New to color sheet film - which should I choose for my trip?

[andrewch59]

I'm not panicking yet, but we are planning an amazing trip from Australia to Canada to capture some of the most amazing landscapes on the planet. I have only ever used xray film for large format photography, and love the stuff, but for this trip I am going to have to enter uncharted waters and use colour film to capture some of those amazing colours of summer and autumn.
Does anyone have any advice on what make of 4x5 sheet film would be most suitable?
I will be using a Shen Hao with a super angulon 90mm f8, a topcor 210mm f5.6 and a Nikon nikkor 150mm f5.6, all proven to be excellent performers for xray. I will of course be taking nd, polarizing and uv filters with me.
Thankyou in advance for any advice on film choice

[Fred L]

As well as colour film, depending on where you're visiting, pick up some black and white film while you're here. I presume you'll be here in Sept/ Oct since you mention fall colours. Have u decided between negative or reversal ? I don't shoot much colour in LF but I'd be using Ektar for its saturation. If you need recommendations on labs for processing your film while here, we can help out with that as well.

Do you have an idea how long will you be here and where you'll be visiting ? Late summer and fall is a beautiful time to visit. Enjoy your trip and if it's as wonderful as my trip to Kangaroo Island, you won't want to go home ;)

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Does anyone have any advice on what make of 4x5 sheet film would be most suitable?

Personally, I like Velvia for landscapes. If you "know how to use it," it is an amazing landscape film. Alan Brock did a video on 4x5 landscape films (https://youtu.be/3pXlzn1JFOI). He covers Velvia 50, but Velvia 100 is easier to get (at least in the USA) and is a great landscape film, as well.

[chassis]

You can't go wrong with Kodak Ektar 100 and Kodak Portra in either 160 or 400 speeds. I like the renditions of these three emulsions. These films, and C-41 color negative processing are easy to find.

[locutus]

I dont have experience with these stocks in large format, but i suppose its valid across sizes.

Ektar is absolutely great for landscape work, sharp, lowgrain and great colours while still fairly realistic.

Velvia is ofcourse incredible ifyou love super saturated high contrast look but exposing for it can be really hard with its narrow latitude, if you haven't shot much of it before and these are irreplacable shots i would not go for it.

Ektar has a very large dynamic range which allows for far more leeway in exposures and gives room for 'fix in post' if needed.

Bottom line; Ektar, recommended! :-)

[andrewch59]

Hi Fred L and thankyou for your prompt response, we have two years of planning but we are lying here with laptops open already entranced by the amazing scenery. It looks like it could be a motorhome start at Vancouver to whistler then on to Banff and then train it to Ontario for Niagara falls.
I have no idea what the difference is between negative and reversal, sorry. I wanted a challenge when I started on LF so I used xray as it is cheap and have not ventured to use anything else.

[andrewch59]

Thank you Locutus, Ektar seems to be the choice so far with 100% score rate from both of you. Yes on a trip like this you cannot go back for a second shot, so a fairly forgiving film is required for me.

[vinny]

any that you can find.
I shoot velvia mostly but I'd avoid it for a trip like this as shooting it leaves very little room for exposure error and isn't well suited for most sunny day work.

[Fred L]

sounds like a long trip Andrew ! I'd also suggest that after Ontario, you keep going east. Definitely visit Montreal/ Quebec City and the Maritimes.

[xkaes]

Hello,

I shoot Agfa 100 and 125 color negative 4x5" film, but you can't get that anymore.

Negative film gives you a negative that you print on approriate paper. It it sometimes called "reversal" film because it is a negative image -- just like X-RAY film. On the other side is "positive" film, typically called "slide" film. That produces a slide or positive image. You need a differnt type of paper to create a print.

So you have:
NEGATIVE / REVERSAL film
POSITIVE / SLIDE film

Either will create perfectly good results, but different people have different preferences for different reasons. I can't tell you which is best for you, but both Kodak and Fuji make fine films in both categories. The things to look out for:

Make sure it is DAYLIGHT film. Many are designed for artificial light and are referred to as TUNGSTEN or "T" film. That is NOT what you want, although it can be corrected with the use of an 80xxx type filter.

Look at the film speed. The LOWER the number, let's say ISO 100 vs ISO 400, will give you more resolution and more apparent sharpness and less apparent grain.

The sheets come in boxes of various number of sheets. The larger boxes have more sheets but cost more. So try to estimate the number of pictures you will take, double that to handle errors, and don't buy more than that. This stuff ain't cheap. Keep any left-overs in the freezer.

[Ted R]

Hi Fred L and thankyou for your prompt response, we have two years of planning but we are lying here with laptops open already entranced by the amazing scenery. It looks like it could be a motorhome start at Vancouver to whistler then on to Banff and then train it to Ontario for Niagara falls.
I have no idea what the difference is between negative and reversal, sorry. I wanted a challenge when I started on LF so I used xray as it is cheap and have not ventured to use anything else.

Forgive me if you know this already but the difference is rather important. Color negative film produces negatives that are then turned into color prints either by scanning and digital printing, or by optical printing (darkroom). Reversal is another word for transparency film, positive film or color slides, the image is a positive and can be held up to the light and seen directly. Prints are made from slide film either by scanning and digital printing, or by optical printing. Slide film (positive film) has less exposure latitude than negative films, it is very unforgiving of exposure errors, it is easy to get results with empty black shadows and empty blown out highlights, whereas a color negative of the same scene is able to hold more of the highlight detail and shadow detail which are recovered in the print by image manipulation (dodging and burning or photoshop).

