good scans of rollfilm made inexpensively at the time the film is processed. However, for my sheet film and for some of the rollfilm, when I do the scans myself it is much easier to use the transparency film.

If you have software with the exact curves built in for the negative film you're using, great (you want an exact match) but otherwise transparency film is a good choice because you can get the colors right without worrying about compensating for the orange mask. I don't find the narrower range to be an issue, if I meter carefully.

Otherwise, the silverfast profiles as Kirk mentions (above) are a good way to go if you have them and must use negative film. However great care is required to convert the negatives to positives.

[Ed Richards]

> However great care is required to convert the negatives to positives.

Or stick a gray card into the corner of a sheet for each lighting set up. With PWP you can put a McBeth color checker in a shot and it will use it to align the colors. There is probably some way to do that with Photoshop as well, I just do not know it. There are definitely things you can do with negative film you cannot do any other way, and it is worth wasting a sheet to get a density and color reference if the shoot is important.

[Frank Petronio]

I used to advocate shooting chromes but have since gone over to shooting only color neg, even for images that will end up greyscale.

There are just too many advantages, and with good scanning software and a grey balance eyedropper, what else could you need? I get reliable clean film from Porta 160 NC in Readyloads, with 400NC in traditional holders for portraits and windy days. The Fuji products as just as good I'm sure.

The only real caveat is to find a good lab who can develop the film evenly without water marks... you may have to send it out, as many labs find LF color neg a rare oddity... It is also a good idea to wait and send larger amounts of film with the "take" broken up (don't send the entire take in one run) so they don't do just a couple oddball sheets...

[Roger Richards]

This is a relevant thread for me at the moment. I am trying to decide on Astia or Portra NC for enlargements up to 40x50 in 4x5, and 20x24 in 6x7. I did some tests and scans yeaterday and the Astia in 6x7 is magnificent grain-wise and the colors are extremely neutral, you can see that it will blow up very well. The Portra gives really pastel colors and low contrast, which I like very much, but a lot more grain when scanned. I am torn between the two at the moment. I began shooting a project with Portra, only a couple of rolls, and am considering whether to proceed further in Astia 100F or Portra 160.

Anyone here with experience drum scanning either film up to 40x50 in 4x5? What are the differences? Thanks.

[julian_4860]

I've recently seen some prints by Jim Cooke. 8x10 colour neg 40 x50.Looked great. You need to find a good drum scan operator.Not all drum scans are equal. The problem is that you can resolve beyond grain with a drum scan so the operator needs to knopw how to set the scanner up to get the detail, without setting the aperture so small that grain becomes intrusive