Your 120 film of choice

<p>Hi there,<br /> <br /> I realise film choice is based on personal preference and varies upon the context in which it is used.<br /> <br /> Despite this, I'd like to hear your opinions.<br /> <br /> I'm looking to buy a 120 colour negative film, to be used outside. The lighting is therefore not controlled, ISO160 or 400 is preferred. <br /> <br /> I've heard Kodak can be sharper, is this true?<br /> What is the difference in colour, contrast and tonal range?<br /> <br /> Any help you can offer is kindly appreciated.<br /> <br /> (PS. I realise the best solution would be to experiment with a range and discover what suits me best, however, I'm going away next week and intend to shoot a lot, I have also only recently purchased my medium format camera and have therefore not had much time/will not have a lot of time to do this)<br /> <br /> Thanks greatly!<br /> <br /> Helen</p>

<p>Read some of the recent posts regarding color film. In particular, read up on Kodak's Ektar and Portra films. Personally, I prefer Portra VC 160. Sometimes I use Fuji Reala as well. But do read up when you have a chance. Some posts also have some examples as well. A further note on the Portra films: most people report that they scan very well. I've found that to be true in my experience. If the 160 VC or Ektar 100 isn't fast enough, there's Portra VC 400 as well.</p>

<p>That's great, I've actually been reading up quite a lot, but the more I read the more I find myself straining over the decision of which one to choose.<br /><br />I do intend to scan in these negs, so that is very helpful. I'm also feeling quite taken by the sound of Portra 400. I'd like to get myself some 160 too though, and the Portra 160 seems to specify that it's ideal for situations in which the lighting is controlled, would you agree with this?</p>

<p>What do you want to photograph? People, things, landscapes?</p>

<p>Helen, Mike may have had a better experience with 160VC than I did. I found VC to be a bit more heavily saturated than 160NC which is my preferred colour neg. film. Try a roll of each for yourself on similar, or if possible, the same subject matter & see which one you prefer. I think the success of either depends largely on one's work process from exposure to final print or screen image. With 120 film and moderate enlargements I doubt you'll find the 400 speed film much different from the 160 stuff. I wouldn't use it unless I really needed that 1 1\3 extra stops of speed, then by all means, have no fear. Even the 800 speed is great. And, as Andy said, a lot depends on your subject matter. Best, LM.</p>

<p>The Portra 400 speed films (old 400NC and 400VC, current 400) have natural contrast. The Portra 160 speed films (old 160NC and 160VC, just announced 160) have lower than natural contrast (through a normal workflow), as they are designed to maintain detail in the groom's black tuxedo and bride's white dress. So the 160 films can look a bit flat, but it's just a matter of deciding what part of the enormous dynamic range to keep when printing, and what to "lose" by crushing the extremes.<br>

I've been a fan of 400NC for years, I think it produces wonderfully natural results. I've heard good things about the new Portra 400, but haven't shot any rolls myself.<br>

There is no question that Kodak is now the "technology leader" in C-41 "portrait" films, they are now two technology generations ahead of Fuji, who has discontinued most of their competing films. Only Fuji 400H is still in production. (Shame about Fuji 800Z, it was a very interesting film.) The C-41 portrait film market battle is over, Kodak has won.<br>

If you want high saturation and high contrast, the one other choice is Kodak Ektar 100. Sharp as nails, but almost as fussy about accurate exposure as E-6 slide film. The resulting images aren't "reality", but they can be very useful for artistic purposes.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Try the new Portra 400, to paraphrase Tony the Tiger, It's Great. :)</p>

 

"Your 120 film of choice"

 

Reala

Thanks everyone, this is really helpful. I've only put a couple of rolls through my camera, but I've been using fujipro 160, I've felt my

images have been a little flat, perhaps my fault or perhaps it's the issue mentioned above of the film being of low contrast.

 

Maybe I'll give the portra 400 NC a go and leave 160 for now.

 

Are the colours in VC far too vivid?

 

 

@Andy L - I tend to photograph 'things'

<p>I like the Fuji Pro 160 S. It has a slightly lower contrast and saturation than some and that is a <strong>plus</strong> if you are scanning the film as opposed to optical printing. Contrast and saturation can be adjusted later to taste. I rate mine at ISO 125 and the negs look great with super fine grain. I haven't tried the new Kodak Portra 400 yet but that also looks promising. The current Portra 400NC is another good lower contrast, lower saturation film that is ideal for scanning. I does require that you have good facility with your scanner software so you can push the scan toward the desired results, if you scan yourself, or image editing tools if get outside scans.</p>

<p>It's best to limit your choices in negative film. Scanning is difficult until you learn how a particular film behaves. For landscapes, I prefer Reala, and for portraits and interiors, NPH 400 works well. I've used Pro 160C and 160S. They're not as fine-grained as Reala, but grain is barely visible in 120 until you get above 16x20" or ISO 400. (I'm not sure Reala is still available.)</p>

<p>I pick Fuji over Kodak for one reason - Fuji is always available in the type and quantity I need, and has been consistent over the years. Kodak seems to change their formulation every 2 years or so, and availability is spotty. I like Kodak Ektar 100 for landscapes, but we'll see about it's longevity with Kodak.</p>

<p>I think the newer Kodak films have longevity. They're consolidating everything to have overlap between the still and movie films. Take a look at the new Portra 400 (no letters) - it's a bit more reasonable on the colors than Ektar, but scans well enough that you can jack them up as needed.</p>

Edward: I'm not sure Reala is still available.

 

There was a panic sometime last year about it going out of production. It is still available in the usual places.

<p>Plus-x and hand color.</p>

<p>Print film of choice...</p>

<p>Reala...Fuji </p>

<p>Ektar 100...Kodak (ugh)</p>

@ArtThomas why do you not like ektar?

<p>**"@ArtThomas why do you not like ektar?"**</p>

<p>Love Ektar 100. Dislike Kodak and what its upper management has done to the company, its product line and its working employees. </p>

<p>Another question, If I were to go for a mix of films, such as kodak portra 400 and fuji reala 100, does reala scan well? I've read it can be noisy</p>

<p>Why not try 2 or 3 different films and decide yourself. Its not like you are going to hurt yourself by trying new films. </p>

<p>**"..... does reala scan well? I've read it can be noisy."** </p>

<p>I've found it can be noisy/grainy too in my Nikon film scanners (IV ED and 5000. On the other hand, it prints GREAT through a glass enlarger lens. </p>

<p>You mean grainy? Neither of those films are grainy. Proper exposure will keep the scans from coming out noisy, just make sure to meter at the ISO of the film you're using, and if you use software that lets you do any sort of calibration do it separately for both films.</p>

<p>You know, I'm sure I read that Reala was discontinued more than once (at one point last year there was what was supposed to be an official notice of discontinuation and I stocked up) and I was convinced that it was discontinued in 120 a long time ago, but it's for sale everywhere and B&H has it from the US distributor for $3.49, which is a heck of a deal.</p>

<p>Fuji Provia 100 F and Fuji Astia. Scans are excellent. </p>

<p>Still have to try the new Kodak Portra negative films, but I think the grain is larger.</p>

<p ><a name="00YLS1"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4802905">Andy L</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 06, 2011; 07:46 p.m. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >"You mean grainy? Neither of those films are grainy." </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But...Reala scans (at least through Nikon scanners) look grainy. They print through glass pretty well. Perhaps it is the scanner's reaction to the dye clumps? </p>

<p>I can see the grain in 3200 PPI scans at 100%, but it's fine grain so I don't consider it "grainy".</p>

<p>Oops! I forgot to mention earlier that the early runs of Reala were formulated differently and I thought made better prints than the current run. It is of no consequence to you because it is all gone. </p>