Before you stock up on color film give some thought to how you want to view the results (slide projection, small hardcopy prints, large hard copy prints, online etc) and how you are going to achieve these steps. Also give consideration to the matter of exposure latitude and the choice of slide (poor) or negative (better) film for your camera.

[Tim Meisburger]

I don't shoot much color, but when I do, I prefer Velvia.

[xkaes]

Let's not confuse things.

POSITIVE FILM = SLIDE FILM = TRANSPARENCY FILM

NEGATIVE FILM = REVERSAL FILM

[Ted R]

Yes let's NOT confuse things.................

No less an authority than the Kodak catalog uses the term REVERSAL to describe positive "transparency" films. This is a confusing use of language, nevertheless it is common. That is why I used multiple words in my post to make sure the difference is clear, slide film = transparency = reversal film = positive image.

I believe the reason for the use of the term "reversal" originates from the use a of a processing stage that reverses the density of the primary silver image from "negative" to "positive".

[Oren Grad]

Let's not confuse things....

Slide film is reversal film - "reversal" refers to the processing needed to get a positive rather than a negative from the film that was exposed in the camera. Search the web for "reversal processing" if you are not familiar with this.

Andrew, if you've never used slide film before, I very strongly recommend sticking to negative film. It's *much* more forgiving in exposure - that is, so long as you err on the side of giving more exposure, you're much more likely to come away with a usable negative even if your metering isn't exactly right. Slide film has far narrower exposure latitude and is much easier to mess up.

[Thalmees]

I'm not panicking yet, but we are planning an amazing trip from Australia to Canada to capture some of the most amazing landscapes on the planet. I have only ever used xray film for large format photography, and love the stuff, but for this trip I am going to have to enter uncharted waters and use colour film to capture some of those amazing colours of summer and autumn.
Does anyone have any advice on what make of 4x5 sheet film would be most suitable?
I will be using a Shen Hao with a super angulon 90mm f8, a topcor 210mm f5.6 and a Nikon nikkor 150mm f5.6, all proven to be excellent performers for xray. I will of course be taking nd, polarizing and uv filters with me.
Thankyou in advance for any advice on film choice
Hello andrewch59,
Kodak and FujiFilm agreed some time ago with each other to redistribute color sheet film market between them, to own part of it for each alone, and to avoid competition. Of course it looks as it was a non-declared agreement(NDA). Color negative for Kodak, and color reversal for FujiFilm.
Ferrania Film will enter the marker hopefully soon. Wish they will consider also sheet film. Hope other manufacturers in the market consider at least 4X5 reversals.
Options available now in color 4X5, are not much, as far as I know:
1. Fuji Velvia 100, RVP100. Color Reversal/positive slide film. E6 chemistry.
2. Fuji Provia, RDP100. Color Reversal/positive slide film. E6 chemistry.
3. Kodak Ektar 100. Color Negative film. C41 chemistry.
4. Kodak Portra 160. Color Negative film. C41 chemistry.
5. Kodak Portra 400. Color Negative film. C41 chemistry.
In Japanese market,
6. Velvia 50 is still available in 4X5, as far as I know.
All are at roughly the same price per sheet of film, though available in 10 or 20 sheets per box. Color negatives are not cheaper.
My opinion, if you may consider, go B&W, ILFORD FP4+, and do every thing your self in "reality" at less than half price, plus building experience. This film has much praise as one of the best in the market in all format, but IMHO, its 4X5 format deserve much much more praise and attention.
If you insist on color, go reversal films(positives/slide. Direct results after development). Provia first option, and Velvia 50 second option.
Marvelous resolution and color quality. No digital ever can comes even near in overall quality.
Velvia50 saturated colors are very praised among photographers, but, Provia may tolerate variety of development better than the moody Velvia50, and its one stop faster with wider latitude.
With negative color films, you will not get the results directly after development.
For both, the most accessible service, is to scan then digital printing.
Hope this useful.

[Pere Casals]

I'm not panicking yet, but we are planning an amazing trip from Australia to Canada to capture some of the most amazing landscapes on the planet. I have only ever used xray film for large format photography, and love the stuff, but for this trip I am going to have to enter uncharted waters and use colour film to capture some of those amazing colours of summer and autumn.
Does anyone have any advice on what make of 4x5 sheet film would be most suitable?
I will be using a Shen Hao with a super angulon 90mm f8, a topcor 210mm f5.6 and a Nikon nikkor 150mm f5.6, all proven to be excellent performers for xray. I will of course be taking nd, polarizing and uv filters with me.
Thankyou in advance for any advice on film choice


Let me say my 2 cents.


Portra, Fuji 160(if still available):

> Do not underexpose it, you can overexpose it a fair ammount, +2 areas can be recovered very well.

> Low Saturation, spectral response ideal for skin tones, to shot interesting people you find in your way, and when you want low saturation.


Ektar

> More saturated colors, people still look ok but spectral response is not the ideal one for skin, good for landscape.

> Do not underexpose it. It cannot be overexposed as much as Portra.




