8x10 color? what's my options?

[Daniel_Buck]

So I've been thinking about shooting some color film (positive/slide, not negative). I'd like something with a decent amount of range, a coworker of my suggested Astia would have a good amount of range. I've been thinking about Velvia 50, but from what I have read the range on velvia is very slim? I'm used to shooting Tri-x 320, which seems to have a very wide range, will it be difficult to adapt to the thin range? or is it fairly easy to calculate when spot metering? (I assume the range for shadow and highlights are a known value of stops?)

I'm looking to shoot a pack of 4x5 before I go to 8x10, so that i can start to learn the film in a cheaper size before I go to the more expensive 8x10. I'm not looking to shoot a whole lot of color, but there are some locations that I would like to have some nice big transparencies of.

So anyway, what are my options for color 8x10? Freestyle doesn't seem to list any color transparencies in 8x10! http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_main.php?cat_id=1303 Astia doesn't seem to be offered in 8x10 (according to the Fuji website), so, what are my options?

Thanks!

[Juergen Sattler]

I don't know all of the options, but I use Kodak E100VS in 8x10 and really like it. The colors pop, but they are not as overly exagerated as with Velvia 50. B&H, Adorama, amongst others carry the film. Get ready to spend some big bucks on 8x10 slide film (about $8.50 per sheet). Once you have developed your sheet and have it on the light table all thoughts of how expensive this stuff is goes out the door - the transparency just looks absolutely stunning.

[Daniel_Buck]

the expense doesn't bother me to much, since I won't be shooting it very often. I'll give the E100VS a look, thanks :-)

[Eric Leppanen]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but E100VS in 8x10 has been discontinued by Kodak. B&H no longer lists it; Badger Graphic had some remaining stock but it is no longer listed on their web site, so they may be out too.

When I last checked (roughly in the middle of last year), Fuji USA planned to stock Velvia 50 and Provia 100F in 8x10. In addition, Badger stocks Velvia 100 in 8x10, which I believe they import directly from Japan. Of these, the lowest contrast film with the best retention of shadow detail is Provia. It ranks between Astia and Velvia in color saturation. I shoot Provia and like it a lot; some folks dislike its tendency to sometimes go blue in shadow areas, but I infrequently encounter this and it is easy enough to correct with either warming filters or digital scanning/post-processing.

Provia's contrast and color saturation can also be increased by pushing one stop.

Kodak E100G is also available in 8x10. I have never used it, but its characteristics may be closer to Astia than Provia. I have not encountered any landscape photographers (my primary genre) that use it.

[Daniel_Buck]

Of these, the lowest contrast film with the best retention of shadow detail is Provia. It ranks between Astia and Velvia in color saturation.
Saturation between Astia and Velvia wouldn't be bad, Astia is fairly 'normal' with it's saturation, from what I've been told? How about the range/latitude of Provia 100, is it wider than Velvia? Using something that is currently in production would probably be better than something that has stopped production, in the event that I wish to shoot more of it later on.

[Walter Calahan]

I've shot a lot of Provia 100F in 8x10. Great film. Test it to make sure it's right for your point of view.

I know you don't want color negative, but I've shot a lot of Kodak 400 and Fuji 160S. Both give great results.

Good like. Have no experience with 8x10 Velvia or Astia.

[Eric Leppanen]

How about the range/latitude of Provia 100, is it wider than Velvia?In terms of range/latitude Provia also rates between Astia and Velvia. Roughly speaking I'd say that Provia has roughly a half stop more latitude than Velvia, maybe a half stop less than Astia.

Provia's latitude can be enhanced by pulling one half stop, although color saturation noticeably diminishes when doing so.

[Daniel_Buck]

Thanks for the info everyone, I think I'll get a small pack of 4x5 Provia and see how it goes :-)

[Juergen Sattler]

No, please say, it ain't so! No more E100VS in 8x10?! I just got another box not even three weeks ago - must have bene one of the last ones they had at B&H.

I have also used E100G and it is a very nice film as well - not as saturated as VS, but a good all-around slide film.

I think I'm gonna get drunk now - this sucks!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

No, please say, it ain't so! No more E100VS in 8x10?! I just got another box not even three weeks ago - must have bene one of the last ones they had at B&H.
I think I'm gonna get drunk now - this sucks!

I feel your pain, Juergen- I have one 10 sheet box of 8X10 E100 VS left that I'm saving for a special occasion!

