Does anyone just shoot everything with portrait film?

[drjedsmith]

I was wondering if anyone on here just shoots everything

(landscapes, etc) with portrait film? I particularly like iso 160,

and I was curious if I would be losing much detail over shooting a

100 speed film like Reala. I really like the flash response of

Konica Minolta Professional 160, and it would be nice to have the

option of using a flash and get decent results with whatever film I

have in the camera.<BR><BR>

Jed

[User_502260]

Portrait films tend to be lower in contrast than general purpose films. There are times when the extra contrast is nice to have. For my purposes portrait film would not be the best film for landscape photos. I shot half of a roll of Ektachrome Extra Color slide film at an affair because that's what was in the camera I wanted to use. The clothing looked great but the skin color was too strong. Only one of the people I photographed had a perfect enough complection to look good. The rest of the photos were shot on regular color print film and the skin tomes were much better.

[edgar_njari]

I'm not really someone that you can look up to, but I generally use portra films for any non-casual stuff (stuff that I'm serious about) whenever I'm shooting negative.

But there are some things that scream for positive film, like nature, flowers, landscapes etc.

Usually I use negative for street, people, trains, nightsky (stars) etc and it's usually portra because its such a controlable and "domesticated" film (exept for a little bi "wilder" 160VC).

[werner1]

Jedidiah, when I shoot Landscapes, Besides Reala I also like Kodak Ultra, both 100 and 400. I shoot mainly 110 with a Mamiya RZ which does not give me the same choices as 35mm. If colours are already lush and vibrant I stick with Reala. If the scene is overcast or dull due to seasonal conditions I use Ultra. They are both GREAT film choices with their own strengths.

[ilkka_nissila]

160VC/NC have much larger grain than Reala or Supra 200 (presumably 100UC is great also, although I only today shot my first rolls of it).

Also, the Supra/Ultra Color films have more intense colours which fits landscape photography. If you use large format or medium format, you may find the portrait films fine for landscape work also, as then the grain won't be so much an issue. But in 35 mm, no, don't do it.

[michael_lopez]

Yes. I always use portrait negative film, mainly because I want skin colors right. Also, if I see a landscape in pastel colors (e.g. in fog), that's how I want to record it, rather than punch up the colors.

 

I am not a great photographer, by any means; many people on photo net have far more experience than I. And people have different tastes on color saturation, so my choices are not best for everyone.

 

I turn down the color saturation on color TV's well below the level TVs are displayed in stores, which I consider way too garish. For me, portrait films are ideal. Your tastes may differ.

[john_shriver]

Yes, my general purpose film is Portra 400NC, printed on Kodak Endura. Not "dull" in my book, but very realistic. I am no fan of the "brighter, more vivid colors" competition that Fuji started and Kodak joined in on.

[jbq]

You need to define "portrait film".

 

I've done quite a bit of general shooting with Portra 400UC (when it was still called like that). I've also done a lot with Astia 100.

 

How about giving it a try? At the end of a roll of 160, take a few shots that will be easy to reproduce, rewind, load Reala, and take the same shots again. It'll bring you exactly the answer you're looking for.

[drjedsmith]

Ok, that explains what I didn't know...I suppose I'll probably still shoot some type of ISO 100 (either slide or Reala type negative) for scenery - although I do think the portrait type films record more accurate colors.<BR>

I'll have to do some tests as well, although I'm not sure I have a decent enough scanner to tell the difference<BR>

Thanks,<BR>

Jed

[drjedsmith]

On another note, is NPH pretty much the standard for a quality 400 ISO film? I read a lot about it on here. I tried some NPZ 800 at a graduation in 2004, and really was dissapointed.<BR>

So I shot almost all ISO 100 films last year with no flash. Now I'm slowly getting into flash photography and working back up the ISO scale. Still don't really like to use anything over ISO 160, but I'm sure there are times when I'll have to...

[peter_mcm.]

"...film is cheap but the moment isn't."

 

That is one of the most astute, profound statements concerning photography I've ever heard.

[franka t.l.]

I shoot most everything in Astia-100F which is considered the portrait film in slide, and I have no complain on contrast or color. For neg I usually just shoot Reala. If you do not need or do not like the extra punch in saturation. Then there's no reason why the portrait film will not work for you ..

[jimdesu]

Well, I'm one of those wackos that likes low-contrast landscapes with more "pastel" colors, and I'm more than happy shooting with Portra 160NC. I think the garish, uber-saturated primary-color madness is highly overrated.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Also, the Supra/Ultra Color films have more intense colours which fits landscape photography.</i><P>Incorrect. They have more contrast, which regretfully translates into more color saturation for print film shooters that can't tell the difference.<P>Fuji Astia 100 has more color saturation than the most saturated print film. Given a film scanner I'd much rather shoot trannies for landscapes that 'wedding' film.

[ilkka_nissila]

Scott, you have no credibility in this matter. Yes, ultra color has high contrast, but it has also higher saturation and more of that than would be achieved by increasing contrast alone.

[rainer_nagel]

Hi Jedidiah,

my experience with "Konica 160 Pro" is not soo good:

-does not work well with Zeiss/Contax Planar 1.7/50mm

-does not work well with Yashica Dental Eye II 4.0/100mm

-really reduced punch colors

 

film was stored at room temperature.

Film:

Konica color 160 Professional 135-24

keep cool: 10?C/50?F

process before; 11/2002

 

Flash:

Metz 60Ct4, indirectly, gel filtered 81C

Lab:

Fujilab Switzerland, developed, May 11, 2005

 

=> when 2 1/2y. outdated: gets grainy as hell and a Magenta Cast

=> does not scan well in a Fuji mass lab?

would be nice if you upload a picture

 

(but Kodak 160NC Pro has been my reliable general purpose film for years) My Best, Rainer

[reuben_c]

Bad scan? (Wrong profile?)<div></div>

[rainer_nagel]

Part 2/2

No, just OUTDATED and (unexposed) abused storage (not kept cool for just 4 years).

I had NOT expected such a bad performance in this matter from Konica 160 Pro. (On the other side some film can be TOO fresh as well.)

It shows all sorts of light and dark fading and would require HOURS of recovery and proficiency in Photoshop.

 

I currently do not have any other outdated portrait films experience. (But Fuji NPS 160 did excel at Wilhelm Reasearch in such matters.)

 

Anyway, thread is "Does anyone just shoot everything with portrait film?" => YES

Kodak Portra 400UC and (in Europe/Switzerland new since March 2005) Kodak Elite color 400 Pro (new 400UC) is a nice portrait (caucasian skin tones) ALLROUND film as well in my opinion, as is FUJI NPZ 800 for those out there without tripod and Mirror Lock up or IS.

 

Find enclosed a sample of FRESH (being unfair!) Kodak Elite color 400 Pro (400UC) under same lighting conditions (colors out of the box spot on)<div></div>

[rainer_nagel]

On fresh film I get yellow skin on a contact print as well as on Kodak Endura Supra Professional

Flash: Metz 45ct5 with a yellow gel filter

 

Rainer Nagel<div></div>