With al Slides: do not overexpose it. Very deep shadows can be recovered with a good scanner, if the case (deep shadows) a drum is the (expensive) choice.


Provia

>> Great color fidelity.

>> Good for people and general subjects


Velvia 100

>> More saturated colors than Provia and more contrasty, very nice, ideal colors for landscape, Velvia is GREAT !!! bad for people: they look as if they were backed 2 hours in a microwave owen.




Velvia 100F

Note the "F". Buy Velvia 100, not 100F. I really don't understand what 100F is useful for, cheaper, but I don't know if it's useful for anything, Simply worse, IMHO.

It looks to me it's a worse Velvia than can show people like if they had been 30min only in the microwave owen.



Velvia 50

Same than Velvia 100 but it has a creative color shift: yellow and orange are shifted a bit to red, delivering an awesome selective warming for yellow. This is ideal for low sun illumination. VELVIA 50 IS GREAT, GREAT, GREAT !!!

Also bad for people: they look as if they were backed in a microwave owen during 8 hours.



Tip:

I'd strongly recommend to use the 4x5 with black and white only and shot color with a MF camera. Use only 4x5 color film if you want to make tilt/shift or want the defocus nature of 4x5.

Regarding image quality, if you want just all in focus, MF is the best choice today for film color photography. A 6x7 Velvia/Provia Slide has some native 200Mpix (perceptual), you can extract some 80MPix very easy, and this may be much more you'll ever need.

If you have a budget, think that color sheets are crazy expensive, with 2x the price per surface than 120 film, then you need to develop and scan, a 4x5 drum scan is also very expensive. So sheets vs MF have near no advantage if you are not to print 3m high and view it at reading distance.

Regarding film price with the cost of 1 a 4x5" sheet you can shot some 5 6x7 frames. You will bring home 5x more Velvia shots, because cost and because camera transport and setup.

For Velvia 50 MF a light Monopod is way enough for most situations, so less amazing Velvia photographs will be lost. Then you will be able to project easily 6x7 powerful slides for personal joy, while a 4x5 projector is a rarer device. So you'll enjoy Velvia projected purity, instead sRGB trash or low DR prints.

I just say what I would do, I hope it helps.

Regards

[xkaes]

Yes let's NOT confuse things.................

No less an authority than the Kodak catalog uses the term REVERSAL to describe positive "transparency" films. This is a confusing use of language, nevertheless it is common. That is why I used multiple words in my post to make sure the difference is clear, slide film = transparency = reversal film = positive image.

I believe the reason for the use of the term "reversal" originates from the use a of a processing stage that reverses the density of the primary silver image from "negative" to "positive".

It's no wonder people want to digital. Now we have:

POSITIVE FILM = REVERSAL FILM

NEGATIVE FILM = REVERSAL FILM

That clears up the muddy waters. That's like your doctor telling you that your cancer biopsy came back NEGATIVE -- which is really POSITIVE.

[Ted R]

.......except that film isn't life threatening and you don't need to be an MD to read film manufacturer's information, online forums and Wikipedia. You made up negative = reversal, don't blame the world for your ignorance.

[Leszek Vogt]

Andrew, try preventing any surprises ? Whatever film you do choose, I'd test it before departure.

Les

[xkaes]

Ok,

positive film = reversal film = slide film = transparency film

negative film = negative film

[Rich14]

Andrew,

I do not want to be accused of raining on your parade. But I feel you need to take a step back and think about the question you have posed here. Photography lore is rife with stories of people who have used a special occasion to justify buying a new piece of (usually expensive) gear, usually on the eve of the event/trip/occasion/opportunity in the expectation that this special-purpose or highly-rated or otherwise-recommended piece of equipment is going to result in better images than would otherwise result from using one's "old" gear.

And the consequence, whether the photographer is a rank amateur or a pro is that the experience turns out much less than expected, if not an utter failure due to unfamiliarity with the gear. Even if it seems that the new gear is exactly the same in terms of controls and settings, everything usually goes wrong. I used to make my living at this game, and I can tell you that everyone of my fellow working pros lived by one hard and fast rule - never, ever go on a shoot with a piece of equipment that you didn't know how to use "in your sleep."

You admit to being unfamiliar, not only with color film, but with standard black and white negative material also. Your experience is with X-Ray film. That is simply not enough to expect satisfactory results on your trip. You really don't know how "standard" film behaves.

Even though film is a lot more expensive than it used to be, the adage, "Film is cheap, the opportunity is priceless," still holds true. You need to spend the time and money becoming proficient with either color positive material or color negative material before you leave for your fantastic trip. You need to know the material upside down and backwards or your photo-memories will be a disaster. Learning on-the-job with practically no chance for feedback (seeing your results) and being under the pressure of travel is not the way to go.

Color positive and negative film are vastly different beasts. One meters for highlights with color positive, and learns how to do that precisely, or the results are garbage. Do it right and the results are spectacular. Fujichrome Velvia is unlike any other film extant. It is delicious. But it takes experience to tame it. And it's not the film to use in very contrasty situations.

Color negative film, like black and white film should be exposed for the shadows. Film "latitude" will take care of the highlights (to a limit). The current Kodak films can give Velvia a run for its money in many situations, properly exposed. Typically, though the results will not be as dramatic, but the success rate will be higher.