[vinny]

I sold a box of 8x10 vs here last month for about $4/sheet. I don't like it as much as velvia but it was a nice film. If you are planning on using the chromes just for show and tell then 8x10 is a great way to go as i showed you when you were here earlier this year. If you plan on making prints from scans, get drum scans because consumer flat bed scans aren't going to look much better than scanned 4x5's.
Provia is a nice film with color rendition that's more natural than vs in my opinion. I have a bunch i haven't shot yet. I have shot a fair amount of 4x5 and it does perform better in sunny situations. Metering with any of these films is critical and bracketing is out of the question unless a client is picking up the tab. A&I now charges $8.50/sheet for processing.
vinny

[danchan]

It was a bit disconcerting to hear Astia isn't offered in 8x10! I've been thinking of making the jump from 4x5 to 8x10 so I've been on the look out for the color films that I use: Astia, 160S, Portra 400NC. Thankfully, Fuji DOES list Astia 8x10 on their website and Astia, 160S and Portra 400NC are all offered in 8x10 at Badger Graphic. Astia has amazing latitude for a positive film.

[Daniel_Buck]

I sold a box of 8x10 vs here last month for about $4/sheet. I don't like it as much as velvia but it was a nice film. If you are planning on using the chromes just for show and tell then 8x10 is a great way to go as i showed you when you were here earlier this year. If you plan on making prints from scans, get drum scans because consumer flat bed scans aren't going to look much better than scanned 4x5's.
Provia is a nice film with color rendition that's more natural than vs in my opinion. I have a bunch i haven't shot yet. I have shot a fair amount of 4x5 and it does perform better in sunny situations. Metering with any of these films is critical and bracketing is out of the question unless a client is picking up the tab. A&I now charges $8.50/sheet for processing.

Yea, for the most part I'm just going to keep the 8x10s to view as transparencies, but I will probably scan them for print. For the metering, I'm hoping that one box of 4x5 will be enough for me to get the hang of how it meters, at least enough for me to confidently shell out for some 8x10 shots.



It was a bit disconcerting to hear Astia isn't offered in 8x10! I've been thinking of making the jump from 4x5 to 8x10 so I've been on the look out for the color films that I use: Astia, 160S, Portra 400NC. Thankfully, Fuji DOES list Astia 8x10 on their website and Astia, 160S and Portra 400NC are all offered in 8x10 at Badger Graphic. Astia has amazing latitude for a positive film.

I don't see 8x10 listed on the fuji website, and I don't see it on any of the on-line stores that I have checked. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductAstia.jsp I would love to find some, for the added latitude

(edit) after checking Badger Graphic that you mentioned, it does appear that they have Astia in 8x10: http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=1365 I wonder why no place else (that I have checked) seems to mention it?

[Stephen Willard]

You guys do not make sense to me. Why are you shooting slide film? Its dynamic range of 3-4 stops is pathetically absolutely unproductive, and its a bitch to scan. Yeh, it looks good on the light stand when you do get something good, but that is about it.

With color negative film such as Portra 160VC straight out of the box the dynamic range is around 9-10 stops, its grain is 10 times finer then slide film, and it scans like a dream. Once you suck negative film into Photoshop you can beef up the colors and contrast until your eyes come straight out of their sockets. Yes, with color negative film you can throw away those graduated neutral density filters because the dynamic range is so broad you no longer need them. With a JOBO processor, color negative film is easier to develop than b&w film. Color negative film is a win win ticket compared to slide film, yet many of you still carry the torch for a film that was intended for doing slide shows and not much else.

It does not make a lot of sense to me...

[vinny]

[QUOTE=Stephen Willard;337690]You guys do not make sense to me. Why are you shooting slide film? Its dynamic range of 3-4 stops is pathetically absolutely unproductive, and its a bitch to scan. Yeh, it looks good on the light stand when you do get something good, but that is about it.



With color negative film such as Portra 160VC straight out of the box the dynamic range is around 9-10 stops, its grain is 10 times finer then slide film,

Can you show us written/printed proof that the grain is 10 times finer?
Bitch to scan, Really? I haven't shot that much of the 160vc but i think it's a bitch to scan and get results anywhere close to that of velvia, provia, E100vs. What makes slide film difficult to scan as apposed to color neg?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

You guys do not make sense to me. Why are you shooting slide film? Its dynamic range of 3-4 stops is pathetically absolutely unproductive, and its a bitch to scan. Yeh, it looks good on the light stand when you do get something good, but that is about it.
It does not make a lot of sense to me...

In the warm, low contrast light that I like to shoot in, the fact that slide film has a lower dynamic range is very useful- it exagerates the contrast, and really makes the images sing. Negative film used in the same light is flat and dull by comparison. It always cracks me up to read people bitching about how bad slide film is because of its limited contrast range, when that's exactly why it makes my favorite photographs look so good!

