Shooting transparency film - advice needed

[Curtis Nelson]

Hi all,

I've been shooting 4x5 b&w for about 4 years now. About two weeks ago I was in Tom Till's gallery in Moab, UT and was amazed at some of his color prints, so I got to thinking about giving color a try. I was thinking about buying a new Fuji Quickload film holder and a sinlge box of Velvia quickloads to start things off. The reason I'm going with the quickloads is I only have 4 film holders, and I like to keep those stocked with Tri-X.

Here's some questions:

1. Is this a good way to begin?
2. What would be the best film to start with? Velvia? Provia?
3. About how much do labs charge for processing 4x5 transparency film?

Thanks,

Curtis

[Larry Mendenhall]

I was thinking about buying a new Fuji Quickload film holder and a sinlge box of Velvia quickloads to start things off.
1. Is this a good way to begin?
2. What would be the best film to start with? Velvia? Provia?
3. About how much do labs charge for processing 4x5 transparency film?
Curtis

Hi, Curtis

If you want to leave your options for film open, I'd suggest getting the Kodak or Polaroid holder over the Fuji Quickload. Both the Kodak and Polaroid holders will accept Fuji film, but I'm 95 percent sure the Quickload holder only accepts Fuji film. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong.

The lab I currently use charges about $2.50 for processing transparency film. Hopefully there's a lab in your area that will do it for you.

Good luck!

Larry

[BrianShaw]

Curtis, I'm in similar situation. I've only shot 4 sheets of LF E-6 in the past 25 years. I, too, plan on shooting more color but will likely go for color negative film. The transparency, though, is SO impressive to look at!

Rather than a QL holder, I'm more interested in using it in Polaroid 545 holder. I believe I read that it can be done. For one thing, I already have a 545, but if I were starting out I'd also be thinking about versatility. Perhaps others with experience can straighten me out if this is not good thinking!

I like Velvia in 120 and 35mm so that's probably what I'll try first, but that's a personal choice.

The lab I use (Southern CA) charges $1.60 for E-6 processing of 4x5 with 4-hour turnaround. Interestingly, they don't list a price for C-41 of 4x5... so maybe I'll have to retract what I said earlier about shooting color neg!

[BrianShaw]

Oh... the thought I forgot to say: Why not buy a few more holders?

[J D Clark]

I use Fuji Quickloads in the Kodak Readyload holder on the occasions that I expose color film, but there's one caution if you do that: if you invent a new way to screw up, and insert the Quickload into the holder backwards (with the "this side toward lens" not toward the lens), the clip on the Quickload gets stuck in the holder, and you'll have to take it apart to get it out.

And, if like me, you have to do this in the field, it's best to have a spare holder, or be acquainted with Tom Westbrook's instructions on field stripping the holder! Tom's web site has a description, along with pictures.

You *can* reduce sheet costs by using sheet film in film holders rather than Quickloads, but for me, the overall cost of 4x5 color is such that I prefer to be ensured of the cleanliness of the film, i.e., in a Quickload or Readyload.

The lab I use in San Diego charges $2 for a sheet of E6, but they will also correlate an ID number on the Quickload envelope with each slide so that I know which exposure is which (don't know whether that service is common).

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

[Ron Marshall]

I bought the Kodak holder, and use it with both Fuji and Kodak.

Since I scan I prefer to shoot neg, Fuji Pro 160.

I also have shot Astia.

It is more expensive to process neg than pos, but the extended range is worth it for me.

[CXC]

Make sure that transparencies suit your needs better than negs. Many folks find negatives easier to shoot and to scan; others prefer the self-proofing of slides.

[Bruce Watson]

1. Is this a good way to begin?
2. What would be the best film to start with? Velvia? Provia?
3. About how much do labs charge for processing 4x5 transparency film?
1) First thing to decide is how much dynamic range do you need for your subjects. The B&W you are used to is good for 10-14 stops or so depending on how you process it. Color Slide film is good for much less depending on the film. Somewhere in the range of 4-6.5 stops more or less. This limited range won't let you shoot in sunlight and retrieve much (if any) shadow detail. This is one of the reasons tranny shooters love overcast conditions...

