Negative vs. Transparency - Pros and Cons | What's Your Favorite Type?

[Eric Leppanen]

1.) What type of film do you guys like to shoot and why?

I scan and print digitally so I have no intrinsic preference for neg versus chrome. I primarily shoot landscapes and exterior architecture, and historically have used chrome for low contrast subjects and color neg for high contrast. Chrome has the benefit of being WYSIYWIG (you can immediately proof it on a light table), has more native contrast and color saturation and requires less post-processing work as long as the subject stays within the film's limited dynamic range. Digitally printing color neg can be challenging (getting the colors right can take more work) but it's the only game in town for high contrast scenes. When shooting directly into the sun during sunrise, for example, I use Portra 400 which I expose for the shadows (at box speed), then use a three-stop graduated ND filter to hold back the highlights (sky and sun). In this case Portra actually resolves the disk of the sun, which would not be possible with chrome film.

2.) What type of photography calls for transparency or negative?

Color neg is vastly more popular than chrome. The currently available LF chrome films (Provia and the Velvias) are both color saturated and high contrast, so people photography tends to be color neg by default (at least until more neutral E100 becomes available in sheets). Landscapers are more mixed, depending on how much color saturation you like (some folks like the Velvia look, others find it over the top and hideous). Color neg is also available at higher speed versus chrome (400 vs 100).

3.) Is there a certain type of film that's better/best for night photography?

Not my bag, can't help you here.

4.) Is negative or transparency better for extremely large prints? (I know that Gursky and Struth use/used transparency for a lot of their work.)

With LF film sizes I think the format size, good capture and printing technique makes more of a difference than the film type.

5.) And finally, my professor (and, believe or not, Stephen Shore himself!) told me that, when metering, to rate negative at half its ISO (so, for example, for Ektar 100 to meter it at 50) and transparency at exactly its recommended ISO. Do you guys think this is generally correct?

Routinely exposing one additional stop with color neg is a variation on the theme of "expose negative film for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may", arguably an analog counterpart to the digital notion of ETTR (Expose To The Right of the image histogram, i.e. provide shadow areas with as much exposure as possible without blowing out highlights). This advice is frequently given to SLR/TLR/rangefinder camera users who are using the in-camera exposure meter (which calculates an averaged exposure for a scene) and reflects negative film's ability to retain highlight density even with significant overexposure. When recording high contrast scenes there may be no choice but to do this. However, deviating from nominal exposure progressively introduces color shifts (particularly with a relatively saturated film such as Ektar) which you may or may not find bothersome. Most LF shooters use dedicated handheld meters to manually calculate an exposure which more accurately reflects their process workflow and aesthetic preferences. When shooting color neg I like to open up shadows quite a bit (around Zone 4 using Zone System nomenclature) and avoid overexposing highlights by either shooting in early morning light, during cloudy or overcast conditions, or (when feasible) using graduated neutral density filters. In cases where high contrast is unavoidable, I'll make an aesthetic decision to either allow shadows to be blocked up or accept some color inaccuracies due to overexposure, which I'll try to correct in digital post-processing (I scan and digitally print my images). Sometimes half a loaf is better than none.

Chrome has to be metered nominally at box speed, otherwise highlights will be blown. Shadow areas have to fend for themselves, fortunately drum scanners are very good at retrieving seemingly lost shadow detail (although drum scans are expensive).

I have to admit that in recent years I have developed a new appreciation for the exposure latitude and more subtle color rendition (some have called it pastel-like) of color negative film. In hindsight I wished I had learned to use B&W film first (rather then color), with its emphasis on precise shadow/highlight placement and tonal transitions. High contrast, high color saturated prints are eye-catching and dramatic, but they are difficult to display (unless spot lit they will be overly dark). How many homes have dedicated spotlights for wall-displayed prints? I have chrome images that I am very proud of, but color neg tends to have more of the nuance that I experienced with B&W, and images rely more on form and substance for visual interest rather than dramatic contrast.

[Drew Wiley]

It all depends on the method of printing you have mastered, or that is somehow available to you. Current inkjet printing has unquestionably revived and invigorated do-it-yourself color printing, while color darkrooms are getting scarcer; but alas, sheer ease often gravitates into mass-acceptance of mediocrity. Equally good prints can be made from either chromes or color negs. I have a pile of recent prints in my darkroom at this very moment which probably not a single one of you could tell had come from a color neg versus a chrome; and every one of them was 100% darkroom done, optically - absolutely no digital input. There's no need for the old stereotypes. If you want soft pleasing skintones, there are still color neg films that will do that for you. But Ektar is a real alternative to chrome films IF you know certain things in advance. It is not at all like old color neg films, and you'll pay a hefty price in hue quality if you revive the antique advice of overexposing it. You need to expose Ektar with the same care as a chrome film. Yes, it will give you about a stop more either side; but things start going astray pretty fast if you push your luck. There are very good technical explanations for that fact; but I'm getting awfully tired of arguing with people who don't know how to properly interpret dye curves, or don't understand the ABC's of color temp balancing.

