Favorite Film for Wedding

Marc's earlier post inspired me to ask this question. (thanks Marc!) I am a

primarily still a film shooter both medium format and 35mm. I was considering

using Portra 160NC, 400NC, and BW400CN for a weddings that I have coming up in

a couple months. Would be mostly 35mm, with medium format for some group

portraits, bride and groom portraits, and maybe a few ceremony shots. I am

also considering a faster true B&W film like TMZ or Neopan 1600 (or maybe even

TriX pushed) for indoor ceremony shots without flash. I don't really like the

way color neg looks when pushed. <p>

I would love to hear the favorite films from you experienced wedding

photographers who use film and get any other recommendations, especially for

fast films and for economical options to present client proofs.

Without question (and my lab's favorite as well) is Fuji Reala. Super skin tones and amazing, warm, yellowish greens (instead of bluish greens and cold). I've tried everything else and nothing compares for my taste. I like the richness of this film.

 

For indoors I've switched to the fairly new Kodak Porta 800 and NPH 400.

 

For Black and white .. 400 CN - Kodak. T-max 100 for the right conditions. For indoor - church - I love 3200 rated at 1600 - Kodak.

reala and neopan.

I've been primarilly been using the Fuji Pro400H, and some Fuji Pro160S at times. For Ceremony, Pro800Z with no pushing. The last couple seasons, all of my B&W have been conversions.

Always liked the results from Kodak NC 400 and 160. Great flesh tones when printed with Noritsu.

I use Fuji Reala and Pro 400H for colour work and recemtly started using Kodak 400CN so I could get all my work printed at the same lab - they don't do black and white work. I normally use Neopan 100 and 400 and have always been happy with the results. I tried a roll of Neopan 1600 at a wedding last year and the results were awful - very high in contrast and nothing like the other Neopan stock. I would never use it again.

Scandisk.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. I love working with my Ciro-flex with Ilford 100, but it's mostly for fun. I'll have to try some of these suggestions.

 

BTW, I'm not a pro, but I love to hang here. Great info.

I used to use Fuji NPH but then switched to Portra 400NC along with the CN film. I also use Portra 800.

Porta 160NC outdoors, 400 NC indoors, for B&W I get best results using Superia (cheap color film) printed B&W. Sharper than any 400 speed true B&W, and is great for shots with a lot of detail (group shots, etc). It prints a better B&W on a Frontier than the 400 cn or XP2. I also use Neopan 1600 OUTDOORS, rated at 800, real tight shots. The grain looks great. So contrasty that you can't have too much "stuff" in the frame- keep it simple and tight. Would NOT work for a large grouping of people. Ultra contrasty.

Kodachrome 25 and Panatomic-X. Oh wait, that was Last Century...How about VPS and

Verichrome Pan in 120? Sorry, those are gone too. Hmm, going to have to go with Portra

and Plus-X. Yeah.

Verichrome may be gone from the shelves, but not my freezer Christiaan : -) Have one Pro-

Pack left.

 

I've been loading up on the new Fuji Pro stock in 220, and bought some Berger B&W films to

try next season. I also am determined to process my own real B&W films this year because I'm

not all that pleased with the flat contrast of the C41 films. Good for high contrast situations,

but I'm not crazy about how dull it seems in comparison to even the Tri-X Pro stuff I shot last

year.

For lower contrast, high ISO BW try Tri-X 400 (not TXP-320) at ISO 1600 developed in Diafine. It's a two bath compensating developer so the developer in the highlights exhausts, while the shadows keep developing. Google tri-x and diafine, and you'll find lots of info. I've been shooting this combo for about five years in 4x5, 120, and 35mm widelux, and it's my favorite for high speed BW.

Film choice, is dictated more by what the lab is best at. Most Frontier based labs do a better job on FUJI films, and the Noritsu based labs excel with KODAK films. That said, I would never use any film other than a medium contrast portrait type film to shoot a wedding. The Portra NC line or their Fuji equivalents.

Fuji NPH & Fuji Neopan 400CN (B/W chromogenic) for the B/W work.

 

Russ

Kodak Portra 160NC has an incredible contrast range and smooth . Portra 400NC or 800

for low light. Although I think the new Portra 800 still has too much contrast for my taste.

I just picked up some of the new Portra II which is suppose to be even sharper and better for

scanning then the previous generation.

Yeah Marc, I'm sure I have a few Verichrome rolls stashed far back in the freezer, it sure

was nice film. I've found the new Plus-X is flexible enough to look close to the Verichrome.

Those new Portras are really good too.

My favorite film --unfortunately not around these days >>Kodak PRO 100

 

now its NC or VC ....sometimes Reala ,for those golf course events.

