Fuji NPH/NPC/NPS and Porta 160NC for Dark Skins

[sravan]

I have read quite a few posts going back to two years but i havent

seen a comparision of the above films in use with dark skinned

people.

 

I normally shoot indian families and find that the young children

(Below three years) fall into the standard skin color mold that is

so often discussed on these forums, but the elders are more often

darker with some people being real dark (Or coal black in some

instances)

 

I need to know which film will be better suited to pictures with

both skin tones in the same picture - Granparents and grand children

in the same picture is a must in this line of work!

 

Which Film would be best in capturing the details for dark skins and

maybe giving a bronze glow which most of my customers like.

 

Just so you know, for the individual pictures of the dark skinned

people i prefer to use dark backgrounds, so that the contrast in the

picture is not too high and i can get some detial in the face

without losing the background completely.

 

With mixed subjects i tend to use white background.

 

Please feel free to give any advice and not just about the film.

 

Btw i cant afford to test a lot because i am starting out and get

maybe one shoot a month. So I need to figure this out with the help

of you folks out there doing the work!

[michael_benveniste]

Sometimes, I think I'm one of the only defenders of Fuji NPC, but I slightly prefer it to NPS for darker skintones. But if you're worried about too much contrast, take a pass and go one of your other choices first. If you prefer a film with restrainted saturation, consider Agfa 160 as well.

 

In the end, it always comes down to the subjective opinion of you and your customers. There's no single correct formula, only results. While testing does cost money, a single unsatisfied customer can cost you far more.

 

You don't need to test "a lot," but you should try at least one roll of each. Shoot under the lighting conditions where you think you might use the film, and get it processed where you intend to get your "real" shots processed. My local lab does a better job with Fuji, but you might very well find the opposite is true. If you've got a few shots left on the test roll, try rating the 160 speed films at 125 or 100, and the NPH at 320 or 250.

[steve_levine]

Outdoors with fill flash,Id suggest NC160.Indoors with flash,NC400 or NPH.The general feeling here about NPC,is to avoid using it for any pictures of people.IMHO,the skin tones and contrast,even with fill flash,are not what Im looking for in a people film.

[jeff_drew4]

Sometimes one has to "plunge-in" and swim! I don't use Fuji negative films, and have no comments about them. OTOH: I have used Kodak Portra 160NC & VC and Agfa Portrait160. Agfa 160 has a neutral pallette, relatively accurate and "unsaturated look" about it. It can be somewhat grainy compared to newer films, but for people pix, a little grain can be complementary. I still shoot it in rollfilm as I have a couple "50-packs" in my freezer. I like its consistency over the decades. My wedding choices are usually Kodak Portra channel and 160NC is a neutral & sharp choice that works well in many venues. It gives crispy whites and solid blacks. It's always a good choice for people pix & skin color accuracy - assuming your processor/printer also uses the Kodak Portra channel. IF YOU WANT to add the clothing and surroundings' colors to your equation, you should try Kodak Portra UC ("Ultra-color"). I have always appreciated the colors people wear! Portra UC can do skin accurately, AND really "punch-up" the other colors - assuming normal printing etc. Others on this forum have reported before that Fujifilms look better on Fuji paper and Kodak films look better on Kodak paper. Eventually, my Agfa will be gone and Portra will fill my freezer.

[bill_tuthill]

I find Portra 160NC better than the other films you mention for

dark skin tones. Agfa XPS 160 is grainier despite its official 3.5

RMS rating. Portra 400NC has nice tonality but is grainer than 160NC.

But did you know Kodak has formulated a film specifically for

Asian-Indian skin tones, <A HREF="http://wwwin.kodak.com/IN/images/en/corp/img/products/films/Kodak_Ultima_Lflt_V1.12.pdf">Ultima 100</A>? However I don't know if

you'll be able to purchase it.

[scott_eaton]

Once again, it's assumed that lab printing never has anything to do with portrait quality.

 

Try NPH or Portra NC for starters.

[sravan]

Thanks for the responses. Bill, maybe i can import Kodak ultima 100 from india when i go there this september! But i have a suspicious feeling that the film is for weddings where even the dark skiinned ones put enough makeup to become miraculously fair skinned! The ones where you wonder who the girl in the photo is when u look at an album!

Michael, I am worried about contrast. Both in the colors of the total scene and the final negative. The reason is with really dark people it is very difficult to get the detail in the skin. I more easily get glare from the skin than the detail in the skin.

As for testing i am limited by subject - A bachelor guy whose friends dont want to pose finds the going real tough as i dont currently own a studio where people come for photos! I am being forced to experiment with the few customers i get and then i dont want to lose them!

Scott, Printing is the final element. If i dont get a good negative, making good print is that much more difficult. And I am not going to those mom and pop 1 hours Labs for printing either!

[scott_eaton]

All the more important to use good standard portrait film like NPH or Portra NC and stop worrying about conditions beyond your control.

 

If you want a bit more saturation than use Portra UC 400.

[ted_kostek]

Based on reading I've done recently, lighting is the real key here, with film being somewhat secondary. For example by using a some side lighting you can bring some extra definition to the shapes of the people's faces and fill in some shadows. I don't mean to use only side lighting, but to get a little extra light from the side in addition to your main light source.

 

You said your budget is pretty low, so I assume you won't be buying any lights for a studio. You might be able to make good use of a big pieces of white cardboard or foam board. At a local craft store I can get sheets of that for about the cost of a roll of pro grade slide film. Prop it up on the side or have an assistant hold it, and some light will bounce onto the sides of people's faces. Maybe one on each side. You'll need to experiment. Hopefully, it will be enough to bring more definition to the faces.

 

I've messed around a bit with some little still lifes, and I've found that I can add almost a stop to the shadows using this technique. In your case, however, you might not be able to get the reflector quite close enough for such a pronounced effect.

 

You can get a bit of golden glow by painting with some gold colored paint or foil.

 

There are also professional reflectors designed for exactly this purpose.

[helenbach]

I agree with Ted's conclusion about the importance of lighting. I tend towards slightly amber lighting (such as the oddly named 'Medium Bastard Amber' lighting gels) for darker skins. As well as using gels, I also play around with spray-painted white cards for bouncing light. Rather than spray the whole card with one even colour, I mix a few golden - bronze - amber sort of colours in a patchy fashion.

 

Best, Helen