PDA

View Full Version : Beginners guide to film types?



Meekyman
2-Oct-2012, 13:36
Hi Folks,

I've been using digital camera's up to now (Nikon D700) and have just made the epic decision to try out LF photogrpahy with a Chamonix camera, some lenses and bits and pieces. When using digital, I always tried my best to get it right in-camera and so was careful about exposure, grad nd's and so on. I didn't want to spend more than necessary time in front of a computer. Obviously, with LF I will have to get it more right in camera!

So, to film. I plan on digitising images via scanning and doing the necessary in software such as photoshop etc. So, film isn't cheap and I don't want to waste time but realise that opinions are opinions. My understanding so far, with slide film, is as follows:

1) Provia is lower contrast than say velvia 50. Provia is more suited to high contrast (sunset/sunrise and the few minutes before and after, full sun), compositions with lots of green in them in strong light and is better for longer exposures. In overcast light it gives blue shadows and looks cool. So, if you want a punchy image in dull, overcast light look at velvia 50. Velvia 50 also good for reflected light and tends to cyan/magenta. Wider exposure latitude with Provia than Velvia 50 and even wider with negative film but does not scan as easily. Portra bit like Provia, Ektar more like velvia 50.
More or less right???

So, some questions as I am about to buy some film (at the moment thinking 50/50 split velvia 50/Provia100)

2) With digitising images is it worth worrying about the colour casts as they can be corrected, but can they easily?
3) Do people use warming filters with Provia for example or see above? If so, what types in what situations?
4) When the final stocks of velvia 50 are gone what would work well in the conditons that it is best in? Velvia 100? Kodak Ektar?

Sorry if there is a lot in here and I sound naive!

Thanks in advance for your time.

Graham

Drew Wiley
2-Oct-2012, 13:45
Ektar is not a replacement for Velvia. It has less contrast and more latitude than any slide
(chrome) film, but not as much as the versions of Portra. But it might be wise to concentrate on either chrome or color neg film until you get your feet on the ground, and
not both at once. Second, if you think you are going to have problems with color casts or
significant color balance (light temperature), correctly filter these in the first place. It is not always possible or convenient to do this afterwards. The better the original is, the
easier your life will be. Minor tweaks are fairly easy afterwards, but not major ones. Same
goes for correctly exposing your film in the first place. Don't count on Photoshop to cover
every category of sin.

Joe O'Hara
2-Oct-2012, 19:01
If you're above 4000 ft (1300m) or so and photographing with clear skylight (i.e. open shade), you will get better results if you use a filter like an 81A or B to reduce the blue cast. This is true of any color film but especially transparency film. PS can help but it can't put exposure in the red sensitive layer that wasn't there to begin with.

If you photograph with leaves overhead, a 0.05 magenta is helpful to take out the green cast.

You may be happier with transparency film on overcast days and Ektar on sunny days. As Drew says, it has more dynamic range (latitude) than any slide film and excellent color rendition for landscape (if not the best for pictures of people). The advice to pick one film and learn it is sound as well.

Meekyman
3-Oct-2012, 01:28
Hi Drew

Thanks for your reply and I will initially focus on Chrome film initially. OK, so Ektar is not a replacement for Velvia, but I have read that Velvia 100 (notF) is good in the situations where Velvia 50 is (i.e overcast, rainy, low contrast) except that it exagerates reds, right? Can this be "corrected" in camera?

Thanks for your suggestion about "problems with color casts or significant color balance (light temperature)" and filter for these. At the moment then, my problem is that other than what I initially read and wrote (Provia goes blue in shade and what the poster below wrote about magenta filters in green light) I don't know in what situation I might have a colour cast and how to alleviate that! Any hints?

With digital I hardly try to use Photoshop to cover any sin, and won't be with LF for sure! Been using a digital spotmeter the last 6 months to hone down exposure too.

Thanks

Graham

Meekyman
3-Oct-2012, 01:30
Hi Joe,

Thanks for the reply. You said "If you're above 4000 ft (1300m) or so and photographing with clear skylight (i.e. open shade), you will get better results if you use a filter like an 81A or B to reduce the blue cast. This is true of any color film but especially transparency film" and "If you photograph with leaves overhead, a 0.05 magenta is helpful to take out the green cast"

Applies to both Provia and Velvia?