I suggest you get a 35mm film camera and shoot a hell of a lot of both types between now and your trip. The exposure experience you acquire will be directly applicable to the same films in 4x5. Use a hand-held meter and set the camera manually. Try to duplicate the kind of shooting you'll be doing on your trip in your own locale. Record your exposures just as you would (should) for LF and compare your record with the resulting images. Use a gray card target, better yet an XRite Color Passport in the first of any sequence/situation to aid in post processing of the rest of the series (NOT AN OPTION!)

Leave for your trip confident that you know how to use either (or both) types of film. That way, your mental energy will be mostly challenged by the logistical realities of using large format while traveling (good luck with that alone!), not thinking about your film (too much).

Prepare well. Have a great time!

[andrewch59]

Hello,

I shoot Agfa 100 and 125 color negative 4x5" film, but you can't get that anymore.

Negative film gives you a negative that you print on approriate paper. It it sometimes called "reversal" film because it is a negative image -- just like X-RAY film. On the other side is "positive" film, typically called "slide" film. That produces a slide or positive image. You need a differnt type of paper to create a print.

So you have:
NEGATIVE / REVERSAL film
POSITIVE / SLIDE film

Either will create perfectly good results, but different people have different preferences for different reasons. I can't tell you which is best for you, but both Kodak and Fuji make fine films in both categories. The things to look out for:

Make sure it is DAYLIGHT film. Many are designed for artificial light and are referred to as TUNGSTEN or "T" film. That is NOT what you want, although it can be corrected with the use of an 80xxx type filter.

Look at the film speed. The LOWER the number, let's say ISO 100 vs ISO 400, will give you more resolution and more apparent sharpness and less apparent grain.

The sheets come in boxes of various number of sheets. The larger boxes have more sheets but cost more. So try to estimate the number of pictures you will take, double that to handle errors, and don't buy more than that. This stuff ain't cheap. Keep any left-overs in the freezer.
thankyou Xkaes, that is sound advice.

[andrewch59]

Thankyou Rich14 that is great advice, fortunately I have a few roll film holders for my Shen Hao so I am not restricted to sheet only. Yes I am totally inept when it comes to using proper film and will be putting through a few rolls of B+W film before I go, hence the two year preparation time. I have a supply of ILFORD Fp4. After some of the advice (I thankyou all very much) I will probably settle for 120 colour neg film, which I can then scan on my Epson v800 scanner. It will be a lot easier to lug around as well and load into holders.
I don't think you have rained on my parade, I think mayhap you have handed me an umbrella

[Pere Casals]

Thankyou Rich14 that is great advice, fortunately I have a few roll film holders for my Shen Hao so I am not restricted to sheet only. Yes I am totally inept when it comes to using proper film and will be putting through a few rolls of B+W film before I go, hence the two year preparation time. I have a supply of ILFORD Fp4. After some of the advice (I thankyou all very much) I will probably settle for 120 colour neg film, which I can then scan on my Epson v800 scanner. It will be a lot easier to lug around as well and load into holders.

Of course you can also scan sheets with V800.

V800 will scan very, very well color negative film, because this stuff was reengineered long ago to perform very well with digital minilabs of that era.

With V800 you also will get good Velvia/Provia scans, but if you want to recover deep shadows you will need Silverfast SE Plus version (or AI) because the Silverfast SE (without "Plus") do not include Multiexposure feature I think that this software feature can be purchased separately, not expensive.

IMHO someone who shots X-Ray can learn very quickly how color works. I'd suggest to just take a 135 roll of each type: Portra/Ektar/Velvia/Provia, then spot metering some pattern scenes (clouds, sky, shadows) and bracketing. You will see what happens. With Velvia you may need to darken Sky with Pol of graded ND.

Always rememner that with negative color film you can just overexpose some areas if needed, but with slides you need to control highlights with graded ND or Pol.

Also I'd like to add that Reversal film (Provia/Velvia) is much sharper than color negative film, so I'd suggest you to also test how well slides work for you. Velvia is Velvia.

Please consider evaluating Velvia !!!

Regards.

[Rich14]

"Also I'd like to add that Reversal film (Provia/Velvia) is much sharper than color negative film, so I'd suggest you to also test how well slides work for you. Velvia is Velvia."

As I said, there is nothing quite like Velvia. But you should try Kodak Ektar color negative film. You will no longer say Velvia is much sharper than color negative film." Ektar is quite vivid and very sharp. It is serious stuff. Best color negative material Kodak has ever made. I think I could go out on a shoot and do a mixture of these two and not have much to choose between when all the post processing is done.

I'm not quite ready to declare myself proficient at scanning/processing it. As with all color negative film, dealing with the mask presents a learning curve. But I'll soon be there and post some images.

Rich

[Two23]

My first choice would be Ektar, and my second would be Portra 160 when I wanted a softer, low contrast look.


Kent in SD

[Punker]

I'm partial to Ektar, myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ben_hutcherson]

I will go out on a limb and say that fall colors speak for themselves, and it's one of the few times of year where Velvia can be "too much." Although I have shot Velvia in the fall, I tend to grab Provia these days. When those of us who shoot reversal film(this is a term with origins going back to Kodachrome's introduction in the 1930s) had more selection, I'd even break out Astia or E100GS in the fall. E100GS to me was something of a sweet spot-I never particularly cared for Ektachrome in general, but E100GS was a bit warmer and more saturated than the standard E100G. Also, for as much as I like to dump on Kodachrome, I shot more of it in the fall than I did any other time of the year.

