Transparency vs print film

[dennisbarnett]

I shoot both digital and film, and have been an avid photographer for many

years. For film, I've always used slide film exclusively; mostly Velvia and

Provia. I'd like to try print film, but would appreciate any input about what

differences and/or traits I might expect; f/stop difference, contrast, color

fidelity. Thanks for your responses.

[yann1]

For the best quality I've found Fuji Reala to be excellent.

[ilkka_nissila]

Negative film has lower contrast, typically lower saturation, good color accuracy, excellent skin tones, wide dynamic range, and for mild differences in color temperature you don't need to use filters. It often needs more light than transparency film of the same speed. Otherwise shadows may look grainy especially when you make a big print. Velvia and Provia (100) do scan with less grain but since negative film is sharper you can apply some algorithms to reduce the graininess and yet end up with an image which is quite sharp. At 400 speed negative film is better than slide film, but at 100 it is not so clear.

 

I've found that when you view slides by projection some of the color errors are not apparent, but when you scan and print it, you may see them because in a print your eyes don't adapt as much as they do when viewing a projected image in dark surroundings. But ultimately you may need to do color correction on scans either film or digital. I've found I prefer negative film most of the time for people photographs, and slide film for nature. For architecture results seem to be comparable.

 

Negative film is easier to use but if you make a really big print then you may find that the supposed forgivingness for exposure errors is lost if you want the print to be as good as it can be. In a small print you can't tell some problems which occur when printing large (grainy shadows due to underexposure).

[mike_kim]

IMHO migrating from postive to negative (slides to negative films) shouldn't be very difficult. If you've been dealing with chomes, you should be very good at making proper exposures. However, you will definitely going to miss Velvia color-pop when you shoot films (no matter what films you use nothing come close to 3D color pop of Velvia).

 

Overall, negative films are more forgiving and definitely offer wider exposure latitude. Unlike slides, negative films are very forgiving and you can overexpose negative 0.5-1.5 stops to reduce the grains and get more details in shadows or dark cloth like black tux. Try that with the Velvia, you would've wash away all that colors :)

 

In good ol' days, I used to shoot Kodak Ektar 25 (ISO 25), but it has been discountinued. A big loss for Kodak and me since it was my all time favorite. I would recommend following films, Fuji Reala (ISO 100), Kodak UC100/UC400 (ultra color, "saturated" color films), Fuji Pro 160S (good for portrait), Pro 160 C (enhanced color, more saturated than 160S), and Pro 400H (good & accurate colors including skin tones).

[dennisbarnett]

Thanks for your help. If you peruse my gallery, you'll see that most of my photography is with architecture, landscapes, and overall shooting with natural light. I very rarely shoot people (so to speak), so flesh tones aren't important to me. This info might help with your responses.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think some of the films that you might try are Portra 160VC (my current fave), 160NC, and Reala. Since your subjects are still then you don't need the 400 speed. Ultra Color is a nice film but it's not available in 120 so you'll be restricted to 35mm.

[anthony johns]

You will notice more grain with neagative film but you will also notice a wider dynamic range and wider exposure latitude. I would recommend fuji reala 100, kodak gold 100, and kodak hd 400.

[robert lee]

"but would appreciate any input about what differences and/or traits I might expect"

 

If you err on exposure with negatives, err on the side of overexposure. I shoot without meter on some of my cameras: 1/250, f8, and 400ISO negative film pretty much works a half hour inside of dawn to dusk. Note this is about 4 stops over "Sunny 16" in the worst case. No problem.

 

Kodak films are generally warmer than their Fuji counterparts. With exception of the (old?) Kodak MAX consumer films, both companys' color negative products are excellent across the board. I tend to prefer the Kodak palette. Give 160NC a try. Plain, cheap, Kodak Gold 100 is good as well. It's very sharp.

[aaron_muderick]

My experience agrees with Robert Lee. Color negative film accepts overexposure very well. I used 800 speed film in my Holga at a sunny Florida beach because this is all I had on hand. That was definitely pushing the limits of overexposure but it worked acceptably. The very brightest parts of the scene like the sky were blown away but the subjects and buildings looked fine.

 

When I have accidentally underexposed, things get ugly pretty quickly.

[simonpg]

One aspect of negative vs positive film you might like to consider:

 

Bearing in mind the description of characteristics Ikka gave (with which I agree), I ALWAYS use positive film when shooting early morning and late afternoon - I just prefer the results: sharpness, subtlety of tones etc. But when shooting during the day when light is often unkind, I only shoot negative film.

 

My reasoning is to do with these film types' lattitude and contrast characteristics. Every few years I am tempted to break my rule and I always regret the results.

 

Each to his own of course! :)