View Full Version : People and/or Landscape film choices for scanning?

Asher Kelman
14-Mar-2008, 13:39

Fujicolor Pro 400H is advocated by Fuji for "faithful color, incredible latitute and effortless workflow" "in a digital age"!

So what is your choice for color or B&W film you intend to scan, by any MFR?

Asher :)

Ted Harris
14-Mar-2008, 13:44

No choice based on scanning. IMO, they all can equally well as long as you know how to use your scanning software.

Ben Chase
14-Mar-2008, 15:14
I've been a Velvia/Provia shooter for about the last 8 years, but I have to say that I have been pretty impressed with Astia. I think in terms of latitude, it gives you the most amount of flexibility in post-production if you are inclined to spend the time to do it in my opinion.

I still prefer Velvia/Provia as my main films - Creo or Tango scans have always given me what I need, and give me the color I am looking for in about 70% of the color landscape shots I make.

14-Mar-2008, 15:30
Provia has always been a favorite of mine. It has an ability to give a wonderful rendition for landscape work, but it can also take on a very interesting character for street/people photos IMHO. I don't want to say dark, but something artistically flavored in a way that I like...similar to the coloration that Velvia will do with landscape.

Astia, also mentioned, is a very very good film IMHO. It captures, what I feel, perhaps a "flat" look. By this, I mean, it gives the most neutral look. As was said already, it also gives great help with exposure latitude.

Kodak has some great films as well, but I just like the look of Fuji for some reason or another...and is not to say I would not shoot with Kodak for color work.

All films will scan just fine on the flatbeds and drums...

14-Mar-2008, 20:32
I have gotten excellent results with Astia 100F in both 4x5 and 120. I like the neutral color, it does a nice job with skin tones, and it scans nicely on my MT-1800f.


14-Mar-2008, 21:39
Fuji 400H is one of the films in my stable of films to be used... but only rarely, and only when added speed is absolutely necessary. Forget the advertising... there are FAR better choices for landscapes and portraits. The color renditions are fair, and it's grainier than slower speed films.

For landscapes, my films of choice are Velvia (preferably ASA 50 when it can be found) (when conditions are just right and supersaturation is desired); Astia 100F for most purposes... colors fairly saturated but more controlled red tones (better in pastel tones than Velvia); and Provia (mainly for night scenes or daytime for "flatter" images). I use Fuji 160-S negatives when conditions are less than ideal.

I don't base any film choices based on a scanner's preference... I scan MF films on a Nikon LS9000 and it handles all very well... for LF I'm sending films out for scanning until I can afford a higher grade scanner for it.

Asher Kelman
14-Mar-2008, 23:06
Thanks so much for the very helpful replies. I'm interested in being able to find film from 120, 4x5 and 8x10 so most or all the suggestion will work. I'm glad to hear the I'd not miss out on 400H not being avaialble as Quickloads.

For B&W, are there issues with scanning that do come in to play, especially with larger grain. Any special tricks in developing the film so that scanning is easier?


Juergen Sattler
15-Mar-2008, 04:59
I am still a Kodak fan! I have tried Fuji, but I keep coming back to Kodak because I like the warmer color rendition. For landscape work I use E100VS and for B&W Tri-X. I also use Arista Edu Ultra 100 - I just recently discovered this Ultra cheap film and I must admit, that I am quite impressed by it.

15-Mar-2008, 06:44
I am a Kodak 160nc kind of guy. Rated at iso 125. But thats just me. :)

Bruce Watson
15-Mar-2008, 07:51
For B&W, are there issues with scanning that do come in to play, especially with larger grain. Any special tricks in developing the film so that scanning is easier?

Callier Effect exists for scanning just like it does for darkroom enlarging. The metallic silver that makes up the grain clumps is opaque. Light can't pass through it so it reflects off it. The results is often called light scatter. Graininess is directly dependent on density. The higher the density the more grain, thus the more light scatter due to the Callier Effect.

You can control this through development. Cut your development time some to lower your maximum density.

This is just a variant on the old "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" thing. All you do here is develop somewhat less to have somewhat less dense highlights. How much less depends on your process and your scanner. You'll have to do some testing to zero in on what's optimum for your particular circumstances.

OTHO, if you are ever going to print these negatives in the darkroom, optimize for your darkroom. Negatives that print well in the darkroom almost always scan well also. Negatives that are optimized for scanning are usually somewhat flatter than those optimized for the darkroom and are thus considerably more difficult to print well in the darkroom. So... only optimize for scanning if that's the only way you'll ever use the negatives. I'm just sayin'...

15-Mar-2008, 09:02
I agree with Ted. Any film works, and should be chosen based upon your vision. Personally, I shoot almost exclusively Fiji Velvia. For my LF images, I prefer Tango drum scans, but for 35mm, I'll use my desktop scanner.

15-Mar-2008, 09:23
I shoot almost exclusively Velvia 50 and Fuji NPS160S when I need extra latitude. Occasionally I'll break out a sheet or two of Acros 100, if the subject warrants a mono treatment. NPS is a very underrated emulsion for landscape use, imo.

Gordon Moat
15-Mar-2008, 14:00
Easiest to scan film I have ever used is Kodak E200, unfortunately not available in 4x5. With 4x5 films, I mostly only use Kodak E100VS and Fuji Astia 100F. I prefer Astia 100F for people shots, though I have used E100VS for some fashion and lifestyle work.


Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)