Favorite Negative Film for Landscape

Ektar 25 (aka Royal Gold 25). I still have a few rolls in the freezer.

2nd Kodak's Ektar 25 & Agfa's Ultra Color 50

Today, if I have to shoot C-41, then Kodak's Portra 160VC

Kodak Portra 160 NC.

It's a really nice looking film, and since virtually all post production is done by computer, the saturation and color balance can be adjusted to the taste of the photographer.

I will say this though, I only shoot landscapes on 6x9 film or digital. I don't think 35mm color negative is very attractive for most landscapes.

160NC is a little bland for my taste, for shooting these kinds of pictures. Of course, my "post-production" is done in an analogue darkroom, and there's only so much one can do with saturation and contrast there (especially with paper variety becoming ever smaller).

I agree on the Kodak Portra 160 NC. It's about all I use in 120, other than occasional infrared. The Portra is just as good for B&W as color when you scan it, and you don't need to mess with filters for the B&W work (other than maybe a polarizer and/or ND grad).

"... you probably know what I'm talking about: those super-sexy shots with rich colors and high sharpness ... found in the bargain-bins of ninety-nine–cent stores across the globe."

It doesn't matter. Any color negative film will do, and in the largest possible format. Treat appropriately in digital post.

When the subject matter suits, digital capture is even better.

Kodak used to make a 200 ASA HD (high-definition) film, which was great if you couldn't bring a tripod. 100-like grain, at 200 speed. I can't find it anymore though. So I bought a good tripod...

Portra 160VC.

I like Reala. It has very fine grain, good lattitude and a good price. If the color balance is what interests you then any number of adjustments can be made once the negative is scanned. I especially like Reala in 120.

Robert, but, again, I was leaning toward which film works best for the job when the process is left analogue; if you digitize the end the last bit of effort, you could probably get away with colorizing T-Max.

B.J., I think Kodak's HD is still around; I believe it's repackaged "Royal Gold."

Kodak 400UC - high speed for handholding and/or sunset/low light shots, plus 100 speed grain. Makes beautiful 11x14 prints. Excellent color palette also. I assume 100UC is even better, except for speed.

Or, Agfa Ultra 100, if you can still find it. Gives slide film a run for the money when shooting Fall Colors. (blows 400UC away in the saturation department). But, similar to Velvia with skin tones - can amplify reddish tones in the face, unlike 400UC.

The answer to the original question is "none of the above" -- virtually all of these "pretty pictures" are shot on color slide film...

Kodak 100UC and Fuji Reala

160NC, fuji Pro 160S, kodak Gold 2oo, fuji color 400

Agfa Ultra and Konica Impressa if you can find either. Otherwise Kodak 100UC, Fuji 160C.

Ron Andrews, how can I relieve your freezer 1 or 2 of that precious Ektar 25 . . . cash and/or trade . . . ;-)
Click on thumbnail for full res - 100K file

All the pro labs that I know, have stopped doing proofs the old way, and just make a low resolution scan of the roll and print from that. Looks really bad. Same is true for either colour or black&white negative film. And I do not scan my own film. So, the answer to the question "Response to Favourite Negative Film for Landscape", is sadly: none (anymore). If you do not scan your own film, then the best you can hope for is viewing colour transparencies on the light box, that is, as long as colour transparency film and E6 processing remains viable.

What are colours? APX 25.

Probably a fuji film if i shot landscape again. fuji has a better green cast for land scape. Of course Large Format because in landscape you have all the time in the world.

I'd recommend in this order:

Ektar 25/Royal Gold 25 Agfa Ultra 50 (or maybe 100) Reala or Portra 160VC or Kodak UC100

Analog printing in a darkroom is the only way to get the most out of these, scanning just doesnt' cut it IMNHSO.

