Someone very dear to me is marrying soon. It's been a few years since I've shot color negative material, and mail-order is required to get a film in here. Please, please, please share some thoughts on the subject. Faster is better, but not a deal breaker. Matching roll film to sheet is more of an issue. I REALLY want to pull this off with almost no learning curve, so take pity on me. Floods of information greatly appreciated.
I very much like the Kodak portra family of color neg films. I prefer the more natural NC versions to the more saturated VC and UC. Also, in NC, you can get 160 and 400 ISO versions in 35mm, 120, and 4x5. The 4x5 version is the fastest color neg film I know about for 4x5. The 160 version for 4x5 comes in both sheets and Readyloads, the 400 speed only individual sheets. The skin colors are very well matched in all speeds and formats, so your 35mm, 120, and 4x5 work will have the same palette. There is also an 800 ISO version, but only in 35mm and 120. I think it is excellent and very natural.
Thanks, John. Just what I was looking for. Any exposure tricks?
Hi
I'm also a fan of the Portra family I use on sunny days the NC and on overcast days the VC version for weddings. Outside the 160 ASA inside the 400 ASA!
It is the best film family wich Kodak ever made!
I'll add my vote for Portra. I experimented with the film and found that shooting it at the 160 worked. I have even metered some landscape exposures at two to three minutes with an incident meter, shot them as is without reciprocity compensation (didn't have information on anything beyond about 10 seconds), and got good results.
Shoot it in B&W with a Leica M. ;-)
Just kidding, Jim. The Portra line seems to be pretty popular. Personally, I prefer Fuji NPS 160 in rolls or 4x5 QuickLoads. Fuji also makes a 400 (NPH) and an 800 (NPZ), but I don't think they are available in LF sizes, just rolls. But, assumimg you'll be using electronic flash for at least part of the effort, you may not actually need a film faster than ISO 160.
I was actually thinking along the 160 lines, Ralph.
While my Velvia fetish is pretty well established (can I say that here?), I've always gone to Kodak for flesh tones. So I guess that I'm going with NC, and as is my usual with negative film leaning a hair toward overexposure. Although another issue is Quickload vs. Readyload holder purchase. Anyone want to warn me off of this path?
I don't shoot a lot of color neg, but when I do, I also like Portra 160NC.
I also use Portra for the weddings I do; however, I use the VC line exclusively. My line of thinking-- the aspects of weddings that are the most significant and noticable, such as the flowers, the blushing bride, the decorated hall, the lavish food-- these are colorful, exciting things, and couples want to remember them as larger than life. The colors from the VC films portray this "larger than life" quality, ever so subtly, but it is there. That makes a big difference at times (although I've tried both VC and NC side-by-side and confess I often can't tell the difference, but when I can, I prefer the VC).
As for exposure suggestions, I overexpose all of my Portra roll-film (35mm and 120/220) by 1/3 stop. For 160, this amounts to roughly 100 ISO (400=320 ISO). This gives just an extra touch of contrast, and gives me a little more forgiveness for poorly lit scenes (of which there are many at weddings).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks