Not Wanting to start a war, but....

[deaner66]

For portrait photography, using slide film, is there a noticeable difference

between the pro and consumer film? For example, my Porters catalog has

Fujichrome Sensia ISO 100 36 exp for nearly four dollars cheaper than the

Fujichrome Velvia ISO 100 36 exp.

 

For all practical purposes, is the money worth it? Is it a noticeable difference?

 

Thanks.

[brucecahn]

Haven't used Velvia for years, but unless it has changed it is the wrong film for portraits. Too saturated and sharp.

[bobmichaels]

Well, Velvia and Astia are different. Neither is better than the other, they are simply different emulsions for different purposes. Their cost is in the same ballpark.

 

Now I said Astia, not the Sensia you asked about. Sensia is the "consumer" version of Astia in 35mm. There is a price differential of several dollars but the two emulsions always seem identical to me.

 

Learn what works best for you while never assuming something that is more expensive will work better.

[deaner66]

What about Kodak?

[ilkka_nissila]

Elite 100 is an excellent film so again you might as well save money over E100G/GX. IMO Elite 100 is better than the pro variants ...

 

But Astia is the best slide film for portraits. Don't even consider Velvia, totally unsuitable for the task IMO.

[fullmetalphotograper]

Color film in a sense is like fruit. Film will color shift (ripen) as time goes on. Consumer film

is sold with expectations that will sit in a camera bag or in camera for a prolong time before

processing. So you might say consumer film is like a green fruit waiting to ripen. Pro film is

sold at its peak (ripe). Film companies plan on fast turn around time from purchase to use, to

development. So pro films sold at their peak of color rendition. Like fruit film should be

refrigerated to slow the ripening process. If your camera store is not refrigerating their pro

film do not buy it. As for a difference, pro film will tend to be more consistent results in term

of color, with a good lab.

[sumo_kun]

Well, as mentioned, Sensia is not a pro film and so will cost less. Sensia and Velvia are two completely different films so you can't really compare them directly. Pick the one that fits the job at hand.

 

As for the people that say Velvia is not for portraits, yes, its saturated and maybe not the best suited to the traditional style portrait but I am sure there is someone out there that can make use of Velvia for his/her unique portrait style. I think it's wrong to judge a film's use from what it was designed for. Use any film you want as long as it gives the results you want. Pro/consumer, who cares? This is an art after all and there are no real rules.

[frank.schifano]

I actually like Sensia, even though the occassions I use it are rare indeed. I'm cheap and won't kick for the extra cost of Astia. I tried that film a few times and it looked an awful lot like Sensia to me. It's already been mentioned here that Velvia is absolutely the wrong film to use for portraits. Unless you want an over saturated, almost cartoonish color palette.

 

I am always curious to know why folks like to use transparency films for portraits though. Seems like the wrong tool for the job for me. Portraits means prints, not projections; and the best films for producing prints are negative films. Kodak's Porta NC films are excellent for this application. They print and scan beautifully and are very forgiving. Can't say that for any transparency film.

[fullmetalphotograper]

Frank, It depends on the final results and usage.

If I am shooting for a publication slide is a very good choice it is faster to edit, when talking hundreds of images and has great reproduction. If I am shooting portraits for standard printing and framing I would go to print film, but I want rich saturated images I would use slide. If I want strong skin tones or reds and blues to pop then without a doubt slide. If you want some really red lips slide is hard to beat. The big trick with slide is to remember what your latitude range is. You have to be more careful about your exposure and lighting, but that is not a bad thing through. Two companies that I know of that still use slide for portraits is Playboy and SI, I should mention that digital is now the majority of their image captures. Of course I still like Kodachrome 64, and Sensia 100.

[deaner66]

Obviously, I'm an amateur. I'm starting to take strobist style portraits, and was under the assumption that color transparencies would blow up sharper than print film.

 

I just want sharp negatives that get to 8x10 and 11x14 size with high quality prints. I want people to WANT reprints.

 

If that means film instead of slides, I'm all for it. I just wasn't sure.

[drjedsmith]

Hi Steve. Much has already been said. However...you can get very good portraits on slide film, just not usually Velvia. Although, outdoors under the right lighting, even portraits shot with Velvia can look pretty cool.<BR><BR>

I would buy your film from B&H...they have the highest turn over rate of any store, which means fresher film for you. Purchase Astia for most people, or Provia if you want a little extra punch with a perfect model. If you don't have a lot of money, Sensia will do just fine.<BR><BR>

There are a lot of arguments for negatives if you're doing prints, but two things slides do better:<BR>

1. You learn faster, because you see exactly what you shot, not the printer's interpretation of your negative.<BR>

2. If you're scanning, editing in photoshop and printing digitally, a slide will usually scan faster, easier, and with less grain.<BR><BR>

Jed