[Eric Leppanen]

With color negative film such as Portra 160VC...its grain is 10 times finer then slide film, and it scans like a dream.I don't want to bag on Portra, which is a great film, but not everyone agrees with these contentions, particularly the digital labs that Photoshop-challenged folks like myself have to use to get prints done.

Here is what Lenny Eiger (www.eigerphoto.com) has to say about grain size:

Film grain size varies, depending on chrome vs neg and exposure and processing. In order to deliver the finest detail, we carefully match the drum scanner's aperture (sample width) to the specific film grain. If you undershoot the grain size you get grain anti-aliasing, which will over-enhance your grain. If you overshoot it you get a blurry image. We zoom in until we can see the actual grain and then match the aperture to it....With some exceptions, chromes and most b&w negs scan in the 8-13 micron range. On the other hand, color negatives (and very grainy b&w negs) scan in the 19-22 micron range. Some drum are fixed at 11 microns and will not do well with color negatives. We have this range covered and our scans from these films will not be anti-aliased.

And here is what West Coast Imaging says about color neg film:

Color negatives can be the most difficult film to scan. You'd think it would be as simple as inverting the data and removing the orange mask, but it's not. The orange mask is not simply a 40cc orange; it varies in density at every point in the photograph, depending on what is recorded on the film at that point. Variations in processing and exposure mean that the same settings for one negative rarely work for another, even if they are on the same film. And while color negative film is capable of recording great latitude, the highest quality scans consistently come from film exposed in "chrome light" and carefully processed.

I personally prefer to match film stock to image contrast: use low contrast film on a high contrast image, and vice versa. I believe this results in the greatest amount of information being recorded on film, analogous to pushing or pulling B&W film to enhance tonal separation or retain highlights. And I mostly agree with WCI's last statement: my best color negs have always come from soft, "golden hour" style light (although I resort to color neg only if, good light nothwithstanding, I still need more exposure latitude than chrome can give me).

[Daniel_Buck]

You guys do not make sense to me. Why are you shooting slide film? Its dynamic range of 3-4 stops is pathetically absolutely unproductive, and its a bitch to scan. Yeh, it looks good on the light stand when you do get something good, but that is about it.

With color negative film such as Portra 160VC straight out of the box the dynamic range is around 9-10 stops, its grain is 10 times finer then slide film, and it scans like a dream. Once you suck negative film into Photoshop you can beef up the colors and contrast until your eyes come straight out of their sockets. Yes, with color negative film you can throw away those graduated neutral density filters because the dynamic range is so broad you no longer need them. With a JOBO processor, color negative film is easier to develop than b&w film. Color negative film is a win win ticket compared to slide film, yet many of you still carry the torch for a film that was intended for doing slide shows and not much else.

It does not make a lot of sense to me...

I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear, but I am not looking for negative film. I want color film that shows positive. I am aware of it's limited latitude, this is why I will be starting with 4x5 sheets, so that I can learn how much range it holds. I'm not looking to 'carry the torch' or such, I just want to look at slide film, I love looking at it. Yes I will scan it as well, I had no trouble scanning the few rolls of Velvia 100f that I shot a year or two back, I can't see having problems with scanning any other slide? Any color problems can be solved in photoshop. I work in Visual Effects, dealing with digital images is a 50+ hour work week for me, every week. I'm not to worried about any color corrections that need to be made on the file after scanning. Thanks for your comments on the issue, but I would rather not have this thread turn into a slide V/S negative debate. :)

However, your comment about developing color negative film has intrigued me. I was under the impression that it takes more chemicals, more time, and greater accuracy with temperature and timing than B&W film does? I can't imagine anything being easier or more forgiving than Tri-x 320 and HC110. If you aren't joking with your statement above, I might be interested in hearing more about developing color negatives, for future reference :)

[danchan]

I don't see 8x10 listed on the fuji website, and I don't see it on any of the on-line stores that I have checked. http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductAstia.jsp I would love to find some, for the added latitude

(edit) after checking Badger Graphic that you mentioned, it does appear that they have Astia in 8x10: http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=1365 I wonder why no place else (that I have checked) seems to mention it?

Astia 8x10 is listed on the international FujiFilm site.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/astia_100f/

Badger Graphic most likely direct imports the film. I've bought a lot of film from them and they're pretty good to deal with.

[Daniel_Buck]

Astia 8x10 is listed on the international FujiFilm site.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/color_reversalfilms/astia_100f/

Badger Graphic most likely direct imports the film. I've bought a lot of film from them and they're pretty good to deal with.

aaahh, well that makes sense I guess. I didn't think to look at an international website, I figured the same film would be offered everywhere. Interesting, thanks!