[manfrominternet]

What should I know about Kodak Ektar 100? (It's the film I'm using for my 4x5 and medium format backs.)

What I mean by that is, is it good for landscapes, night photography, and/or portraiture? Do certain colors become oversaturated if overexposed/underexposed? Should I use a corrective filter? All I have on my lens right now is a B+W Nano UV filter.

Also, does anyone know what Ektar's reciprocity failure is? I'd love to shoot some street scenes here in crummy/apocalyptic LA.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, it's obvious you DON'T know a lot about Ektar even if you are shooting it. But you are asking questions, so that inherently puts you on the right track. Have you read a single thing I've already posted about recommended filters, and why? It's not good for much of anything if you don't get that part right - you'd be better off sticking with something more forgiving like Portra 400. Some people use Ektar for night photography and might be able to answer your long exposure questions; but it's a complicated subject because of the potential for disparate kinds of light sources at night. So I have always approached that subject with roll film testing before using any specific sheet film. Portraits? Now that I can answer. It's a contrasty saturated film, so probably not a good idea for high school yearbook pictures and kids with zits. It isn't artificially warmed to create "pleasing skintones" like traditional color neg films, so you need to use it with caution, or switch to Portra 160. Landscapes - superb results, but only if you understand color temp filtration; otherwise, you're going to be cussing about cyan-blue shadows and cyan inflected blue skies. Overexposed/Underexposed, do certain colors become "oversaturated" - NO; they either overlap at the dye curves when overexposed to create poorly differentiated mud, or shoulder off at the top of the curve into a color imbalance in the highlights. Ektar is capable of reproducing quite a range of hues extremely well if you properly expose it and properly filter under blueish lighting conditions, and of course, know how to print well. And let me repeat, use BOX SPEED of 100. I've never tried it in "crummy/apocalyptic" LA. I haven't even been to LA in the past 45 years. I think a passport has to be stamped atop the Grapevine to get there. But I have shot some Ektar in crummy apocalyptic San Joaquin Valley smoggy conditions with excellent results. In such cases, the smog itself can act like a warming filter. I don't know about Bakersfield; that kind of air might corrode even titanium camera hardware, so I try to avoid driving through there; but maybe a NASA space suit would keep me alive doing it.

[neil poulsen]

. . . Digitally printing color neg can be challenging (getting the colors right can take more work) . . .

No kidding! I find this to be frustrating, to the point where I may purchase a Phase One digital back for color work. To scan color negative properly, one has to overcome the orange mask on color negative film.

There are threads in the Forum that discuss how to scan color negative film. But even with those threads, it's tricky and elusive.

[Pere Casals]

No kidding! I find this to be frustrating, to the point where I may purchase a Phase One digital back for color work. To scan color negative properly, one has to overcome the orange mask on color negative film.

There are threads in the Forum that discuss how to scan color negative film. But even with those threads, it's tricky and elusive.

Neil, just try 3D LUT Creator and you'll do what you want with color.

[Drew Wiley]

Alas, all the convoluted complications of modern conveniences. My idea of digital printing is using my ten tactile digits in a real darkroom.

[Alan Klein]

It all depends on the method of printing you have mastered, or that is somehow available to you. Current inkjet printing has unquestionably revived and invigorated do-it-yourself color printing, while color darkrooms are getting scarcer; but alas, sheer ease often gravitates into mass-acceptance of mediocrity. Equally good prints can be made from either chromes or color negs. I have a pile of recent prints in my darkroom at this very moment which probably not a single one of you could tell had come from a color neg versus a chrome; and every one of them was 100% darkroom done, optically - absolutely no digital input. There's no need for the old stereotypes. If you want soft pleasing skintones, there are still color neg films that will do that for you. But Ektar is a real alternative to chrome films IF you know certain things in advance. It is not at all like old color neg films, and you'll pay a hefty price in hue quality if you revive the antique advice of overexposing it. You need to expose Ektar with the same care as a chrome film. Yes, it will give you about a stop more either side; but things start going astray pretty fast if you push your luck. There are very good technical explanations for that fact; but I'm getting awfully tired of arguing with people who don't know how to properly interpret dye curves, or don't understand the ABC's of color temp balancing.

I've bracketed Portra which is a pretty flat negative film compared to Ektar. While I think you can use all, what I found was that colors shifted when over and under exposed even +1 and -1.

[Corran]

but only if you understand color temp filtration; otherwise, you're going to be cussing about cyan-blue shadows and cyan inflected blue skies.

Or, Ektar simply has a different look and color palette, which some of us dislike. What you describe is simply what Ektar looks like.

[neil poulsen]

Alas, all the convoluted complications of modern conveniences. My idea of digital printing is using my ten tactile digits in a real darkroom.

Exactly!

Of course, that assumes one has the print processor to do color darkroom work. (Few do.) At least in that case, one's swimming downstream; they're printing color negative in the way that was originally intended.