Cheers

Graham

Joe O'Hara
3-Oct-2012, 05:51
Absolutely. Color film is balanced for noon daylight. Skylight is much more blue.

jp
3-Oct-2012, 05:56
I haven't done e6 film for a long time, so this is a bit blasphemous. I mostly use digital for color, along with portra 160 for medium format color. Portra seems to have a big latitude and big dynamic range, sort of like a good B&W film in a compensating developer. If you're sure you're only going to do digital output, you could shoot the portra, not worry about the exact exposure and the most minor filtration adjustments, and adjust contrast/saturation/colors in photoshop. No matter the source, people like Peter Lik have big success messing with the saturation slider. I personally like the mute colors of portra without digital adjustment.

BrianShaw
3-Oct-2012, 06:10
I haven't done e6 film for a long time, so this is a bit blasphemous.

I have, and I'd be just as much of a blashemer; maybe even more of one. It pains me to say that there appears no real reason to shoot E-6 anymore except tradition.

BrianShaw
3-Oct-2012, 06:12
p.s. OK, may be I was a bit harsh. There is a great satisfaction when holding up a sheet of well-exposed, well-composed E-6 film and hearing the "wow" response.

Peter York
3-Oct-2012, 08:46
I shoot E6 almost exclusively, largely because my scanner is poor at color negative. Yet I always have color negative with me just in case - it gives one much greater control over post-exposure adjustments, and films like Portra have around 12 stops of latitude.

It would be best for you to run some tests with 35mm or 120 film before using the expensive stuff (4x5). Side-by-side comparisons of scenes shot with different films are probably the best way to learn the different character of each film. Also, download the film data sheets and study the response curves.

With respect to E-6 films, the critical factor is to meter for the highlights rather than the shadows. A search here will provide copious explanations of this technique.

Drew Wiley
3-Oct-2012, 11:34
jpg498 - Yes, you are a blasphemer! This is a question about film choice and technique,
not about some kindergarten mentality like Peter Lik taking acid before he dips into the
finger paint. Might as well use a cell phone if all you're advising is to wing it and hope Fauxtoshop fixes the mess afterwards. Color temp is important with all color films. Sometimes people like the "creative" errors afterwards, sometimes they don't. An accurate
film will make shadows blue under a blue sky because they are blue! I think some dude called Matisse or Monet won that argument a long time ago. I won't get into the Velvia vs
Velvia debate. I used (past tense) the 100F because it was dimensionally stable polyester
based (important when Ciba printing). But all Velvia is fussy exposure wise. I still like it for
low contrast scenes in the fog, but have otherwise converted over to Ektar for general use. I really liked E100G, but that's gone. Provia 100F is the remaining "typical" chrome film.

jp
3-Oct-2012, 13:43
Drew, considering all the talk of Velvia, I didn't think color accuracy was as important as aesthetics in this discussion.

Meekyman
4-Oct-2012, 01:45
Hi Folks,

Well I have ordered some velvia 50, Provia 100 and portra 160. Given the expense/rarity of velvia 50 I don't really want to do too many side by side comparisons without starting with a good idea of what film would best suit a particular lighting situation and so I'll be choosy when I shoot more than one type of film.

I'd like to than Drew for pointing out that my original post was about film choice and any more advice/opinions would be welcome so that I can further my knowledge base point.

Cheers

Graham

EOTS
4-Oct-2012, 02:28
Hi Graham,



1) Provia is lower contrast than say velvia 50. Provia is more suited to high contrast (sunset/sunrise and the few minutes before and after, full sun), compositions with lots of green in them in strong light and is better for longer exposures. In overcast light it gives blue shadows and looks cool. So, if you want a punchy image in dull, overcast light look at velvia 50. Velvia 50 also good for reflected light and tends to cyan/magenta. Wider exposure latitude with Provia than Velvia 50 and even wider with negative film but does not scan as easily. Portra bit like Provia, Ektar more like velvia 50.
More or less right???


For Sunset/Sunrise Velvia 50 is best.
From my experiences Provia in some cases fails to pick up the warm (yellow, red) tones in the sky.