To the jerk that said K25 and Panatomic. . . Can you honestly tell the difference between

K64 and Pan-F 50, two films that are still available in THIS century? If you don't know sh it

about modern films, then don't post in a film thread. You don't see me spouting off in a

memory card thread. . .

 

Portra is TOPS for skintones. This isn't based on what I'm good at, it's based on how this

film performs printed on any color paper using any compatible RA-4 and C-41 chemicals,

including Fuji's. Portra has finer grain, higher resolution, and more speed at 800 than the

Fuji line. While Fuji is a great film and I won't knock it, Portra is designed for best

rendition of your typical caucasian flesh tone. Fuji, on the other hand, being

manufactured in Japan by the Japanese, has obvioulsy been optimized for that market. If

you're shooting primarily caucasian couples, I'd say, shoot this film. I'm not sure which

film is better for those shooting primarily Black or Latino weddings, although I've heard of

a film called Optima made in India that is optimized for that.

 

Now, Portra is more expensive, bya about 10-15%, but I feel it is worth it. The new

Portra-II, as someone who "peers down a grain focuser all day" as one gentleman on this

forum put it has TIGHT grain. On the 400 in medium format, I can't see it at 8x10

anymore. It was still visible in Portra-1. I'd say grain has been halved in size in the new

160 and 400.

 

Personally, I shoot 160 in 35mm and 400 in 220, both NC. I'd maybe shoot 160 for really

really big groups in MF, but honestly, I don't have any problems, or see any grain, on

lustre prints going as big as 16x20, so you could probably make fine 16x20s even with

800 pushed a stop in the MF. The old Portra 400 had noticeable grain at 8x10 in 35mm

as of 3 years ago, but it still made a solid 8x10, much nicer in terms of latitude, contrast,

and color than a print made from a JPEG.

 

All of the above is what I have observed from prints I've made by hand and with optical

machinery, so I can't say what is better printed from scans. I've scanned Portra and other

films, but never for output, only for newsprint.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

Karl,

 

I think you have lost your sense of humor. He was joking! Lighten up! You don't need to call someone a jerk.

 

Dave

Dave, sorry, maybe I have. I guess I'm a bit tired of some of the personal attacks I've gotten

in this subsection of the forum for (a.) shooting exclusively with film and (b.) posting while

being under the age of 30 (which is apparantly a condition that prevents one from being

taken seriously here). Oh wait my sense of humor is back now! I apologize to the original

poster of the K24/Panatomic-X comment. I gave you a hard time because I was angry at

someone else yesterday.

Why worry what someone else says about your exclusive use of film? Only about 150 years

of wonderful images taken on film, right?

 

BTW, you aren't the only one that's under thirty here, so is "digital photography" : -)

Whoo, Karl, both barrels! I was trying to add some humor here. I'm in your corner, I only

shoot film for weddings, and I hand process all the B&W as well as optically hand print, on

fiber base, with toning, for every wedding. PDN did a little segment on me and my wife a

few years back. As for my film comments, I was trying to point out some of the other fine

film emulsions that have fallen by the wayside. I actually don't miss the old VPS, I started

weddings mostly using the PRO 400, I think it was PMC, that pre-dated the (1st) Portras.

As well, K25 is truly as good and entirely different than K64, both which I've used plenty of

over the years, and I'm still hoarding my last rolls of K25 for a good subject. I often use

K200, and I still hang on to the PKR in 120 that I waited too long to shoot.

And for Panatomic-X, I used a bit of it in my youth, and managed to score some in 120

that I'm saving as well, and you guessed it, its different than PanF+, although I have found

that TMax 100 in Xtol 1:0 gives a very very similar look and feel to Panatomic-X, seems

Kodak was actually telling the truth when they said it was a direct replacement back in

1988.

Whew!! Glad that's settled! I was hoping for you guys to clear the air! Good for you guys! I was afraid to have this site go the way of some otheriwse good sites I frequent. Testy people can ruin the learning process. I was pretty sure a bad day was involved. BTW I shot film for YEARS before going digital. I was very happy shooting film, and would still be shooting film if I was still working at the pro lab I was employed at. I would also still have gone to digital to be able to get easier access to images at home. It really was kinda fun to be able to shoot and reuse "film". If anyone has a preference for one over the other, I say whatever trips your trigger! It's all photography to me!

 

Dave

I still shoot film for weddings also. Digital camera comes along, but only used if I run low on film or customers want B&W conversions. I use to love using Kodaks VC 400, I loved the punch it gave over NC. Lab I use now has set up for Fujufilm so use the Pro 400 H.