color film question

[Rick Tardiff]

as a newbie I have been shooting black and white but would like to try color, probably slide film. I have searched the forums, and online and need some straight talking on the subject. I am shooting people and cityscapes at present. Could someone give me some direction with color film.

[pablo batt]

do you want photographs or inkjets as a finished print?

[Rick Tardiff]

I hadn't thought about that, duh! what's my options?

[pablo batt]

i use colour neg film, and use kodak colour paper in a darkroom.

slide is not more difficult to achieve prints, but the expense is high on chemicals and paper

50 sheets of kodak ra4 paper 20x16inch costs 60 euro (getting harder to find fresh)
50 sheets ilfochrome 20x16inch costs approx 300 /400 euro (if you can find it)

if you plan to make inkjets from scans ,then i would advise transparency.

[Rick Tardiff]

thankyou Pablo, I am still very new to LF. My plan is to scan my results and use a inkjet printer. I am not sure which transparency film to use. I used kodak in 35mm format, but its no longer available. What is a good all rounder for 4x5.

[pablo batt]

i use velvia for high impact, but i dont use inkjets so i cant say what would be best

i only display my transparency in glass display sandwiches

my advice is to use ra4 + darkroom especially for portraits.

[Bruce Watson]

as a newbie I have been shooting black and white but would like to try color, probably slide film. I have searched the forums, and online and need some straight talking on the subject. I am shooting people and cityscapes at present. Could someone give me some direction with color film.

The advantage of tranny film is that it's a WYSIWYG medium. The main disadvantage is the limited dynamic range. Unless you are shooting in a controlled lighting environment (studio) or only shooting scenes with small subject brightness range (SBR), tranny film can present exposure problems. In general people tend to expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. Which makes for a lot of empty black shadows that lack detail.

Negative films are more color accurate (that's what that orange mask is doing for you). And they have greater dynamic range and so can capture a much larger SBR than tranny films can. Another interesting thing about negative films is that they are less sensitive to the color temperature of the light -- so they work considerably better in mixed lighting situations, like you find photographing the exterior of buildings (sunlight, mixed street lighting including various sodium and mercury lights, and building interior lights including incandescents and fluorescents). The downside is that you have to learn to evaluate negatives on the light table. It's not that difficult, but it does take some practice.

Given that you want to do portraits and architecture, I suggest you strongly consider a negative film like Kodak's 160PortraVC/NC, or Fuji's Pro 160C/S.

[Preston]

I agree with Bruce. Either the Kodak or the Fuji color neg is an excellent choice. I've settled on the Fuji 160Pro-S, using quikloads. I have found that in the mountains where I do most of my work, the greater dynamic range of color neg stands me in good stead.

For tranny film I use Astia 100F in quickloads. It has a better dynamic range than Velvia, but the color is not as intense. The caution about deep shadows is warranted. Care must be taken with exposure and choosing your lighting conditions carefully; tranny films respond best to lower contrast scenes.

I print on inkjet and find that either film, along with a good scan and Photo Shop work, will produce an excellent print.

-Preston

[Rick Tardiff]

thanks Bruce and Preston, I will try both the kodak and the fuji.

Again hats off to a great resource. Excellent forum