Color negative film, on the other hand, is good for nearly the same dynamic range as B&W. IOW, you can shoot in direct sunlight and pull complete shadow detail.

so... "is this [transparency film] a good way to begin?" depends on what scenes you are going to be capturing among other things.

2) Again, it depends on your subject. If you are shooting lots of sunsets, Velvia might not be a bad way to go - really punch up the contrast and the colors. For general landscape I tend to back off from the really saturated colors of Velvia. I tend to think more in terms of Astia.

I use 160PortraVC negative film mostly. I would use the NC version (less saturation) if I could get it in readyload format.

3) My lab just went up to $2.00/sheet for 5x4 160PortraVC. I hand it to them still in the readyload packets. I don't have any idea what their E-6 charges might be.

[roteague]

I shoot almost exclusively Velvia in QuickLoads. The QuickLoad holders are well built, although I did have to replace one after about 5 years of use. I use primarily Velvia 100 these days, but you should try both Velvia and Provia to see which you like. The Velvia has much higher saturation. My lab, Calypso (Santa Clara, CA), charges $1.30 a sheet, and they do an excellent job.

[Curtis Nelson]

Thanks everyone. This has been excellent advice.

[Eric Leppanen]

I second the suggestion of using a Readyload film holder, as it will be compatible with both Readyloads and Quickloads.

One of the biggest differences in shooting color vs. B&W is that, for the most part, you cannot control contrast by varying exposure and development time (some of the newer chrome films can push fairly well, but none pulls more than half a stop). So if you want to match film contrast to subject contrast, you have to vary film stock. This is not a big deal when using Quickloads/Readyloads, but you will have to carry more film boxes with you. If you do a lot of backpacking and want to travel light, then you'll have to select film carefully.

If you don't mind confining most of your shooting to the "golden hour" (one hour after sunrise or before sunset) or overcast/shaded conditions, then frequently subject contrast falls within what chrome film can handle. Film selection is then a function of how much contrast and color saturation you want. For nature shots, I tend to use Velvia 100 or E100VS when I can, and less contrasty Provia 100F when I need more shadow detail. Some folks use even less contrasty Astia 100F.

If you want to shoot over a wider set of conditions, then print film (with its much wider exposure latitude) is the way to go. Most recently I've been using Pro 160S (the Portra films are good too) that allows me to open up shadows by at least two more stops versus chrome film. If you want to use a single film over the widest set of conditions (particularly if you scan and digitally print, in which case you can punch up contrast and color saturation in Photoshop), then print film can be a good way to go.

Personally, I prefer "golden hour" shooting not to accommodate the limitations of chrome film stock, but because I think it is the best time to shoot landscape images, period. There is nothing like having excellent cross lighting (to bring out texture), gentle shadows (for excellent shadow detail) and nice, warm colors to bring out the best of an image. You don't get those features when shooting during mid-day, even when using wide latitude print film. And if you stay within chrome film's exposure latitude, it will provide better color saturation and tonal separation than print film. Using chrome film in this way is comparable to pushing B&W film to raise highlights and improve recording of texture.

My suggestion is to experiment with color film stocks, to come up with a film(s) with contrast characteristics that match your type of shooting. Tom Till uses high contrast Velvia and E100VS, so if you like this type of photography I'd suggest starting with those films.

[Gordon Moat]

I use both the Fuji Quickload holder, and Kodak Readyload holders. In general, the films from either company do work in either holder, but as John Clark mentions you do not want to get it wrong with either holder. In my opinion I think the Fuji holder is better constructed, though I don't notice any film flatness issues using either. I try to stick to only using Kodak film in the Kodak holder, and Fuji film in the Fuji holder, then either holder is a back-up device if something goes wrong during a shoot.