That's all in the past, though. Kodak will be bringing back Ektachrome in the fall, but only in 35mm for the time being. We will see if it retains the traditional blue Ektachrome cast.

Others have advised you well on negative films. I like Ektar 100, although I'm not really that big on color negative films.

Let me also make one other poignant suggestion. By your own admission, you have never shot "real" film(by that I mean film intended for photography). Medium format cameras are cheap these days, and even a basic Hasselblad 500-series kit can be had in the $500 range. By kit I mean a body, 80mm lens, waist level finder, and film back. For even more bang for your buck, Bronica(my pet brand), Pentax, and Mamiya SLRs can all be had for pretty reasonable prices. A Bronica SQ kit(6x6) with an 80mm(fantastic lens, even if it doesn't say Zeiss on it) can be had in the $300-350. Move down to a 645 format camera and you might get in at under $200(I paid $175 for my ETRS, including a prism finder). 35mm is even cheaper, and there are a lot of great consumer SLRs collectors that you can get for free if you ask(I've been offered a few). If you want to move up to a pro body, you can still get them cheap. My beloved Canon F-1s are bringing in the $100-200 range, often with a 50mm 1.4 included. I paid $50 for a Nikon F2 last week with a metered finder, and have seen F4s as cheap as $150. The same color films are available for both 35mm and medium format as in 4x5, and in fact great emulsions like my beloved Velvia 50 are readily available. At least here in the US, there are a decent number of labs still around where you can send off 35mm print film and get it back with 4x6 prints in a few days. When I don't use a local lab(I like to support them) I send my stuff to Dwayne's Photo in Kansas. They don't handle sheet film(which is why I got into doing E-6 myself) but are happy to do 35mm and medium format.

You can burn a bunch of film at relatively low cost vs. 4x5 in either 35mm or medium format. I never take my 4x5 gear out without also having a medium format camera in some flavor along, and I've been happy to have it because I've had opportunities present themselves for photos where there was no way I would have been able to get the 4x5 set up.

BTW, an earlier poster referenced Velvia 100F. Ignore that reference-Fuji mercifully killed that terrible crap. Regular Velvia 100 is not bad, but I still much prefer 50.

[Pere Casals]

"Also I'd like to add that Reversal film (Provia/Velvia) is much sharper than color negative film, so I'd suggest you to also test how well slides work for you. Velvia is Velvia."

As I said, there is nothing quite like Velvia. But you should try Kodak Ektar color negative film. You will no longer say Velvia is much sharper than color negative film." Ektar is quite vivid and very sharp. It is serious stuff. Best color negative material Kodak has ever made. I think I could go out on a shoot and do a mixture of these two and not have much to choose between when all the post processing is done.

I'm not quite ready to declare myself proficient at scanning/processing it. As with all color negative film, dealing with the mask presents a learning curve. But I'll soon be there and post some images.

Rich

Hello Rick,

Resolving power of Velvia is rated 80 / 160 lines per mm (Lo/Hi contrast). MTFs are still 45% at 50 c/mm. Quite sharp. Even a drum scanner will have problems to read all resolving power Velvia may deliver.

Ektar is also very good, it resolves less, but you are right: "much less" was not at all a fair statement. Perhaps a 20% less, it's a guess...

Really a shot has to be very steady, and optically sound to notice that film sharpness difference.

And, of course, post processing is very important for a sharp result.

IMHO also for color photography the important thing is color. So those numbers are of little importance in front of a suitable spectral response for our subject.

Regards.

[Pere Casals]

BTW, an earlier poster referenced Velvia 100F. Ignore that reference-Fuji mercifully killed that terrible crap. Regular Velvia 100 is not bad, but I still much prefer 50.

Not killed, Japan market (and ebay) has Velvia 100F fresh sheets supply, for example in Amazon.co.jp, 8x10 and 4x5. I was mentioning it because recently I near made the mistake of buying the F version in a japanese web store.

Velvia 100F is more color accurate and you can shot people, but lacks the "not F" spectacularity.

[Punker]

I'd strongly recommend to use the 4x5 with black and white only and shot color with a MF camera. Use only 4x5 color film if you want to make tilt/shift or want the defocus nature of 4x5.

Regarding image quality, if you want just all in focus, MF is the best choice today for film color photography. A 6x7 Velvia/Provia Slide has some native 200Mpix (perceptual), you can extract some 80MPix very easy, and this may be much more you'll ever need.

If you have a budget, think that color sheets are crazy expensive, with 2x the price per surface than 120 film, then you need to develop and scan, a 4x5 drum scan is also very expensive. So sheets vs MF have near no advantage if you are not to print 3m high and view it at reading distance.


Blowing my mind! I never thought of it that way before. You've actually just changed my whole perception on color 4x5.

[ben_hutcherson]

Blowing my mind! I never thought of it that way before. You've actually just changed my whole perception on color 4x5.

Some folks here have been on a crusade lately telling us that we shouldn't buy Kodak or Fuji sheet film due to their mark-up.