Provia is less contrasty (at least one stop more dynamic range),
but Velvia 50 is not so contrasty as people would expect.
Velvia 100 is more saturated and contrasty than 50 (easier blown out highlights, easier lost shadow detail).
I've yet to test Portra & Ektar, so I can't comment on that.

BTW OnLandscape has some really informative and helpful film comparisions where you can compare real life results side-by-side:
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2010/12/a-colour-film-comparison/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/02/colour-film-comparison-pt-two/
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/06/colour-film-comparison-pt-3/



2) With digitising images is it worth worrying about the colour casts as they can be corrected, but can they easily?


With scanned Velvia 50 or Provia, it's relatively easy to correct casts like Open Shade blueish light or long term exposure casts
using Photoshop Selective Color or R/G/B Curves etc.
There are some "desired" colors that certain films pick up that you (or at least I) can't recreate so easily ... like the red/pink/yellow/orange sky warmth that a Velvia 50 picks up...



3) Do people use warming filters with Provia for example or see above? If so, what types in what situations?


It is IMHO not unproblematic if the warming filter is not spot-on... matter of taste but I dislike the overall yellowish soup effect that misuse can create ... better of with selective color corrections in software IMHO ...
At least I would start from that point...



4) When the final stocks of velvia 50 are gone what would work well in the conditons that it is best in? Velvia 100? Kodak Ektar?


Velvia 100 is ok for very low-contrast light and is capable of at least picking up the yellow parts of the sunsets, not picking up so much reds/pinks/magentas, but "good" enough in many cases ...

As a general purpose film I would/will choose Provia in case V50 won't be accessible and adjust contrast/colors/saturation in Postprocessing...
I find it to be a very neutral (perhaps a bit "cold" (blue/green) if one is used to "warmer" films) and excellent film and gives a lot of options in postprocessing ...

I've bought a negative stock and have tried some Portra 400 for contrasty situations in the last weeks... have yet to develop and scan though ... in general color negative colors seem to me perfect for skin tones ... but I often dislike the colors for landscape ... but that's a matter of taste and it's best to look at the film comparison links to find out yours...

Best regards and have fun,

rdenney
4-Oct-2012, 05:48
Okay, let's try to frame this in terms of generalities, to avoid getting overwhelmed by details.

Film represents tonality as density. With chromes, greater density means darker tones, and it's the opposite with negatives.

The difference is that chromes were designed to be viewed directly, while negatives were designed to be printed.

Thus, the densest parts of chromes have to look like black when viewed directly, and the thinnest parts of chromes have to look like white. Therefore, the density ranges (in broad terms) from nearly opaque to nearly clear.

Negatives, on the other hand, have no need to look realistic when viewed directly. Thus, the density range doesn't have to be as extreme. The densest parts of negatives still obviously pass light when you put them on a light table. And the thinnest parts are never that close to clear because negative films have a base fog.

So, negatives are just plain easier to scan when using scanners that lack the power to capture the range of densities from opaque to clear. The density range is more likely to fall within the capabilities of the scanners most of us can afford to have at home. High-end drum scanners can punch through that density and still maintain the range necessary to capture the transition to clear on the other end of the scale, but most of us have to have others do that sort of scanning, and it isn't cheap. It's worth it only for our keepers (and maybe then only when they can generate revenue), and we use what we can afford at home to determine which are our money-making keepers.

Given that chromes were designed to be viewed directly, they have to provide all the visual appeal that the photographer might want. Not all scenes "pop", so some chrome films have been designed to add pop. Others have been designed with less pop. Velvia was designed to provide rich, saturated colors and contrast beyond the natural scene, and many photographers have used it to add drama. I like to think that we add drama to make up for the fact that the flat surface is a poor substitute for our moving, stereoscopic eyes, but that's probably just wishful thinking on my part. Velvia was considered a god-send to photographers with that sort of aesthetic intention. Arguing the validity of those aesthetics is not the point, and should be the subject of a thread on aesthetics, not film characteristics and scanning.

Chrome films like Provia were intended to provide a more realistic portrayal. But it was still required to range from black to white on direct viewing, even with flatter subjects.

In my experience, Velvia captures about five stops of subject brightness from black to white. Provia maybe seven.

