Which 120 Film for Landscapes

Hi,

 

I've just moved into MF and am wanting to begin to take my

photography a more seriously, which amongst other things, means using

the right film for different photographic situations. I've settled on

Fuji NPS 160 for my indoor studio portrait work, but would like some

advice on outdoor landscapes. As I live in the UK many of the days

are cloudy therefore I'm looking for a PRINT film which gives the

best handling for dull conditions, and which will also work well on

the occassional sunny day (I expect there may be a need for different

film for each, but do not know).

 

Also, can anybody please advise on a decent mail order processing lab

for 120/220 film in the UK - not a top end pro lab though - one which

offers decent quality for a cost concious buyer.

 

Thanks in advance

 

Reuben Siuda, West Yorkshire, England

I like reala and npc. Also on occasion konica imperssa... You might also give reala a try for indoor studio. It has better grain and (I think) colour when compared to NPS..

Reala has been recommended - but for cloudy conditions would I rate it as 80 which has been mentioned elsewhere?

 

Thanks

Reuben,if you really want to do it right, in my opinion:

1) Use a tripod ALWAYS

2) Use velvia slide film - forget Kodak. There's just no comparison. Velvia will make your photos com alive.

3) Bracket

 

You'll find that using slide film you will also be less dependant on the laboratory. They just develope the film and don't make any decisions on anything else.

Reuben,

 

For mail order processing buy a copy of Amateur Photographer & look at the ads at the back - all the major firms are in there. I use Transpacolor in Leicester on a regular basis & have had no problems. Peak Imaging also have a good reputation. There is a firm in the Channel Islands (it's part 7Dayshop I think) which are cheap but people have complained of waiting weeks to get their shots back - best avoid them methinks.

Agfa has very nice pro color negative films available in 120. The Optima 100 and 400 are both superb. The 400 is unique in today's market--it is not a low contast "portrait" film like evey other brand of 400 speed color neg in 120. Colors are accurate and rich, grain is fine, contast is moderate, sharpness is very high. I have started using the 100 Optima over Fuji Reala, and think I now prefer it. Only drawback is finding the film locally! I have to mail order it.

Personally I'd use Velvia, and I know nothing of colour neg film. For processing in your area, if you don't want to use a local pro lab (quick, easy, efficient) then contact Colab in Coventry or Peak Imaging in Sheffield.

I used almost exclusively Fuji Reala for outdoors work and was always extremely happy with it. Never tried the Agfa products though...

 

I used print film, because my goal was to make prints and I got MUChy better results compared to printing from slides. With the advent of digital, the equation has changed. I nowadays shoot only slides and scan those for digital output. If I want really punched-up colors I use Velvia, but mostly I prefer a more subdued look and use Provia and sometimes even Astia outdoors (you can always punch up colors in photoshop later).

 

Digitial printing is VERY powerful! You can selectively and independently of each other adjust color balance, contrast and saturation. I now have as much fun color-printing as I used to have with traditional b&w printing....

I shoot exclusively negative films; landscapes are my primary interest. Shoot konica impressa. I've tried every color neg film out there for this kind of shooting, and settled on the konica. look at my portfolio if you are curious about the film - all my color photographs are on impressa and there is no photoshopping of my web images.

Consider Kodak E100VS. The grain is negligible compared to the size of the slide, the colors are great, and the speed lets you make up a little for relatively slow MF lenses.

<I>Velvia will make your photos com alive</i><P>Actually Velvia makes landscapes look like a bunch of mutant, radioactive babies puked all over it. What a nice way to trash the wonderfull greens of the U.K. countryside. Thankfully many U.K. photographers are using more subtle slide films and ignoring American pop culture tastes.<P>For *print* (ahem I can read) films you'll find NPS/Reala (same film really) are too flat for murky skies and flat lighting. I also don't care for Kodak's Portra films outside the studio and you'll find both NC and VC to be rather pathetic under flat skies. NPC is worth a shot being it has substantially more contrast than NPS/Reala and has a bit more color saturation, but I find NPC to be grainy for a 160 speed film and a bit ruddy in the way it renders greens. Konica Impresa has incredible grain, but is realistically much slower than EI 50 and has rather dull color saturation. <P>My favorite, all purpose landscape print films in 120 format are *EASILY* NPZ/NHG. These two films are capable under both sunny/clouds skies and have rich tonality that is neither flat nor over the top. I carried NHG to Scotland and found it to be a superb film for the climate and conditions. I understand that NHG/NPZ are difficult to get ahold of in the U.K., but worth the trouble for mail order.<P>

With digital technology, I think we can consider slide film to be a candidate for printing. When it gets published, its going to be scanned anyway.

Scott Eaton's extreme suggestions about Velvia's pictorial qualities are amusing but unwarranted, and perhaps indicative of too brief an acquaintance with UK weather. Alas, too often the light here is flat and dull, issuing from grey skies; it might be considered "subtle" by some, but too much subtle weather makes you want to cut your throat... When the sun shines brightly, Velvia is often too contrasty (RMS, Astia, and even Provia 400F come into their own) but otherwise it's a wonderful film, with unrivalled saturation & punch combined with a rich & interesting palette producing saleable results. Velvia is the "best" film, i.e. the most striking and rewarding to use, that I've known in over 35 years of photography, and saying goodbye to it will be a downside of digital, for me and many others.