BTW, as to "no advantage" to color 4x5, for me both MF and 4x5 get scanned on an Epson V700. I get better film flatness with the standard dry mount 4x5 holders vs 35mm, and it can certainly be printed a lot larger than a medium format scan. Drum scans aren't an absolute necessity.

[biedron]

Hi Fred L and thankyou for your prompt response, we have two years of planning but we are lying here with laptops open already entranced by the amazing scenery. It looks like it could be a motorhome start at Vancouver to whistler then on to Banff and then train it to Ontario for Niagara falls.
I have no idea what the difference is between negative and reversal, sorry. I wanted a challenge when I started on LF so I used xray as it is cheap and have not ventured to use anything else.

If I interpret this correctly, your trip will not start for two more years? If so, you have plenty of time to learn how to shoot both color transparency and color negative film, and have fun in the process! It's not rocket science. My personal preference for landscapes is transparency film, and specifically Velvia 50, but you've got time to decide for yourself. Properly exposed Velvia 50 on a light table is a real joy. For transparency film, you'll need a spot meter, and ideally set of neutral density grad filters.

Someone else suggested you don't go on the trip without knowing how to use your film and equipment, and that is extremely sound advice.

Bob

[Punker]

Some folks here have been on a crusade lately telling us that we shouldn't buy Kodak or Fuji sheet film due to their mark-up.

BTW, as to "no advantage" to color 4x5, for me both MF and 4x5 get scanned on an Epson V700. I get better film flatness with the standard dry mount 4x5 holders vs 35mm, and it can certainly be printed a lot larger than a medium format scan. Drum scans aren't an absolute necessity.

That's true too.

And I do love my v700 for the same reasons. 35mm goes through my Pakon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ben_hutcherson]

That's true too.

And I do love my v700 for the same reasons. 35mm goes through my Pakon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I meant to say better film flatness with 4x5 than medium format. Honestly, the MF holders are one big disappointment for me on the Epson-I felt like my old, cheap Canon 2400f held MF flatter. That's part of the reason why I increasingly have been wet scanning my MF.

I've actually never used the 35mm strip holders in my Epson, as I can't point to a reason as to where the Epson is better for film strips than my Nikon Coolscan V with the strip feeder. The Nikon not only gives better scans, but is faster to load and scans faster. Plus, I tend to think(perhaps incorrectly) that the single frame aperture on the strip feeder is able to hold the film flatter than the long "troughs" of the Epson. I can make an argument for scanning mounted slides on the Epson since I can batch scan them, but I tend to be selective about the slides I scan and want to pull the best out of them. Thus, my only real uses are when someone brings me a Carousel tray and asks me to scan it-since the desire there is generally for Powerpoint quality, I can toss in 12 slides and batch scan them at 1200x1200. I bought my scanner used and it came with 3 slide holders, so I can load up a full roll of film or nearly half a Carousel tray and only have to stop scanning long enough to swap holders in the scanner. If I were going to do a LOT of that sort of work(and get paid for it, which I generally don't), I'd look into one of the scanners that can feed directly from a Carousel.

BTW, I still occasionally do real slide shows. Amazingly enough, our main lecture hall in my department still has both a 16mm projector and an Ektagraphic set up in it. I have a lot of topic-relevant slides(boring chemistry stuff) but can wake up an 8:00AM class with a good Velvia slide. I do of course generally make up the Carousels at home and preview them to make sure I don't have a flipped slide or something like that, but have also been known to use my 20-slide stack feeder since it's a lot easier than loading trays.

[angusparker]

My two cents:

Velvia 50/100 are wonderful but saturated, awful for portraits, can blow highlights (positive film), and has terrible reciprocity issues (like anything over 1 second). Shadows tend to be very cool / blue and may need a warming filter. The upside is if you get it right this is the easiest film to scan since the colors are the colors - no "interpretation" of a color negative which drives me crazy. So, practice, practice if you are going this route and bring some Portra for portraits.

Ektar is similar to Velvia 50, slow, vibrant, awful for portraits of caucasian people, needs to be well exposed (like B&W film) but has great dynamic range, fine grained, again reciprocity issues but not as bad. So you are less likely to mess it up as long as you expose for the shadows. But the downside is the scanning - unless you have someone else do that for you.

So my suggestion is bring either Velvia 50/100 or Ektar, and some Portra along as well. Porta can step in for when Velvia just won't work.

[andrewch59]

You have all given me food for thought, the process has already begun, I have both provia and velvia (both "F") in my fridge and have just ordered some Ektar 100 120. Fortunately I am also a camera collector so I have a range of cameras including a Mamiya c33 with a selection of lenses at my disposal. Well done for that bit of advice, would never have thought of taking one! I have the Horseman rollfilm back which fits the shen hao and also a calumet c2 which can slide underneath the gg. Shooting will commence shortly and fortunately we have a lab in Melbourne that can develop colour negs for under $5 a roll, I can then scan the negs myself. I think some may underestimate the beauty of an xray produced print. I have a gallery exhibition in my town at present and one of the pics was presented to the governor general of Australia.
I am indebted to you all and will return to this thread many times to re-read the advice given. I have a trip to the coast planned after my exhibition finishes and will hone my skills with colour 120 film.

[Punker]

I meant to say better film flatness with 4x5 than medium format. Honestly, the MF holders are one big disappointment for me on the Epson-I felt like my old, cheap Canon 2400f held MF flatter. That's part of the reason why I increasingly have been wet scanning my MF.