-Ed

For years, I used Ektar in 35mm, and Portra 160 in Medium Format, and the proofs were very high quality, on the whole, and inexpensive. The better the equipment, the better the proofs, just as it should work. Today, I can use a $3000 lens in 6x6 with colour negative film, and the proofs look worse than those from a throwaway camera for $10, all because they were produced from low resolution scans by the pro labs. Last year, I did a test, with the same $3000 lens I did colour negatives Kodak Ultra Color 100UC which then came out worse than a disposable camera, and the same scenes, exactly, with Provia 100 -the Provia results looked great on the light box. But even that is problematic, in that the negative sleeves in which you store and view the transparencies tend to be magnets for dust. Light Impressions in Rochester used to make a negative sleeve which resisted static cling of dust, but after the decline of medium format, they no longer sell them in 120 format. Glass mounts in 120 are also very expensive. So, it is regretful to conclude, film doesn't really offer much any more. To spend $100 for the highest quality scan of one transparency out of 100, is not an adequate solution of the problem. The only solutions appear to be if you produce the scans with your own scanner, or ideally print with your own analog facility, which has been suggested above.

H.M.,
Since you sound enthusiastic about the quite expensive Sinar Hy6 but you scoff at a $100 scan, I would suggest that you get a Nikon Coolscan 9000 at about $2K and you will have far higher resolution results from MF then you're getting now.

Thank you, I appreciate your comment, and I too, say that scanning your own films seems to be a solution. However, in my personal case, scanning doesn't suit me. For numerous personal reasons (such as expecting to be leaving to live in another country over the next year and I won't be able to bring my scanner, and I have numerous activities already which take up my free time and I don't have extra time to put into learning scanning), I have chosen not to buy a scanner. The several thousand dollars you need to put into a scanner, you can bundle instead into an investment, say with another several thousand dollars, and if this investment over time takes you over $10K, then you have enough for a refurbished medium format digital system. This is more along the lines I have been thinking of.

H.M.,
Based on your posts, I hardly doubt you would have any issues with using a Coolscan 9000 and it is neither time consuming or requires a union card to operate. In fact fully automatic default settings will get you results that are good to go most of the time. The only adjustments I have had to do concern adjusting Analog Gain when I am using a very tightly exposed slide film - not too much of a concern with negatives. You can perhaps get a tad better with extremely challenging exposures with only the better drum scanners and digital won't be close unless you are talking about tens of thousands of $$$ digital backs.
In terms of speed, Nikon claims 3 minutes for a 6X9 scan, which is far faster - not to mention far better in resolution, DMAX, color, etc., then any desktop scanner.
BTW, I am not sure you could spend $10K on a whole Coolscan 9000 system including glass holder, a PC/Mac, software, calibration, etc. even if you bought all this at a premium? I believe there are rentals available if you ever want to try it.

Thank you for your suggestions, r.e. scanning, and maybe this is something I could try in the future, however, my situation at present does not make a purchase of a scanner possible. I'm not going to buy one and then have to sell it or give it away in four months because I'm moving out of the country, and I live in a remote area where there are literally two stores only, a supermarket and a hardware store, within hundreds of kilometres, with no road access, so I'm not able to rent, either. This thread has been useful, in that it has confirmed, at least, that use of film today apparently necessitates use of home scanning equipment, or setting up your own analog darkroom, if you ever want to bring an image to paper, in a quality result. Am I missing something? Are there tons of pro labs out there that are still using optical methods at 50 cents a proof print,and producing high quality like years ago? Either the drastic reduction of volume of work, or the cost of maintaining the setup has eliminated such services, at the pro labs, appears to be the reality.

I believe that as far as prints from negatives are concerned, this is available everywhere depending on the price you are willing to pay for and the turnaround times. However, since you are in a remote location, that may be challenging for you.
The Coolscan 9000 is an international product and can be used with different voltages. Given the current trend on ebay, it is not likely that you will have to "give it away". In fact, it may be harder to buy it as it seems that it is constantly on backorder due to demand or production levels.
Much like dark room printing on your own, it is likely you will come to a print that is tight on exposure requiring you to make a personal decision on how to properly print it. If you send this out to have it done, then that decision will be made for you. So even if you use Scancafe for cheap scans using Coolscans, it may not be to your personal preference. Given their month long turnaround times, having them redone may test your patience. Besides, who doesn't want to be empowered to do their own work especially when you are remotely located?

Mixed opinions on the Coolscan 9000 vs. Digital Medium Format backs, on this thread:

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00PySw

And by this thread, the Coolscan 9000 is not the last word on scanners. The Imacon 949 scanner seems to be more highly regarded.

