on converting an ardent fan of b/w to color: 4x5...

[Dean Taylor]

hello



Color film users (4x5) please take a moment to share your experiences with that one film you find to be without peer. I am a long-time devotee of b/w, large format--primarily admiring the work of others but, of late, jumping into the fray myself--but would like to hear from you pros why I "really need to try 4x5 color film ______," what ever that turns out to be.

The thrust of my inquiry is that Spring is not far off, and I'm told, the mountains in the desert area to which I've just relocated will be abloom with flora, particularly poppies. I need to get up there at sunrise with my Speed and 'report back' with a photo journal...

So, then, which 4x5 color film excites your artistic sensibilities...



Best,



Dean



ps: any pro insights into using the Speed (particularly for the scenario I've outlined above) are gratefully received--e.g., is a light meter de rigueur for this press camera, etc.

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on how you intend to print or otherwise communicate the shots.

[lenser]

I happen to love the bold saturation of transparency films. It's almost like the difference between seeing a stained glass window from the outside and then going inside to see the stunning brilliance of the colors by translucent light.

[Brian C. Miller]

Didn't you listen to Kodachrome by Simon and Garfunkle? "Everything is better in black and white!" :p (Nyah, nyah!) ;)

There are only two options for slide film: Fuji Provia and Fuji Velvia.
For C41, try Kodak Ektar or Portra.

But which gets my vote? It really depends on what you want. I'm sure you've shot color film before. Which did you like better, E6 or C41? Pick something, and go have some fun. Better yet, pick all of them and go have even more fun! Really, since Kodak is selling 10-sheet boxes, that's only five holders worth of film. Buy a box of each, and shoot them up.

Last year I did some tests of Ektar and E100VS (roll film). Ektar looks neutral compared to E100VS. Sure, I just photographed things around the neighborhood, but I carried two cameras with me to photograph the same thing from the same position on a tripod in the same light, with the same lens. What happens (as if nobody knows, right) is that the E6 film drops the shadows, so what's in the higher values is accentuated. If I were photographing wild flowers in the desert, I would definitely take both C41 and E6 film, and I'd definitely take both Ektar and Portra. So load up all of your holders with an even mix of film, and head on out. Otherwise, you'll just have to admit that Tri-X simply rocks the world, and color in the flowers later when you make your prints.

[Nathan Potter]

Certainly as Drew said and I would add as a function of the lighting conditions. My general choice is Fuji Astia 100, no longer available, but I maintain a frozen stash. I'll use Velvia 50 or 100 for lower contrast scenes. Can't comment about Provia type since I've never used it.

Have started to use Kodak Ektar but find it difficult to assess the negs. so generally don't like it yet. Need to work out a decent workflow. Clearly like the Ektar dynamic range.

For prints (Ilfochrome, ending that soon) I use both the Astia or the Velvia. All color films I scan and do digital prints more and more as time goes by.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[rcmartins]

I guess there is nothing that even approaches the feeling of seeing a LF sheet of positive film on a light box. However, I do appreciate the exposure latitude of negative film and for that I have progressively shifted towards Kodak Portra and Fuji Pro 160NS (Kodak Ektar seemed a bit like positive film in this regard). Until fairly recently my workflow consisted in digitising and computer processing the shots from there on. I have never been happy with the struggle for adequate tonal balance in digitalisation and, to be honest, I dread the hours spent in front of a screen moving sliders just to get frustrated at the end. I guess I could send my negatives for drum scanning, but it would become very expensive and still require that I stand in front of the screen for hours for post-processing. With this I decided to give RA-4 a try. And have I loved it. Beautiful colours, amazing resolution and a workflow that is very similar to what I already do with B&W film. As of right now I can only enlarge up to 20"x24" but because my drums only go that far. I am evaluating ways of extending the maximum size I can print with RA-4. It's outstanding.
Regarding the specific question of the OP, I must confess that I enjoy all negative films, and use them, although I must confess I tend to prefer Fuji Pro 160 NS. Curious enough, when I scanned the negatives I avoided Portra 400 because it was the one I had the hardest time with in terms of WB. However, since I have started the RA-4 path, I find it to be a very useful film. It has a gorgeous colour rendition and a very nice exposure index allowing for better lower light rendition. Grain is simply non-existent.
My next step will be to try these films on very low light conditions like before sunrise and after sunset. Reciprocity issues and white balance shifts are of real concern in these cases and I have found little information so I will have to study it carefully. If anyone has information in this regard please share.