I definitely have to agree about the medium format holders. They are quite a nightmare in all actuality. My Canoscan 8800f had a little lip at the top that would hold one end of the film down and make it a cinch.

Thanks for sharing all that in the rest of your post. Really interesting stuff :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

My two cents:

Velvia 50/100 ... has terrible reciprocity issues (like anything over 1 second).

What you say is wrong for Velvia 100:


For velvia 100:

Page 2 : http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_100_datasheet.pdf


6. LONG AND MULTIPLE EXPOSURE
COMPENSATION

No exposure correction or color balance compensation
is required for exposures within a shutter speed range of
1/4000 second to 1 minute



For Velvia 50 you are right, still very usable.

1s to 4s +1/3 stop. Not much a concern. From 4s need M correction filter...

[Pere Casals]

You have all given me food for thought, the process has already begun, I have both provia and velvia (both "F") in my fridge and have just ordered some Ektar 100 120. Fortunately I am also a camera collector so I have a range of cameras including a Mamiya c33 with a selection of lenses at my disposal. Well done for that bit of advice, would never have thought of taking one! I have the Horseman rollfilm back which fits the shen hao and also a calumet c2 which can slide underneath the gg. Shooting will commence shortly and fortunately we have a lab in Melbourne that can develop colour negs for under $5 a roll, I can then scan the negs myself. I think some may underestimate the beauty of an xray produced print. I have a gallery exhibition in my town at present and one of the pics was presented to the governor general of Australia.
I am indebted to you all and will return to this thread many times to re-read the advice given. I have a trip to the coast planned after my exhibition finishes and will hone my skills with colour 120 film.

Hello Andrew,

You have to test Velvia 50. Here you have a great australian photographer http://www.markdarraghphotography.com/ that used a lot of velvia.

Velvia 100F is a great film, it has MCCL, and additional 4th color layer intended to correct green, but lanscape photographers love a Velvia 50 film defect: the selective warming of yellows. This gives impresive results with proper illumination, you have to be aware of that, and know when you need that.

About format, just test it and see. You have to know very well when MF / 4x5 is to make a difference. Sometimes one or the other is better, and always need a justification for the cost.

I'm angry with Fuji because crazy price of slide sheets, because I think they are punishing color LF popularity, so I think twice before I spend a sheet.

Regards

[andrewch59]

Hi Pere, thankyou for that info, I will try some velvia when I go to the Gold Coast, however in Canada I will primarily be shooting xray film, I just want a good colour film to capture some of the amazing fall colours. Fortunately it is autumn soon in the highlands of southern queensland and northern nsw so I will have a chance to take a few shots and evaluate the three main film types I will have in my fridge.

[interneg]

Don't listen to the whining about sheet film prices, it's a heck of a lot cheaper than photopolymer gravure (for example). A lot of people are in profound denial that art materials are expensive.

Portra 160 is probably my first choice - neutral (possibly a hint cool), very sharp, high resolving, beautiful colour. Portra 400 if you want a bit more warmth & saturation.

Ektar is actually very neutral, but saturated & quite contrasty - not the best film for intensely sunny, high contrast situations in my experience, but great otherwise. If you are sensible with contrast, it doesn't make people look weird. It's finer grained than the Portras, but less high resolving than Portra 160.

Velvia 50/100 if you really need those specific characteristics, otherwise stick to the Kodak C41 negs.

[Pere Casals]

Don't listen to the whining about sheet film prices, .

Hello interneg,

It is not a question of opinion, just one has to take the calculator.

Now I shot 8x10, and a 20 sheet of Velvia 50 box is $439 (+21% taxes) today. If sheets were at the same "per surface" price than 120... that box would cost $167, a price me and others perhaps could pay.

The punishing Fuji/Kodak applies to LF photogtraphers is crazy, and destroys color LF popularity.

That pricing policy is not related to Ex Factory costs, as 90% of film manufacturing cost is emulsion, so IMHO that price is a cheating provocated by lack of competition and bad managers that seek short term cash. They are Squeezing present customers but preventing new LF color photographers engage for future. This is nasty.

Then it also happens Tetenal sell less E-6 liquids and now they don't sell the 5L kit, now you have 3L at near 2x cost per developed roll/sheet. With the help of all Kodak/Fuji/Tetenal they make the thing impossible for amateurs and that shrinking market will disapear because their Stupidity.


So, IMHO, one has to know very well when a sheet vs 120 will make a difference or not.


Regards

PD: With BW I've a nice alternative, Ilford, a good LF friendly manufacturer that sells sheets at same per surface price than rolls. I won't buy more Kodak BW sheets in the future, while I'm finishing my boxes I'm adjusting my process for Ilford sheets.

With color I feel assaulted by Kodak/Fuji, and I've no alternative, so I only can shot more MF and less LF color.

[interneg]

That pricing policy is not related to Ex Factory costs, as 90% of film manufacturing cost is emulsion

No it isn't. Simon Galley when he was with Harman Technology pointed out that the most costly part in a roll of 135 is the metal canister. Same with 120 and the backing paper, core etc. Same with LF, except that LF sheets are coated on to a different substrate (means a slightly altered coating formula at a minimum, possibly more fundamental emulsion modifications if needed to ensure consistent performance between 135/120/sheets) and far more hand intervention at the finishing and packaging stages, along with more complicated boxes, lightproof bags etc. Market share is pretty small once you get above 4x5 - the fact that Kodak, Fuji & Ilford even offer 8x10 sheets as a stock item is remarkable. These costs and relative demand do not linearly scale.