Negatives, because they can have lots of density headroom on the thick end of the scale, can be designed for a wider range. In my experience, negative films like Ektar seem to capture about nine or ten stops of subject brightness between what is unprintably thin (and therefore featureless black on the print) and unprintably thick (which is featureless white on the print). Reala (not available in sheets, but I loved the stuff in rolls before Ektar came out) is about the same. Additionally, these films provide more color saturation.

Films intended for pictures of people need to control contrast and saturation, simply to avoid giving the portrait sitters a bad case of rosacia. Portra and Fuji NPS were designed for less saturation and contrast, which means they capture a bit more subject brightness range within the range of usable densities on the negative. Maybe 11 stops.

Black and white films depend on exposure and development as to how much scenery range is squeezed into how much density range, and those variations are the subjects of much that has been written about black and white technique. I've seen examples of photographs that show 18 or 20 stops of subject brightness within the range of usable densities on the negative. Adams's Zone System was aimed at 10 or 11 stops of subject brightness range, so that the scenery zones (where Zone 0 is featureless black and Zone X is featureless white) would pretty closely track stops of exposure.

So, to summarize: Chrome films take a narrow range of scenery brightness and expand that into a wide range of densities that extend from nearly opaque to nearly clear, so that the scene will look like a final product on direct viewing. Negative films take a wider range of scenery brightness and compress that into a narrow range of densities on the film. For this reason, it's easier to scan negatives than chromes, if you can handle the negative inversion and if you know what you want your print to look like.

In practice, I draw an envelope that is three stops to the left and two stops to the right of middle gray when I look at my meter's dial, when using Velvia. I add a stop on each end with Provia. I use a ten-stop envelope range with negative films, biased to the highlights rather than the shadows. (Meaning, I err on the side of overexposure with negatives. With slides, I try not err, but underexposure is less likely to ruin the outcome than overexposure, which can blow out highlights as with digital photos.) With black and white, I'm more concerned to get the middle tones in the part of the film that will separate those tones most effectively, without reducing important shadow detail to featureless black. But because slides provide a narrow range, the exposure with them really has to be spot-on, maybe even within a quarter of a stop in some cases. With negatives, there is more room for error.

It should be said that chromes were the choice of commercial professionals for a long time, simply because the transparencies would be handed to a service bureau that would have to make offset plates for process color printing (for magazines, catalogs, brochures, etc.). If the transparency represents the photographer's (and clients') intentions, the service bureau could use the chrome as its ground truth to determine that they have the reproduction done correctly. Generally, that is no longer relevant--photographers are providing digital files directly to the service bureaus, and the digital file has to represent the photographer's intentions. For those who scan anyway, negatives accommodate greater subject brightness ranges as a narrower range of densities that are easier to capture in most scanners.

Within this broad outline, there are zillions of subtleties about each film choice. And some photographers demand to see their final product on a light table, while others only care what they can achieve in a print. Some photographers are interested in extreme color accuracy within processes that are difficult to control in terms of large corrections, while other photographers don't care at all about accuracy and just want the print to look the way they want it to look, even if that goes to what many of us might think of as tasteless extremes. Those are aesthetic choices and workflow preferences that new folks have to learn for themselves, depending on their own desires and intentions.

Rick "who has all of the above in the freezer" Denney

EOTS
4-Oct-2012, 06:55
Great summary Rick,



Given that chromes were designed to be viewed directly, they have to provide all the visual appeal that the photographer might want
...
And some photographers demand to see their final product on a light table
...


You already mentioned it, but from a simply practical viewpoint of a hybrid workflow user I might add:
Having a positive semi-final product also a convenient thing I think,
a) to have a reference starting point for further postprocessing,
b) to quickly filter out the best exposures / variants / pictures on the light table with a loupe without having to scan at all



For this reason, it's easier to scan negatives than chromes, if you can handle the negative inversion and if you know what you want your print to look like.


OK, I'm using a drum scanner, but I find it simpler to scan transparencies,
because with the manual negative conversion (scanning like transparency and convering in PS) I often find myself tweaking the colors for hours...
But of course that's most of it all a matter of less experience with negs and my yet imperfected neg workflow I guess ...

