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.1.) What type of film do you guys like to shoot and why?
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).2.) What type of photography calls for transparency or negative?
Not my bag, can't help you here.3.) Is there a certain type of film that's better/best for night photography?
With LF film sizes I think the format size, good capture and printing technique makes more of a difference than the film type.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.)
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.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?
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.
Bookmarks