Alaris did some research a while back that indicated continued product availability seemed to matter more to most of their customers than price.

Something tells me you got into 8x10 without realising that it is a calling, not a profit centre.

[Pere Casals]

No it isn't. Simon Galley when he was with Harman Technology pointed out that the most costly part in a roll of 135 is the metal canister. Same with 120 and the backing paper, core etc. Same with LF, except that LF sheets are coated on to a different substrate (means a slightly altered coating formula at a minimum, possibly more fundamental emulsion modifications if needed to ensure consistent performance between 135/120/sheets) and far more hand intervention at the finishing and packaging stages, along with more complicated boxes, lightproof bags etc. Market share is pretty small once you get above 4x5 - the fact that Kodak, Fuji & Ilford even offer 8x10 sheets as a stock item is remarkable. These costs and relative demand do not linearly scale.

Alaris did some research a while back that indicated continued product availability seemed to matter more to most of their customers than price.

Something tells me you got into 8x10 without realising that it is a calling, not a profit centre.

Both you and me are wrong: Today the principal film production cost is having an idle manufacturing plant. And this is what Kodak and Fuji will obtain with their stupid marketing theories, like it happened with BW paper. See this: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/producttype.asp?n=5

Well, I don't think Ilford has a different cost structure than Fuji/Kodak for similar product. First manufacturer has a LF friendly pricing policy, the other two punish 200% to 300% in pricing LF sheets. This is not a 20% more... :)


But to not going too of topic, let's say that amateurs like me are budget limited. So most amateurs I see we do the same, for BW sheets we go to Ilford, and we think twice before we shot a infamely expensive Fuji/Kodak color sheet if a very cheap MF shot will have similar result for 1m prints. It's sad that Fuji/Kodak are killing the color LF popularity, but's it's their decission. Mine is Ilford and very few color sheets, mostly MF for color because that unfair Kodak/Fuji pricing.




Something tells me you got into 8x10 without realising that it is a calling, not a profit centre.

What tells that to you that is wrong, as I've never been thinking in selling a single image. With 8x10 I'll do 4 things: HP5+ negatives, BW slides, CDU-II slides enlarged from MF, and Dry Plate. This and is a calling.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2886/33551104771_fca82e99bc_c.jpg


This is my slide frozen asset, I don't plan to buy sheet slides in next 5 years. If price was fair I would be buying some $500 of slide sheets per year.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2852/33608535481_eb90ae7fb3_c.jpg

[Simon Benton]

While you are in Canada a marvellous area in Canada to visit is the Maritimes. Ocean views, great pubs and food and wonderful scenery and people. I visit often to spend time with one of my daughters and use Ektar 100 and Velvia 50 and 100 in 120 and 4 X 5.

[koraks]

Don't listen to the whining about sheet film prices
Good advice. Some people make it to ignore lists for a very good reason.

[Pere Casals]

Good advice. Some people make it to ignore lists for a very good reason.

This is a relatively free world, and we can ignore what we want. In special if we have no arguments.

Look, koraks, just I say me and other amateurs love LF color film, we don't shot it because Kodak/Fuji have a LF pricing policy, so we do it with MF, and this is sad. So we spend slowly our frozen assets to not buy crazy expensive sheets. With BW we have no problem because we still have a maufacturer that sells best LF film and best FB paper at affordable/fair pricing.

[andrewch59]

While you are in Canada a marvellous area in Canada to visit is the Maritimes. Ocean views, great pubs and food and wonderful scenery and people. I visit often to spend time with one of my daughters and use Ektar 100 and Velvia 50 and 100 in 120 and 4 X 5.
Thankyou for the location Simon, will be getting that map soon and will circle the maritimes and check it on the net.

[ben_hutcherson]

You probably know all of this, but I'll mention it just because it's worth mention.

I would NOT stake a once in a liftetime trip on unknown expired film. Most of my 4x5 Velvia 50 has been bought in largish lots(and I keep them bundled by lot from the same source) so I can be reasonably confident it all will behave the same. Still, if I were flying to the other side of the world and wanted to shoot Velvia 50(which I would), I'd pony up the money to get fresh stock.

With B&W, you generally are just dealing with decreased sensitivity and increased base fog. With color, you have to factor in color shifts, and this is another area where reversal film is unforgiving. If you're going to shoot expired film, try to find a freezer clean-out on Ebay, buy as much as you can get from the same source, and test it to see how it behaves.

[vinny]

wow.
so +=-

[angusparker]

What you say is wrong for Velvia 100:


For velvia 100:

Page 2 : http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_100_datasheet.pdf


6. LONG AND MULTIPLE EXPOSURE
COMPENSATION

No exposure correction or color balance compensation
is required for exposures within a shutter speed range of
1/4000 second to 1 minute



For Velvia 50 you are right, still very usable.

1s to 4s +1/3 stop. Not much a concern. From 4s need M correction filter...

Thanks for the correction! Haven't used Velvia 100 much for long exposures since I'm working through my Velvia 50 stash.