I'm ready for some color again... but which film?

[cmonkey]

I've shot so much B&W that I'm ready for a little color. But that's my

question: what film would you recommend for just a little color. It

seems like all the color film out there is so contrasty and saturated

that it's just too much.

 

Are there any films that might help me with a more subtle color with

more shadow detail and less highlight? I shoot 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5.

 

I recently re-read a great book again: "Ansel Adams In Color". I was

taken back by how subtle his tones were, and how long his tonal range.

I can't recall seeing color work this delicate in a long time. Now

days it seems like everyone wants to hit you in the face with deep,

saturated color. I want to play the other way: what can I explore more

subtly? I don't want to use PhotoShop to do it, I want a good straight

print. I just need some help on the right film. My gut reaction says

negative film, but which one? Thanks so much in advance! Cheryl

[scott levine]

Portra 160nc is a low contrast film. Color is accurate and detail is excellent. You want to

make sure it is printed on Kodak Portra paper for the best results.

[rich815]

I'd recommend NPH or Reala.

[robert_martin5]

I think a low contrast film that is used for weddings might do what you want. Kodak Portra 160NC, Fuji NPS, or the new Fujicolor Pro 160S when it is available. Agfa also has low constast color negative film, but I don't know which one.

[scott smitherman]

Print: Portra 400 or 160NC depending on format (larger formats can get away with 400NC)

 

Slide: 35MM-Kodachrome is my choice

larger formats-I have liked EPP for accuracy and detail.

[pics]

For slide film I found Agfa's RSX 50 to have much more subtle colors compared to something like velvia.

[robert lee]

As others have recommended, choose a portrait film. Give Fuji NPH and Fuji NPS a try.

 

Also, why not Photoshop? How is this philosophically different from traditional print stage manipulations.

[Spearhead]

Right, Robert has a good point -

 

<p>

 

<i> I want a good straight print.</i><p>

 

Maybe you've never worked in a lab, a "good straight print" doesn't exist. Good prints come from a good printer knowing how to make the print look good. Not all that different from knowing how to use PS.

[john_shriver]

Agreed, consumer color films are all about MORE color and MORE contrast. The banner on the front of Walgreens drug store claims "Now Brighter Colors" for their one-hour lab. Kodak's consumer films used to be reasonably natural, now they are chasing Fuji in the saturation/contrast contest.

 

Try Kodak Portra 160NC or 400NC, printed on Kodak Portra Endura paper. It will look very natural that way. Printing it on Fuji Crystal Archive will get the colors wrong, and a little too much saturation.

 

Someone mentioned Kodachrome. Kodachrome 64 is very contrasty, you won't get a long scale out of it. Kodachrome 200 is less contrasty, and has a restrained color palette. But it's quite grainy. Also, it's very late in the product life of Kodachrome to get hooked on it, it's doomed.

[larrydressler]

DOOMED DOOMED WE ARE ALL DOOMED. I remember a teacher in 1966 telling us that We would all be driving electric cars by 1980. The only thing that doomed Kodachrome was Kodak.

[steve_swinehart]

"The only thing that doomed Kodachrome was Kodak."

 

No. What doomed Kodachrome was people NOT BUYING IT. I have no sympathy for the Kodachrome fanatics and their fantasies. Having managed two photo stores, I can tell you there were (are) far better selling films than Kodachrome.

 

Photographers doomed Kodachrome not Kodak.

[andrew_sowerby]

Another vote for Fuji portrait film -- but don't use NPZ 800 if you don't like saturated colours.

[chris haake]

Portra NC (160 or 400) or NPS. Reala, Portra VS, et. al. are nice films, but they're probably higher in contrast and saturation that you're asking for (even though they're not highly saturated films).

[r.t. dowling]

If you want low-moderate saturation, low contrast, good shadow detail, etc., your best bet is actually Agfa Portrait 160. It is much more restrained/subtle than the Kodak and Fuji portrait films. Feel free to give the others a try, but it sounds like Agfa 160 is exactly what you're looking for. It doesn't get much more subtle than that.

[bill_tuthill]

The lab is just as important as the film. Above recommendations

of Reala and NPH will not produce what you want if printed

by a Fuji Frontier (too much saturation). I recommend trying

Portra 160NC, Agfa XPS, and Fuji Pro 160S in a Kodak-based lab

to see which you like best. Good luck in your lab search.

Kodak EPN or E200 might work if you have a scanner.

[robert_potts1]

Hyper-sensitive films are more subtle than the flat ones. Pay more attention to the quality of the light and less to the film. Shoot overcast, foggy, or filtered. Don't underexpose. There are creative filters that could help with this. For subtle color use Velvia or Astia. Also,the range of variation obtained in printing from these films is absolutely huge . . . from muted to harsh.

[chris haake]

For subtle color use <i>Velvia</i>? Wow....

[larrydressler]

Answer was Why should I use Kodachrome when I could get My Ektachrome back in 1 day or my Agfa Chrome or my GAF 500? even in the 70's it took a week to get back my Kodachrome. No Kodak killed it not the Photographer. and then into the 80's and 90's the only inprovement was dropping 25 introducing a negative film that they advertised as the Kodachrme of negative film just to drop it .... Remember? Whaat was it called? Ektar?

[sammm]

I'm an NPH/Reala fan myself. You may want to look at the portfolios of people making various suggestions - I expect we each reflect our suggestion in what we use, and that may give you a sense of what we like in the film.

[sammm]

Here are a couple of mine that show what I think NPH is all about:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=438504

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2697947

 

 

NPH gives good skin tones (what it is really made for) and colors that are fairly true - if anything, the colors are a slight bit pastelly. The whites tend to be very clean without being glaring bright. For landscapes, I think the color is much more subtle than most of the options, and gives less of that surreal saturated velvia look.

[sammm]

Sorry, the first one should have been:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1002194