Contrast of Consumer vs. Professional Films

One of the frequently stated �facts� on this forum (usually by the

same person) is that consumer films are higher contrast than the

corresponding professional films and are therefore less worthy to be

used by those of us who are not point-and-shooters. Contrast is not

a subjective impression; it is the slope of a straight line portion

of the characteristic curve and can be objectively measured.

Comparison of published characteristic curves can then be directly

used for contrast comparisons.

 

To see if consumer and professional films differ in contrast, I

chose to look at the 400 speed offerings in color print films from

Kodak: 400UC, HD400, 400NC, 400VC, and MAX Versatility. HD400 is

often identified here as the consumer analog of 400UC. Those two

films have their characteristic curves published on the Kodak

website as gifs, so they can be overlaid in PS and compared. From

that overlay (attached) it�s easily seen that their contrasts are

identical. The other films are published in pdf format, so to save

time I overlaid prints of their characteristic curve on a resized

400UC print and viewed them on a light table. What I found was that

MAX Versatility contrast was also identical to that of 400UC (!).

Portra 400VC had the same blue contrast but higher green and red

contrast than did UC. As might be expected, 400NC had slightly

lower green and red contrast and lower blue contrast.

 

I concluded that contrast is not a distinguishing feature between

the two types of films. There are reasons to choose among the

group, but with the possible exception of 400NC, contrast isn�t one

of those reasons.

Kodak is an odd sample.

An interesting comparison study. I think the myth of lower contrast pro films is perpetuated by the fact that the NC's and NPS/NPH are medium (lowered)contrast films.

Joe,

 

My understanding of consumer/professional films is in ageing. Professional film is suppose to be refrigerated: then sold, exposed and developed very quickly; a short shelf life. Consumer film is manufactured to have a long shelf life. A roll of film may sit in a camera for months to a year. The professional film will have a color shift if it is not exposed and processed quickly. The consumer film resists the color shift, but the finished product is not supposed to look as good as the professional film at its peak. There used to be a Kodak publication on the differences between the two designations, but with Kodak going digital lots of luck finding their discussion.

 

Paul

Paul,

 

Consumer and professional films are both manufactured for long life, and I believe that if similar examples are handled/aged in a similar fashion, they will respond similarly. Technology improved a lot in the last 20-30 years. That said, a professional photographer will do whatever he/she feels is necessary to get very repeatable results and will standardize their workflow. I doubt that anyone actually does experiments to see if changes in storage temperature or time between exposure and processing produces significant differences. Of course, I'm not talking about extreme conditions.

Joe,

 

I researched this question for my wife a number of years ago, but my memory is a little hazy since I really do not work with color film. She wanted to know the difference between the consumer version and professional version of Kodachrome 64. I found a Kodak publication that basically said the profession & consumer films are both manufactured the same. Consumer film is aged (stored at the factory). Professional film is refrigerated and sent for immediate use. The colors are supposed to be more vivid, more color saturation somthing like that. But it must be exposed and processed fairly quickly or it will look like consumer film. The consumer film was manufactured for people that buy 6 rolls for vacation, expose 4 rolls and 1/2 of the 5th roll which is not completely exposed until Thanksgiving and Christmas. Kodak wanted the 5th roll to have the same color balance or color saturation as the other 4 that were processed in July. That may no longer be true and Kodak's definition of professional/consumer film has a whole different meaning. All I know, or remember, is what I read in a Kodak publication about the difference between the two films about 3 years ago. I am sure you could call Kodak and ask them what their current definition is of profession and consumer film.

Consumer film is not aged. That would be pretty counterproductive if you're going to expect it to sit unrefrigerated on the shelf once it gets to the store, now wouldn't it?

 

It's professional film that's aged until the color balance is right.

This is what I have read about pro/consum. film in a few articles over the last few years.

 

I think 'Ocean Physics' is right, it is pro film that is aged and then released at its peak to be shot and processed immidiatly (within a couple of months that is). Consumer film on the other hand is released right after production so that it 'ages' on the shelf and in the camera. By the time it gets processed, at will be at its peak.