[Bruce Watson]

Here is what Lenny Eiger (www.eigerphoto.com) has to say about grain size...

Lenny is well known on the Yahoo ScanHi-End list for his "I'm always right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude. Unfortunately his hubris is not always well founded.

In this instance he implies that film grain size is a constant. It is not. Film grain (or more properly, grain clumps or dye clouds) size varies considerably with small grain clumps in the less dense areas of the film and considerably bigger grain clumps in the most dense areas of the film. Don't believe it? Do some research into how photographic films form images. It's not hard to verify, and those interested enough to do the research might learn something interesting and useful. Like how a negative film can have lower RMS grain size than a tranny film, yet it can appear to have more graininess.

Drum scanners, OTOH, scan the film with but a single aperture setting for the entire image. They can't change apertures on the fly to "follow" the the size of the film grain as it varies up and down. And the choice of scanning aperture to use is limited to just a handful of widely spaced fixed sizes on the scanner's aperture wheel. My scanner has about 16 apertures (I don't remember, I only use the three smallest in any case) starting at 6.25 microns followed by one of 12.5 microns... Lenny's Aztek Premier has apertures starting at 3, 6, 12... microns, continuing up about 18 steps.

So "matching" scanning aperture to film grain size is just not possible. You can match to average film grain size if that average size turns out by some fluke to be on your aperture wheel, but that's not at all the same thing.

And even if you could make that match, you have to contend with the fact that the film grain clumps are spread across the film stochastically. Scanning, drum scanning too, is deterministic. That is, the scanner lays down a virtual grid over the film dividing it up into little squares all exactly the same size in rigid rows and columns. It then looks at the film through these little squares, maps what it sees into a 3D color space (like hue, saturation, and luminance, or some RGB space, etc.) and creates pixels. What happens if the film grains don't line up exactly with this virtual grid space? When one grain clump spans two pixels? Four pixels?

Lenny is, IMHO, blowing smoke and y'all know better than to take pronouncements from "on high" without a healthy dose of skepticism. And yes, you should be skeptical of my pronouncements too -- do some research and verify some of this stuff.


And here is what West Coast Imaging says about color neg film...

WCI has a Tango scanner. Before Heidelberg discontinued it in 2001 (?), this scanner, IMHO, was aimed squarely at the magazine and advertising markets (where the biggest enlargement tends to be double tabloid size). It is heavily optimized for trannies as is the LinoColor and NewColor software that drives it, because it's much easier on the art directors and advertising copy people to have the WYSIWYG properties of trannies. Negatives weren't really ever a consideration in this market. I've never used a Tango, but I've heard rumors that the software doesn't make it easy to deal with negatives and that it takes a skilled and determined operator to get good results from negatives on a Tango.

There's that. Then there's the fact that trannies have a restricted density range (they are after all designed as a finished product that you use in a projector, they all have to have a more or less solid black and a more or less solid white or they won't project well). This means that your black and white points don't move much and makes it possible to make an ICC profile for a scanner running trannies. And a profiled scanner becomes an exercise in loading and unloaded drums -- because to change the software settings away from the settings used to make the profile invalidates the profile. So they run all trannies of a specific type (say, Astia 100) on a drum and don't have to adjust the individual scans at all. Fast, cheap, easy, repeatable.

But negatives mess this all up. You can't ICC profile a scanner for negatives effectively -- there aren't any Hutch targets or IT8 targets for negatives; the sample-to-sample variance in negatives is just too great. To scan negatives one has to set one's black and white points for each negative individually (among other things). Which means operator intervention. Which means more time, more expense, more work, and less repeatability. All bad things if you are WCI trying to maximize your cash flow.

So I'm not surprised in the least that WCI would steer people away from negatives. It's in WCI's enlightened self interest to make life easier and more profitable for themselves. I don't blame them for that.

My ancient Optronics ColorGetter drum scanner, however, was designed to handle a wider range of tasks. The software makes dealing with negatives (color or B&W) hardly any more difficult than dealing with chromes. It detects and removes the orange mask automatically, and inverts the image automatically. And it does an excellent job at both. Once I've identified where the individual frames are on the drum to the scanner software it's difficult for me to tell whether I'm working on trannies or negatives.

And fair is fair -- Lenny's DPL software from Aztek is reputed to be the best in the business for working with negatives. It's supposed to be very slick indeed.

I'm just saying, with the right equipment, software, and some training it's not at all difficult to drum scan negative films. I do it all the time -- I haven't used anything but negative films for the last six years or so.

There's a lot of disinformation out there. It takes some effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. Please make the effort and take what you read with a grain of salt. And yes, that applies to me and my postings as well. I do the best I can be we all make mistakes now and then...