I was less than impressed by the Polaroid 545 holders. These do not have a pressure plate, instead relying on the thickness of the film for flatness. Unless you are shooting Polaroid sheet films, I don't see much reason to have one of these. I do Polaroid proofs using a type 405 back that takes pack films. The 405 and pack films route is much less expensive for proofing than other Polaroids. The Fuji pack films also work fine in the 405 holder. If you miss the film area of the smaller 405 back, Fuji make a larger pack film and holder system that shows more area, but that costs more per shot.

I do lots of night imaging shots on transparency films. Getting the exposure correct might be tougher for those not trying this often, though a Polaroid test shot can make things a little simpler when starting out. Sure, you don't get the error margin offered when shooting negative films, but I don't think it is too tough to get exposure correct, as long as you have a good light meter.

I was not too happy with Velvia 100F, though maybe Velvia 100 (no F) would work better. I am more partial to Kodak E100VS in saturated films, especially for night images. I also like Fuji Astia 100F for more subtle and realistic images, though it depends upon your subject matter. Not everyone here shoots landscapes, though I notice lots of landscape photographers speak well of Velvia 100.

Rather than urging you to stick with one film, I would encourage you to stick with one ISO, like only using ISO 100 films. That way you will get a better feel for exposures, since transparency films tend to give better looking results when they are close to exact exposure, and rarely look better in overexposure or underexposure. However, you do have about 1/3 to 1/2 stop leeway on most ISO 100 transparency films.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat

[Doug Dolde]

I use Provia in Quickloads mainly. Velvia is so contrasty it can be hard to deal with unless the contrast range of the scene is low. It's about mid way between Astia and Velvia in terms of contrast and saturation. Astia is probably the most realistic rendition if you like that look.

I meter the brightest area (usually white clouds) then open up 1.5 stops to prevent blowing the highlights. If the dark areas are more than 5 stops below the brightest then I pull out a grad.

[Ryan Hill]

I shoot nothing but chromes and only use Quickloads. I do mostly landscape work.

I love the Quickloads, because they always work, no dust, easy to carry a bunch, and you do not have to worry with the hassle of loading holders. Yes they can cost a little more, but you get good value for it. Watch ebay for deals sometime to make it cheaper.

All of the Fuji chromes are good films, all very sharp, with virtually no grain. Any of them will impress you on a light table.

Now they do have different color response/contrast. Personally I love Velvia. In soft light, nothing is better. Provia is a nice middle of the road film. Astia colors are almost pastel, but still nice.

Try a box, you will like them.

By the way, the Kodak films , especially E100VS, are good too, but I do not have a holder that will work with them, so I stick with the Fuji.

Good luck.

[Patrik Roseen]

Oh , you are all lucky to get E6 processing so cheap!
In Stockholm I am charged about 8-9 USD per 4x5" sheet for E6.

There was one lab offering 6 USD per sheet but they went out of business.

Maybe I should consider shipping my chromes to the US for processing, but that would not support my local lab would it. Patrik.

[BrianShaw]

Oh , you are all lucky to get E6 processing so cheap!
In Stockholm I am charged about 8-9 USD per 4x5" sheet for E6.

There was one lab offering 6 USD per sheet but they went out of business.

Maybe I should consider shipping my chromes to the US for processing, but that would not support my local lab would it. Patrik.
YIKES!! At those prices I'd seriously have to reconsider my allegiance to local vendors! Why is it so expensive in Sweden??

[Patrik Roseen]

YIKES!! At those prices I'd seriously have to reconsider my allegiance to local vendors! Why is it so expensive in Sweden??

I wish I knew...but I think the answer is that sooo many people have turned to digital these days...and most people who still use film shoot color negative film ...and the ones who still shoot chrome in LF size are not many I assume and the professionals are turning to digital backs also. So the labs are disappering and consolidating/merging as in other industries under similar circumstances.
As an amateur I have to pay list price and on top of that 25% tax whereas the professional photographers get discounts and do not need to pay tax.

Due to the high prices I bought a ShenHao 6x12 back through a photography friend in China last year. With 6 slides per 120 film I lower the price per slide and can actually afford to bracket ;-)

I wonder if there are labs in the US who would accept to receive 4x5" chromes from Sweden for processing and then ship back to Sweden?
.Patrik