[Drew Wiley]

There's damn little good info out there on these newer neg films. A lotta sheer web BS by clowns with shoot-from-the-hip mentality, who think that all the corrections can be done in PS afterwards - and when they do it, it still looks like muck. So back to the school of hard knocks and solid personal testing. I'm in the middle of a nasty learning curve using these films for interneg work - and in 8x10, mistakes get costly. I've got a good idea how to correct lighting situations in actual photography, but not much experience with long exposure or recip failure issues yet. Still, the results are very promising,
and I hope I can soon be up to speed with the kind of quality I previously got doing Ciba - but of a
somewhat different flavor of course.

[ShawnHoke]

I'm a huge fan of Fuji Provia in 4x5. One of my favorite things is picking up a stack of Provia transparencies developed from the lab and holding them up to the light (or pop them on their lightbox if I'm not in a hurry).

[Dean Taylor]

"What happens (as if nobody knows, right) is that the E6 film drops the shadows, so what's in the higher values is accentuated."

If I were using a spot meter and Provia I would stop down two from my reading--true? Here (from an older thread I located):

Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.

You have just placed the shadow area in Zone III.

That's usually the proper exposure for the scene.

Now, aim the spot at the brightest area in the scene.

If it's a five stop range between the darkest and brightest reading, use normal development.

Less than five, increase development.

More than five, decrease development.

No need to take a whole series of meter readings and average them. That's defeating the purpose.

Just make certain that you have given enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows. Then, develop for the highlights.

That's the Zone System in a nut shell.

One more important nugget of information to bear in mind...thank you, Brian!

[Brian C. Miller]

If I were using a spot meter and Provia I would stop down two from my reading--true?

I wouldn't do that with slide film. Those instructions are for a B&W negative. Yes, you can do relatively the same thing if you were developing your own color film.

8864788648

On the left is E100VS, and on the right is Ektar 100. Both were given the same exposure. However, the E6 film drops the shadows, allowing the highlights to appear accentuated. (Plus it's a saturated film, Kodak's answer to Velvia.) Ektar is supposed to have more saturation than Portra, but it sure looks balanced in comparison to VS.

I used incident metering with a Sekonic meter, and that was it.

[Nathan Potter]

I will say there is an alternative to negative film for high SBR. Use multiple exposure chromes with an HDR software package. I'm doing some work on this now to see how feasible it is vis a vis getting a high quality result. Of course useful only for static scenes but that will suit me for some landscape work that I do. I'll take 2 or 3 4X5s' separated by 1, 1.5 or 2 stops gaining potentially up to 4 more stops of dynamic range over the generally 4 or 5 in positive color. I'll scan these V750 and edit in PS then process in HDR software.

The results from this are not too bad so far in Photomatix but I need to work with a couple of other recommended packages to get a solid and predictable workflow. I see a small but consistent loss of image quality in the tone mapped results using Photomatix but I think small enough so it is acceptable for my purposes. Takes a fair bit of RAM to handle three chromes efficiently.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[nonuniform]

I've never liked transparency film. I used it for commercial work, but for my personal work I've always preferred negatives.

Right now I'm shooting a lot of Portra 160 in 4x5 and 120, 400 if I'm going handheld. I occasionally give Ektar 100 a shot, but I can't quite figure out why I don't like that film.

I'm very happy with Portra. I underexposed a whole portrait session recently, my mistake, and came back with really thin negatives that were still totally usable and produced some really amazing results.

I don't have any issues with scanning, white balance does require some tweaks, but I save it as a profile and that seems to solve the issue for a given batch of film from a shoot.