Do I Travel with Ektar100, Portra 160vc or Velvia 50?

I will be travelling through the Scottish highlands again this year and am contemplating not taking any slide film, I have had

some really nice forest results with Portra 160 vc and started using Ektar 100 early this year and have been generally

impressed with everything it does, yes there can be a blue cast but I soon worked out how to remove it in post

processing.

 

Velvia 50 usually does not let me down but it can be tricky to get a good results without bracketing especialy when your

traveling light and to a budget. The majority of shots I will take are landscape, as I already have a winning b&w film

combination for my street photography and portrait work.

 

What do you think? im inclined to go with C41 this time, I dont have an adversion to Fuji C41 and if someone has a

reccomendation Ill be willing to try it out. Ultimately id like to travel with one type of colour neg film, as I dont have the ability

to change mid roll.

 

Cheers,

 

Tim

<p>Well, Fuji discontinued Reala with no word on whether they're working on a replacement, and that does put a damper on the Fuji idea. Adorama seems to still have some stock, but who wants to start using a film right as it's discontinued, when the Kodak options are just as good.</p>

<p>If you're already getting good results with Ektar and 160VC there's no good reason not to go with one or both of those.</p>

<p>I'd go with 160VC. I've recently come to the conclusion that I like 160NC/VC more than Ektar. Ektar is a great film, but a) I don't particularly need the super fine grain and b) saturation is an easy thing to manipulate in Photoshop. On the other hand, Portra is plays nicer with over and under exposure, is a bit faster, and has such wonderful skin tones.</p>

<p>If I knew the lighting would be good I would use Ektar. In poor light I rate it at 50 and in good light at 64 or maybe 80. If the lighting will be unpredictable I would use the Portra 160 and also take along some Portra 400 and 800. I just shot a roll of Portra 800 (35mm) and the results were really good. If you can avoid underexposure the grain is not bad at all. </p>

<p>Ektar at 100 — good colours even on dull days. Very fine grain and nicely saturated without affecting skin tones a lot.</p>

<p>Velvia can get ugly on a cloudy day, very blue or magenta. You have a lot more latitude and control with negative film. Ektar 100 is the logical choice for landscapes, now that Reala is history. However, it's too slow for general use (e.g., without a tripod handy). A good ISO 400 film is much better for hand-held use and with flash. My favorite is Fuji NPH 400.</p>

<p>I see no reason to downrate Ektar on a dark day if you meter correctly. A cloudy sky fools the camera into underexposing the foreground and people. Meter the foreground or use an incident reading, grey card or the palm of your hand.</p>

<p>Personnally, I would go with the Portra 160VC. Its an incredible film and its almost twice as fast as Ektar 100 since I shoot that stuff at 80 anyways.<br>

The extra stop can help out in lower light situations, especially since Ektar 100 has a bad reputation for low light and shadows.<br>

Sure, 160VC has a little more grain, but its my choice anymore when I go on trips.</p>

<p>As I say this, I realize some do have a film preference, however, if you scan then shooting chrome really has to be because it does something for you very specifically. Once I started scanning, chrome film came out of my bag except for studio jobs where they wanted to take film with them. I use exclusively, except for aerials, Portra 160vc. With what can be done with the scanner and in post, I can get what I want from the film. Fuji has always made a 160 neg film and it is a bit different. I have used both, but always found my workflow seemed easier with Kodak, but that was and had been what I was used to. Go with 160vc.</p>

<p>Take both Velvia and a neg film. Reala was hands down the best for what you intend. Disagree with Edward, I have never shot Velvia on anything but low contrast days - the DR is just too narrow. Colour is natural if blue in shadows, human eyes tend to see blue light very poorly in any case as less than 10% of our rods/cones are dedicated to blue definition. And how easy is it to remove it if you must?</p>

<p>Re exposure, check the lightest and darkest subject matter you want detail to show in, and expose two stops below the brightest reading, letting the shadows fall where they will. Shadow detail is overrated for this kind of landscape - look at the Brit photo mags for ideas on using high contrast well. </p>

<p>In the right circumstances and the right environment, like Scotland, Velvia shines brighter than anything else. I use it in Tasmania, which is very similar to northern Scotland - on those low light, 'ideal for photography' cloudy days and low light times of the day. In places where it rains that much, 'portrait' neg films give a very poor look and require a lot of post work, esp. now that Reala is gone. They are very useful for high DR days, however.</p>

<p>Forgot to add that there is an ideal compromise - Astia 100F. You can easily increase its contrast and colour if needed in post, it scans much more easily than any Velvia film and the extra stop has saved many a marginal image over Velvia. A great general purpose film also.</p>

Wow, lots of good responses

 

I think im tending towards portra 160vc as my expearience with it was great. (Eath tones looked realistic and the greens vibrant)

I suppose the doubt with Velvia came on when I started reading a few comments about how good Astia 100f is (I havent used it yet, although I do have a couple of weeks to give it a try) and from a long conversation at a L&P photographic last fortnight about Astia vs Velvia, the conclusion was that Astia holds a bit more "Kodak warmth" and wont get a cold as Velvia can when the light is not in the ballpark.

So I think ill need to test a roll of Astia hmm...

 

Heres that other interesting fact as my cameras are old (sharp enough for the not too large prints im aiming for though) Grain is not really a consideration, of course ill be using a tripod and cable release so staying near 100iso is nice.

 

Phillip: "Re exposure, check the lightest and darkest subject matter you want detail to show in, and expose two stops below the brightest reading, letting the shadows fall where they will. Shadow detail is overrated for this kind of landscape - look at the Brit photo mags for ideas on using high contrast well."

 

Thats brilliant advice and this year ive got a spot meter attachment for my kenko so ill be able to give it a go.

 

One negative "no pun intended" for Ektar 100 is that lots of people report exposing it at iso 50-80 etc. Im not keen on having a film that you need to constantly change your procedure with from day to day, I hope this doesnt sound slack but I like using film/slide that you keep at its reccomended ISO and worry about the other concepts of photography.

 

I should mention that Ive put 8 rolls of Ektar 100 through my cameras this year and only two of Portra 160VC the Portra had a lot more winning shots,

 

Is it possible that the nature of my camera lenses (Sollinar and Yashinon) work better with older styles of film?

 

Lots of good advice so far and I think this is heading in one direction, hopefully I havent thrown too many spanners into the discussion.

 

Cheers

<p>Can you identify why the Ektar was yielding fewer keepers? Were you unhappy with the color?</p>

It is the colour in general not just the cast, it looks a little washed out although two labs I have gone to have commented that the negs look perfect, I have had lab prints and my own scans there seems to be a similar theme in both.

 

I have put it through several different cameras, Lomo Diana, Yashica Mat and a Bessa I, Correct me if im wrong but it also appears to have a little less contrast/saturation? in general when compared to Portra 160 VC. I haven put it through the Bronica yet.

<p>It sounds like a scanning problem. I've never seen Ektar described as "washed out"! Which of those films has more contrast/saturation... actually I don't know.</p>