With Slides, I am also able to use a reference color target (HCT target),
which immediatly gives me a scan that matches the colors of the transparency...

I guess with Negs I would have to photograph a ColorChecker Target...

Best,
Martin

Peter York
4-Oct-2012, 09:06
My best advice for Velvia is to begin with really flat scenes, where the contrast range is about +/- 1.5 stops over average. With higher contrast scenes you run the risk of having shadows go completely black, and you also run the risk of creating a photograph that looks more like a cartoon gel. I love saturated colors, and I love what Velvia does with greens and yellows, but the effects are often overdone. In my experience this cannot be corrected in post: reducing saturation does not alter the colors themselves, and you just end up with a less saturated cartoon gel.

Drew Wiley
4-Oct-2012, 09:39
I sure miss the days when Fuji offered three distinct contrast choices in chrome film: Astia,
Provia, and Velvia. Kodak E100G fit well into that mid position as a substitute for Provia.
I think I've printed almost every significant chrome film ever made. Every one of them, and
every color neg film for that matter, has some kind of idiosyncrasie. You take your best
guess, practice, learn what that particular film does best, and maybe switch or add to your
film kit later. No one film will will render all color situations correctly. But being able to quickly evaluate your progress on a lightbox is one of the advantages of chrome film.
Just make sure the lightbox itself has good bulbs in it, which won't skew the look.

Drew Wiley
4-Oct-2012, 09:43
jp498 - For certain hues Velvia can render the most accurate color of any film ever made.
It doesn't have to be abused just to make things loud. One of my favorite saying from
decades back is, "some photographers confuse color with noise".

rdenney
4-Oct-2012, 09:48
My best advice for Velvia is to begin with really flat scenes, where the contrast range is about +/- 1.5 stops over average. With higher contrast scenes you run the risk of having shadows go completely black, and you also run the risk of creating a photograph that looks more like a cartoon gel. I love saturated colors, and I love what Velvia does with greens and yellows, but the effects are often overdone. In my experience this cannot be corrected in post: reducing saturation does not alter the colors themselves, and you just end up with a less saturated cartoon gel.

Often, the cartoon gel effect comes because one of the channels blows out during scanning. We see tonal gradation and think it's okay, but, say, the red channel will be sitting on 255. When you reduce red saturation, it just changes all those 255's to something lower (while increasing the complementary colors), but without any tonal separation in the red channel.

It's important to consider each channel when doing the scanning if the colors are intense, and I look at specific RGB values all over danger spots when I see any hint of the histogram getting to the clipping level. It's easy for a critical but small bit of the subject to hide in the tail of the histogram.

Velvia is powerful stuff, but like any power tool, it can get you into trouble that much more expeditiously. It's true even in flat lighting. I have shown on this forum several times a 6x12 photo of a Japanese maple in my yard. It was an overcast day, which is a formula for low contrast and high saturation. The leaves were at their full redness, which is really, really red with this species of maple. To keep Velvia from being so saturated in the red channel, I ended up underexposing part of the trunk of the tree, which was only a couple of stops (in white light) dimmer than the leaves. But in the red channel, the difference was more like 10 stops. I doubt I missed the exposure by more than a quarter of a stop. With transparency film in general, you can't be too afraid to just let the shadows go black and make that part of the composition. I'd have had more to work with if I'd been using Ektar, but that's not the film I had on hand.

Rick "who still has a large stock of Velvia despite the general preference for negative films" Denney

Peter York
4-Oct-2012, 10:18
No doubt Rick. Reminds me of an image I have from Cedar Mesa, UT that is horrid because the reds and yellows are completely blown. I wish I had used Provia for that one.

But I believe it is more than that. Velvia's response curves are what they are. When you get a sky ranging from a dark, intense blue off-horizon to a much lighter shade, and different hue, on-horizon, no amount of post-processing can rectify that effect if you don't want it.

DKirk
4-Oct-2012, 10:38
Graham,
If you have a 35mm body I'd reccomend buying a roll of each velvia, provia et al and have a try on that before you expose the sheets.
For working out colour correcting filters have a look at http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/index and http://www.aeimages.com/learn/color-correction.html
If you fancy black and white have a look at http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/ or Silverprint.