greg_allum Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Hey all, Just a quickie...I'm experimenting in the studio, and dont have unlimited money so wanting to find a good film to start with. I like using slide film and want something that is punchy/contrasty. i will be shooting some models (fashion/glamour)...I've been recommended to use Velvia 50 and 100? Can anyone tell me which one is better to use? does the 100 just give you an extra stop?Also is that a good film to start with, there is so much choice? Can anyone recommend a different film? Will velvia be affected by continuous lighting *tungsten?* Also has anyone used Agfa Scala in studios? I use it on location rated at 800 and love it...What will this be like in the studio at 800? Thanks for you help :) Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rafaelsoldi Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I've never shot fashion stuff before but I've heard Fuji Astia gives you the best skin tones, best grain, beautiful colors and it's great for fashion/glamour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_carlton Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Greg, don't try Velvia unless you want skin the colour of raw meat. If it should be E-6 and you want it punchy, try E100GX from Kodak, rated at 80. Regarding tungsten: Naturally, Velvia as a daylight-balanced film will be affected by tungsten light. You will ruin it. If you want to experiment and are not so experienced with studio lighting, you should consider colour negative film like Portra (160NC or VC, rated at 100, or 400UC, rated at 320). They'll forgive some (if not most) of your exposure errors, so you can "save" an image easier in post-production (Photoshop for example). Have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_allum Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 how will the tungtsen lighting affect the velvia film? I was looking at Frank Wartenberg's shots and he uses Velvia...i like that look/contrast/ colours... Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_thornton Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 I'd shoot fuji astia or fuji provia if I were you. Velvia has a tendency to cause poor skin tones with awesome punch...astia provides the best skin tones but less 'punch'...provia is in the middle, good skin tones and good punch. Kodak EPN is a great film as well that provides very nice skin tones and good punch...but if you're just starting in a studio I'd shoot c-41 print film - Fuji NPS or Kodak Portra 160VC. Just my opinion. Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh_thornton Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 If you must shoot slide film you'll have to purchase tungsten balanced film. If you're shooting print film (c-41) you can remove the extra warmth when printing. Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowland_mowrey Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 You should not use a daylight balance negative film with no filtration under tungsten light. It cannot be properly compensated for in printing. You should use the appropriate filter over the lens, or use a tungsten balanced negative film. This is a common misconception. Don't try it! This is why the CU Kodacolor family of fims failed years ago. It was a negative film family intended for either daylight or tungsten. The results were not very good. Ron Mowrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Well, yes and no. You 'can' compensate for (some) tungsten cast with print film, but you're still better off using a blue correction filter vs relying on some monkey at the lab to use the right channel offset. I learned with handling large volumes of wedding work that properly exposed print film can take about a 1500-2000K compensation in printing before you start incurring crossover in the shadows. You can get some more correction lattitude by over exposure, but it runs contrary to shooting habits. Usually when shooting under tungsten you don't have the flexibility of shooting your film at +1 over exposure. Scanning gives you a lot more lattitude. During ceremony shots and optical printing I assured my clients if they gave me at least 1/2 stop of over exposure with a good print film, I could give them a good density, neutral blacks, and 'warm' but not overly orange mid tones. Usuallly 30-40CC would do it. Under exposure with print films drastically limited my ability to make corrections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Velvia to Scala. At least you've narrowed down your choices a bit. Velvia produces excellent flesh tones - for holiday basted turkeys and suckling hams on spits extending from their snout to their nether regions. I've heard some folks claim they can get good skin tones on human beings with careful lighting. Mebbe. Sounds to me like trying to shoot rats indoors with a .45 ACP when a mousetrap will do the trick. Among the slide films I hear Fuji has just improved the already excellent Astia. Look for Astia 100F - if I'm recalling correctly the "F" designates the new stuff. And I seem to recall some folks being satisfied with Kodak EPP and EPN. One Japanese fashion photographer whose style I greatly admired (Masahiko Nakagawa, if I haven't butchered his name too badly) preferred these as substitutes for his favorite EES after than film was discontinued. His models were typical lit with soft, pastel shades. The color and contrast seemed accurate yet rich and vibrant. I'm sure much of it was due to skillful lighting and an intimate relationship with his darkroom technicians. Finally, in my admittedly biased opinion, assuming you can get your hands on such equipment, you're better off renting a pair of monolights for a day or weekend than spending approximately the same money on tungsten or halogen hot lights from most sources, especially the cheaper SV and SP models. The Lowels look okay but there you're getting within the price range of at least one decent monolight, which also gives you a modeling light to practice with. Monolights or or studio flash will pretty much eliminate any problems with color temperature balance. You can usually use any ordinary daylight film and as long as it's not out of whack and the flash tube is in good shape the results should be fine. Getting tungsten lamps and tungsten films to agree is like brokering a peace between too many toddlers and not enough toys. Unless you get lucky, get valid information or study hard, you'll end up with color castes. Correction filters can help but you'll need to know which. And as hot lamps age their color temperature changes. I'd stick with using 'em only for b&w. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nazzina_mohsin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I once took some portrait pictures with Velvia. Dark skin people look quite nice with Velvia as if their skin is glowing... sort of sun ray falling on them. But pale skin people looked awful. Totally yellowish or orangish. I think for pale skin, Fuji Reala is good. Nazzina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_carlton Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Greg, regarding my previous post: I was under the impression that you were asking about tungsten lights just out of interest. Now that it seems that you are going to shoot with tungsten, I would advise you to use either a tungsten-balanced film like Ektachrome 100T, or gel your lights with at least a 1/2 or 1/1 CTB, or put a filter in front of your lens to filter out the orange cast. Be aware though that with gelling or filtering you lose (depending on the amount of filtering) 1 to 3 stops. Hope this helps. FWIW, avoid Velvia with tungsten at any circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_allum Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 hey thanks all for your answers... :) Much appreciated... One more one, apart from grain...as i'm not blowing up the pics bigger than a4... Is there any difference between provia 400 and 100... If i buy 400, ill be able to use it outdoors...push it to 800 etc... Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_redmann Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 <I>trying to shoot rats indoors with a .45 ACP</I><P> Lex, you need to try the CCI .45 shotshells, you know, the ones with the translucent blue plastic capsules holding #9 shot (or is it #11, like the .22 version?). :-O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Dave, I've tried those shells. They worked better on wasps than on mice and rats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 <I>One more one, apart from grain...as i'm not blowing up the pics bigger than a4</i><P>If you're making prints why are you screwing around with slide film in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_allum Posted November 4, 2004 Author Share Posted November 4, 2004 I print digitally, so scan them on etc... and the colours/saturation from slide film are amazing. Also a lot of my work is sent out to people for magazine work, music promo shots, fashion styled...I just found slides have more punch. Am i completely misguided here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 If the people you send your work to want slides and the prepress is set up for it then, obviously, that is what you should use. For your own personal needs, if you want prints then use print film. There have been a number of threads on, which is easier to scan, negatives or slides. Opinions vary on that. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 If you're scanning and having good luck with trannies, then stick with slides I say. It's the "I want to shoot slides to see the pretty colors" posts we get and then listening to somebody gripe they can't get good prints from a local lab that I'm tired of hearing. That's not the issue here. Scala is in my opinion *irrelevant* if you have a scanner. Desaturated color slide film has more flexibility, more lattitude, and better grain. Kodak E100G is a mandatory try for studio work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack_carlton Posted November 4, 2004 Share Posted November 4, 2004 "Kodak E100G is a mandatory try for studio work." What Scott says. And -- I might add -- if you want it punchy, try E100GX (see my post above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now