Neither type of film is aged before release. That's pretty impractical in today's age of efficient manufacturing practices. As was discussed in a thread a few weeks ago, these beliefs originated with essentially true stories about the behavior of pre-1980 Kodachrome and have nothing to do with the way current films from any manufacturer behave today.

Try the same overlay with Portra 400NC and High Definition 400. Or Portra 160NC for a larger difference.

 

Also, High Definition 400 is lower color saturation than 400 Ultra Color. That doesn't show on an H&D plot. It's inter-layer effects, that don't really show on any of the plots.

 

Also, there are edge effects that are probably maximized on consumer film, and not on professional film, since they don't want exagerrated local contrast.

 

Another benefit of the Portra series of films is that they are optimized for scanning, and have a consistent dye set, so that you can mix and match the speeds and get highly consistent results. Wedding photographers really like the candids on 400 to match the formals on 160.

There is no deliberate "aging." As mentioned, that would be counter productive.

 

The difference is that the comnpany tests each batch of professional film precisely for its actual color balance, and the company provides batch-specific Color Compensation filter information to achieve standardized color response for critical applications. Thus, it must be kept refrigerated to prevent further changes to the tested color response. If it's not kept refrigerated, it doesn't "go bad" any more quickly than consumer films, but it will vary from the originally tested color response over its useable life.

 

Film destined for consumers is also tested, and the batch variations may not be any greater than those of the professional films, but the company does not provide batch-specific color response information. It should be "about right" throughout its lifespan.

I admit that my recollection of the difference is hazy and Kodak publication E-6 is no longer in their on-line database. It could very well be that professional is aged and released when it is at its peak. I do remember professional film must be exposed and developed soon after it has been purchased for consistent results, and consumer film has a very long shelf life. The original question was about contrast of the two films and I think the difference is in color balance, or possible color saturation which can be confused with contrast.

 

Paul

Joe, your investigation presupposes that the characteristic curves

are correct as published. Perhaps Kodak's graphs are more accurate

than Fuji's, but I have seen datasheets that seem to misrepresent

film performance, especially Reala lately. Furthermore film,

especially consumer film, varies by batch. All types of film change

as they age.

 

That said, I agree with you that MAX 400 is not ultra high contrast.

It seemed higher-contrast in earlier emulsions, but GC-8 less so.

NPZ seems much higher contrast and it is a professional film.

Interesting that 400VC has higher green and red contrast (only) than

400UC; I find it higher contrast overall with much less (recoverable)

underexposure latitude.

 

Thanks Joe, this is much more useful than yet another thread about

cross-processing. Somebody should do a Javascript overlay of graphs.

That wouldn't be hard; the hard part is normalizing all graphs to

the same size and scale.

Joe;

 

When I worked on Kodacolor Gold 400, we had just about the same neutral aim curve as the professional Ektacolor S film did at the time. The difference was in the amount of interimage effects and color saturation. The Gold family had higher interimage. This gave higher contrast in separation exposures IIRC and had the visual impact of the film having higher contrast.

 

This was related to the flare expected from the lenses of less expensive cameras which had the effect of muting color and reducing contrast.

 

Ron Mowrey

Two films that have the same contrast don't necessarily have the same saturation level, granularity, acutance, etc. I was just trying to show that the unqualified assertion that consumer films always have higher contrast is wrong. IMO, incorrect generalizations like this do a disservice to the community because they discourage experimentation with unfamiliar films that might be perfectly fine and easier to obtain.

<p>

Bill,<br>

When I did the same analysis of 400 speed Fuji films, I just did a screen capture of the curves and rescaled as necessary in PS. This was easier (for me) than your Javascript suggestion. However, because of significant differences in Dmins and speeds between colors, curve-sliding with hard copy was almost mandatory to accurately compare slopes.

<p>

With regard to the accuracy of published curves, I think that the two manufacturers do their best to show an average result that one should expect to get in the trade. However, I've seen comparisons of curves generated from processing in many different labs, and the curves are all over the place. I'd be more inclined to think that's what you're seeing rather than to indict Fuji. Also, keep in mind that CN-16 is not identical to C-41.

Sometime ago, I wanted to get a feel of the difference between Superia 400 and NPH. I took exposures with both and within minutes of each other: same scene, same camera, same lens and settings. Half of the scene was under direct sun, the other half under deep shadow.