I was suggesting to try the 9000 and even compare it to drum scans - choose your most challenging in DMAX and your most highly detailed film, and you will have a direct idea of what the difference in results are. Since the Imacon cannot be better then real drum scans you will be able to gauge the difference for yourself.
Are you saying that you would consider a multithousand $$$ digital back over a considerably cheaper - relatively speaking that is, 9000 and complaining about how costly a glass holder for the 120 is? You say you have been shooting film for years and now can't seem to get access to cheap but great prints but don't want to DIY? It seems you have good film equipment with $3000 lenses but can't beat a $10 throwaway? Therefore you conclude that "film doesn't really offer much any more.
Clearly you are beyond my level of help as I am now throughly confused by the direction you are leading too especially referring to that thread. Well good luck with that . . .

H.M. - If you are getting those kind of results from your "Pro Lab", take your business elsewhere. Fuji Labs, thru Walmart sendout, does fantastic work with 120/220 and 35mm. Hell, Costco and Walgreens (at least my local Walgreens) do excellent 35mm work. And for a lot less than you pay now. http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157601574874556/

That thread, just was demonstrating that medium format digital vs. scanning still is a subject of debate, as is the choice of the scanner itself. Thanks for your suggestions, they were not unappreciated, and will be useful for those photographers who are considering the purchase of a scanner. If we go back to the original question, my point was, that without a scanner, I cannot recommend any colour negative emulsion, and your posts can be summarized as "then why don't you get a scanner?!!", to which I simply tried to tell you, but you do not seem to wish to accept, that scanning is not necessarily for everyone at all times in all places. Using transparency film and glass- mounting each frame (assuming they will continue to make and sell glass mounts in 120), amounts to $3/frame (based upon where I buy my film and supplies and the pro-lab's rate), this ongoing expense, for a large number of films, can be compared over time to a capital expense on a refurbished medium format digital system, especially if one owns the lenses and bodies and only needs to buy the (used) digital back. I really don't see what is so difficult to comprehend here? Everyone has to try to find the solution that works for them. Go and read Wim Van Velsen's articles, he is now using medium format digital and will not return to scanning film, after championing the 6x6 transparency for quite a few years.

To be sure, where I worked, the staff photographer was one of the first recipient of the new 39MP digital back available and he did give me some firsthand comparisons from it and film on his Hasselblads. His conclusion is convenience as compared to 645 - with substantial investment in Mac tools to get it all "properly" setup. At the end of the day, he did get rid of the film processor and drum scanner in favor of a more streamlined workflow that met his needs which sounds like what some others may also be doing. Not that it was "better" but certainly good enough.
There is nothing I need to accept from you and you don't have to take anything I say as an action item. But just to be sure, your original point was that you recommended an obsolete 35mm film and that for reasons unknown you were unable to get any good cheap prints anymore which is what I provided you with alternatives. Like I said, good luck with that . . .

Thanks, Randall, for the suggestion. Not sure if Fuji Labs offers the same service to Wal-Mart in Canada, but I can try. I'm a few hundred kilometres from the nearest Wal-Mart, but it is something to check out.

I love Kodak Ultra Color 100 and Kodak Gold 200. I had a great experience using Ultra Color in the Fall. I know some people don't like Kodak Gold 200, but it really gets great warm tones and good color saturation if the lighting is right. It's probably my favorite film. I like Fuji 100 too.

I would say that in general, I've had good experience with all the low speed films I've used. For really deep colors in the fall though, I like Ultra Color 100 and Fuji 100.

For black and white photos, I like Kodak Plus-X. It's very forgiving with exposure and gives great warm tones, which I like for landscapes. I use both 35mm and 120, and develop it myself. I like Arista films too, especially the low speed ones like 100.EDU. The only film I don't really like is Ilford HP5 plus. It just way too grainy. I guess it really wasn't meant for landscapes though anyway.

Wait a minute, in another thread John Gleason posted a link to what I believe is a new player in town . . . KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100 Film . . . high saturation and ultra-vivid color, EKTAR 100 offers the finest, smoothest grain of any color negative film available today.

Anyone seen this yet? Know where I can buy a pro pack?

Chris, for black-and-white work, I love Ilford's Pan F +.

BTW Andrew, it looks like I won't have to part with my previous Techpan and Technidol supply just yet . . . ;-)

Wait a minute, do you think they can bring another emulsion back . . . well I can dream . . . ;-)

Sounds like Ektar 100 will be great for landscapes.