My brother has used Colab and Peak Imaging a lot, and simply

swaps between them depending on whichever has the better

overall price, including postage. Both places are a little less

expensive than typical pro labs, but do excellent clean work, and

are starting to offer digital and hybrid digital/analogue services at

reasonable prices too. I would use them too if postage from

Sweden were not prohibative.

 

I buy my film from Mathers of Lancashire in Bolton

(01204-522186) who are much more reliable than the channel

islands crowd, and have prices which are only higher because

they cannot avoid VAT by splitting orders.

 

NPS actually does nice things to greenery and old stone

buildings on overcast days, but it turns my pale-skinned family

into cooked lobsters, so I avoid it. I tend to use Portra for

landscapes, but I'm a bad boy with no talent and few standards.

"but it turns my pale-skinned family into cooked lobsters"

 

Gotta love that description. It's soo perfect! :-)

 

I find Velvia is best for scenics where tiny grain and color over-saturation is desired. Sunrise/sunset, most ocean shots, flowers, colorful birds, etc. For people I use sensia (ducking the thrown Kodak boxes...) for slide work. Grain is fine enough for 8x10's and colors are more natural.

I just looked thru a portfolio of a friend of mine, that lives and shoots in Sedona AZ. She mixed Agfa 100 and Reala, and both were nice, but I have heard before that Reala doesn't do overcast. The interesting thing about the Agfa shots for me, as I have a Agfa lab around the corner, was the difference when printed on her choice of "Royal" paper. Quite different from the Agfa Prestige prints I have seen that were lower contrast and not as saturated. Remember, the paper is half the equation. Right now I like Kodaks "Edge" paper with Reala when the sun shines... I think Scott's suggestion of NPZ/NHG might be my ticket for a faster film with more shutter speed in limited print size for the lower light conditions. I believe most rate it at an EI of 640.

Well I'd like to thank you all very much for your answers, and I must say I'm not surprised by the wide ranging views there are - however the choices are clear as mud - or the English skies on a mid-summers day in the Yorkshire Dales!

 

I should have made my original posting a but more defined me thinks.

 

(1) I want to take picures to print them - not scan them, nor do I expect to be sold for publication - pure and simple for the thrill of creating something original which I can hang on my walls or give as a gift to someone who may also appreciate it. So I take the general theme therefore is to buy print film for printing. Also I have a prefernece for prints than slides - hence me asking for print film recommendations. I know I'm probably missing out on something by ignoring the obvious quality of Velvia etc, but for the time being, print is where I want to be.

 

(2) the weather in the UK is unpredictable therefore when going out on a shoot I could have clear blue skies in the morning and thick heavy cloud by 9am and for the rest of the day - I have 2 film backs - 1 x 120 & 1 x 220 therefore can load each with a suitable film for both scenarios. Possibly Reala in one and NHG the other?

 

(3) I've done some more research and most of the print films are readily available in the UK - Reala, Konica Impressa, NHG etc., also now got quite a few lab recomendations so will try them out.

 

Anyway, I'll update in a few weeks time when I've shot throught some rolls. Once again, thanks for the help.

 

Reuben Siuda, West Yorshire, England

<p><i>"but it turns my pale-skinned family into cooked lobsters"

</p>

 

<p>Gotta love that description. It's soo perfect! :-) </i></p>

 

<p>Well, maybe not that bad, but not good either. I have a group

portrait of my wife's relations taken in the back garden of one of

those buttery Oxford stone houses. When I adjust the colours so

that the sky, foliage and stone all look good (very good, NPS

would make a nice National Trust film) the people are noticeably

pink. For darker complexions this might be flattering, but on her

family of vampires it looks a bit odd. Not enough to ruin the

image, but enough to make me use other films these days. </p>

 

<p>The general point is to try a few films and see if you like

them, especially if you are using commercial processing and

cannot pick and choose your printing paper. NPS is sold and

used as a portrait film, and many people use it with excellent

results, but for me at least it's not worth having. </p>

 

<p>Digital printing methods make it easy to increase saturation

and contrast, but decreasing them is bad news, both

mathematically and practically. I tend to use low-contrast films

(Astia, Portra) and add drama at the printing stage if and when

the image demands it. </p>

 

<p>Incidentally, if you go hunting for rare orchids on limestone

pavements you will need to tame contrast even on overcast days,

so don't go overboard on the punch even if your tastes are for

more zap. </p>

"Digital printing methods make it easy to increase saturation and contrast, but decreasing them is bad news, both mathematically and practically."

 

Not really - it's very easy to do and you lose surprisingly little. The key is to stay in 48-bit color space: this gives you lots of flexibility with curve adjustments before reducing to 24-bit. Of course you cannot retrieve detail that wasn't there to begin with, but that's a different matter....