 

When shot as metered, NPH had noticeably more shadow detail than Superia 400. At +1 overexposure, the NPH exposure didn't change much, but Superia filled in. At +2 stop, NPH still didn't change that much, but Superia 400 was much nicer and showed less aparent grain than NPH.

 

So, for Fuji emulsions at least, it seems that the pro NPH truly is lower contrast. Although frankly, Superia 400 when given enough light, is very good (and I feel preferable to the old NPS 160 even for portraiture.)

 

Oh, by the way, the negatives were scanned with Nikon CS5000.

Yup, Superia 400 is much, much higher in contrast than NPH according to the data sheets.

<I>Comparison of published characteristic curves can then be directly used for contrast comparisons. </i><P>Actually they can't. Taking crude graphs off of Kodak's and Fuji's web-sites designed by a marketing agency and overlaying them is about as silly as taking screen grabs from the various flash promos on Kodak's/Fuji's web sites and overlaying them to judge print film quality. To even justify or defend nasty emulsions like Max 400 alongside UC 400 is absurd.<P><i>contrast isnýt one of those reasons</i><P>Not true either. As alluded to in this thread several times, contrast differs in the various layers of print films. With professional print films the linearity of these layers is controlled and kept within very close tolerance. With amatuer print films it's all over the place because Fuji/Kodak assume the user is only buying the film on the basis of it's price and it's convenience. <P>Amatuer print films are all over the place in terms of contrast and generational consistency. This results in oddball color casts in high density areas like light skin tones, and a greater inconsistency when printed. The fact remains the only moderate/low contrast amatuer print film on the market that's even close to the low contrast professional print films like NPS and Portra NC is Reala.

Scott, from your last post, I quote:

 

"Comparison of published characteristic curves can then be directly used for contrast comparisons.

 

Actually they can't. Taking crude graphs off of Kodak's and Fuji's web-sites designed by a marketing agency and overlaying them is about as silly as taking screen grabs from the various flash promos on Kodak's/Fuji's web sites and overlaying them to judge print film quality. To even justify or defend nasty emulsions like Max 400 alongside UC 400 is absurd."

 

In answer to this, I can tell you that the curves above were professionally generated by experienced engineers. The only thing lacking in that data is the exact exposure information and the fine grid lines and more detailed numbering present on the actual paper used for plotting.

 

You continue:

 

"contrast isnýt one of those reasons

 

Not true either. As alluded to in this thread several times, contrast differs in the various layers of print films. With professional print films the linearity of these layers is controlled and kept within very close tolerance. With amatuer print films it's all over the place because Fuji/Kodak assume the user is only buying the film on the basis of it's price and it's convenience. "

 

Quality control on professional and consumer products meet the same standards for release in terms of meeting aim curves and other control issues.

 

So, the following statement is not true!

 

"Amatuer print films are all over the place in terms of contrast and generational consistency. This results in oddball color casts in high density areas like light skin tones, and a greater inconsistency when printed. The fact remains the only moderate/low contrast amatuer print film on the market that's even close to the low contrast professional print films like NPS and Portra NC is Reala."

 

You might be mistaking the keeping of the film for a release variation. Amateurs do tend to keep film in their cameras longer than professionals, and under more adverse conditions.

 

Overall Scott you have it pretty much wrong.

 

Ron Mowrey

My experience with Superia 400 over time matches Scott Eaton's

pronouncements about the inconsistency of amateur film. Additionally

I have been extremely disappointed by Gold 200 scans of great images

where I should have used a better film.

The original point of this thread hasn't been refuted by these comments about comparative quality (which never was the issue of this thread). Scott has a lot of opinions and generalizations but only his unsupported anecdotes to back it up. Saying something bombastically doesn't make it true. Clearly he can't differentiate contrast from saturation.

I'm a little reluctant to add anything to Joe's summary because I agree with what he wrote. I'll

just add one additional example. If you had a characteristic curve for Vericolor III, it would be

about 10% higher in contrast than the curves in Joe's plot. This film had low color saturation

and which led many to call it a low contrast film even though the neutral scale contrast was

high.