Hate relying on Lab for proofs anyone using E6.....

[sam_portera]

I print my own B&W but have to send my color portraits out. I simply

am loosing patience with getting back poorly printed proofs. too

bright or too dark, pink skintones on one roll and yellow on

another, unsharp prints that have to be rescanned.

 

Now that everything is digitally scanned and printed might I do

better with e-6 films. picking those that I would like to have

prints and what sizes I would like. Sometime I might shoot 4 rolls

of 120 but make 10 8x10's of one negative.

 

 

...or recomend a lab to send my c41 work to (I live in New Orleans)?

[philippartridge]

Sam, I would be surprised is you have a better outcome with proofs from trans film, even from say, Astia 100F or E100. You don't say what film/ processor you are describing - this is critical, as is the lab's chemistry QC and professionalism. You just need to find the right combination of film emulsion, processor, paper and lab. For colour portraits, I suggest Portra NC with a Kodak-oriented lab using Endura Supra paper; or the marvellous NPH printed on Crystal Archive off a Frontier. If a lab produces poor quality for you, forget them, and ask around your area for a good recommendation or send out to a good ab in a nearby city.

[john_shriver]

Just keep looking for someone who can do C-41/RA-4 processing right. Expect to pay $25 to $30 a roll for quality processing and 4x6 proof prints.

 

It takes ever MORE skill (at both ends) to get good results from E-6 film, especially if you want prints. E-6 films are contrasty, have narrow exposure latitude, and the mini-lab scanners aren't really designed to scan them well.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would continue to search for a better C-41 lab. E6 is not easy to use on people pictures: you need to control the light better when shooting, and the results are generally quite contrasty. Scanning E6 film produces pictures with less grain and in that sense it is easier but I am not sure if that would be a problem given your 120 film.

 

However, if you want specifically colourful and contrasty results then E6 is the ticket.

[alexis_neel]

In Color II in San Francisco for C-41. The city's best color C-41 pro lab.

 

Tell Eric I sent you.

[karl_lehmann]

If you use E-6 you do have to be more careful with lighting and exposure. On the other hand it simplifies the workflow after exposure and removes a lot of variables, so your results are likely to be more reproducable. Try some Astia 100F, you might be pleasantly surprised.<P>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World Arts</a>

[craig_shearman1]

I use CPQ. They have a web site (cpq.net?) and they're in Tennessee I think. Perfect skin tones every time. No scratches. It's a professional wedding portrait lab. A roll of 36 exposure 35mm with 4x6 proofs is about $30. You really don't want to shoot E-6 for portraits. Color negatives films like Kodak Portra are designed specifically to give good skins tones and produce flattering portraits and are much less contrasty than chrome.

[ilkka_nissila]

Just so that we don't forget, there are gobs of portraits shot by Steve McCurry and Annie Leibowitz on chrome film ... it's doable, it just gives different results. It is art after all, and the sole purpose of a portrait is not to make it seem like the subject had no wrinkles ... (that's what C-41 does ...). -- However, if you do want a traditional flattering and gentle results, negative film is the way to go.

[jan_brittenson]

Get a pro pack of 120 Ektachrome 200 Pro and try it out. It's an absolutely excellent CT film for people, with about two stops more latitude than Astia 100F. Slightly grainy, but no worse than the 160 CN films, and with good shadow (fogging) speed. (So it can be shot at EI 200 vs 100 for 160-speed CN.) If you like CN, then you're going to love this film. Best scanning CT film I've ever used.