[David A. Goldfarb]

You can find Astia 100F in 8x10" here--

http://ultrafineonline.com/fuprocloutsh.html

It may be short dated or past date, but they're a reliable source, and I've used 8x10" Astia that's been cold stored and older than what they're offering, and it's been fine. Ultrafineonline is Photo Warehouse.

[Eric Leppanen]

I'm just saying, with the right equipment, software, and some training it's not at all difficult to drum scan negative films.Bruce, thanks for clarifying some of these issues. The point I was trying to make, and which I should have made more clearly, is that C-41 film can pose challenges when dealing with third party fine art print labs. For some of us, doing our own scanning and printing is not an option. Third party labs are very E6 oriented due to the various reasons you mentioned. Here on the west coast WCI and Calypso are arguably the two largest fine art digital labs, and both will tell you that, all else being equal, chromes will yield superior results than C-41 due to orange mask and other issues. And Calypso doesn't own a Tango; they use an ICT drum scanner if I remember correctly. In such an environment with such limitations, it can be most pragmatic to shoot chromes as long as chrome film can handle the scene. And my personal experience has been that, for landscape shooting, ideal "golden hour" lighting (occasionally combined with ND grads) can usually be handled with chrome film. Only occasionally do I have to resort to color neg.

Happily, it turns out that our original poster Daniel does his own digital processing and can potentially set up a digital workflow amenable to whatever film stock he wants to shoot.

I don't think that third-party labs are necessarily "anti" C-41. Rich Seiling (owner of WCI) recommends Portra 160 (and uses this film himself) in cases where chrome film won't work. But he otherwise prefers chrome.

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce, thanks for clarifying some of these issues. The point I was trying to make, and which I should have made more clearly, is that C-41 film can pose challenges when dealing with third party fine art print labs. For some of us, doing our own scanning and printing is not an option. Third party labs are very E6 oriented due to the various reasons you mentioned. Here on the west coast WCI and Calypso are arguably the two largest fine art digital labs, and both will tell you that, all else being equal, chromes will yield superior results than C-41 due to orange mask and other issues.

And all I'm saying is that these labs imply that the problem is limitations of the film when in fact it's limitations of the labs themselves.

But if you are intent on dealing with labs that have this position, then of course you should use the materials they want you to use. Forcing them to work with materials they don't like and don't understand is like swimming up stream. Lot's o' work and frustration to get where you want to go.


And Calypso doesn't own a Tango; they use an ICT drum scanner if I remember correctly.

Probably an ICG. The software, ScanXact I believe, is also reputed to make scanning negatives more difficult than trannies. It didn't even have 16 bit file save capabilities until the lastest reincarnation of the company a few years ago. However, the ICG 380 is a hell of a sharp scanner -- on par with an Aztek Premier. If you are going to go big, you can do a lot worse than an ICG 380.


In such an environment with such limitations, it can be most pragmatic to shoot chromes as long as chrome film can handle the scene. And my personal experience has been that, for landscape shooting, ideal "golden hour" lighting (occasionally combined with ND grads) can usually be handled with chrome film. Only occasionally do I have to resort to color neg.

Happily, it turns out that our original poster Daniel does his own digital processing and can potentially set up a digital workflow amenable to whatever film stock he wants to shoot.

I don't think that third-party labs are necessarily "anti" C-41. Rich Seiling (owner of WCI) recommends Portra 160 (and uses this film himself) in cases where chrome film won't work. But he otherwise prefers chrome.

Please note that I have tried not to advise anyone one way or the other to use trannies or negatives. I'm just trying to address some of the recurring myths that keep coming up that imply that negative films are somehow more difficult to work with than transparency films when in fact this isn't true. What is true is that some people and some companies have issues, but it's them and not the various films.

I strongly believe that people should use the materials and workflows with which they are most comfortable. If it works for you then it works for you, and you can therefore spend more time and effort on the art side and less time and effort on the craft side. And isn't that the point in the end?

[John Brady]

You can find Astia 100F in 8x10" here--

http://ultrafineonline.com/fuprocloutsh.html

It may be short dated or past date, but they're a reliable source, and I've used 8x10" Astia that's been cold stored and older than what they're offering, and it's been fine. Ultrafineonline is Photo Warehouse.
Thanks for the heads up on the astia at a nice price!
I have been going through the same search for 4x5 and 8x10 neutral color film.
This shot is with my 4x5 and 58xl with polarizer and no center filter. This is the pro 160s, 4 sec at f32. I had just about given up on shooting color in the swamps. Velvia was killing me. The detail in the shadows is incredible.