Film Suggestions for 2 areas.

[jay_huse]

Well, I am looking for what some folks would consider the best film for family shots no flash and with

flash ??

 

I am looking for realistic skin tones. I have a small studio and mostly shooting digital but wanted to try my

hand at film

 

I also wanted a film that allows me to shoot without flash in open light. I wanted it to have a higher

dynamic range but also maintain skin tones with nice punchy colors.

 

Basically i want an ad hock street shooting film.

 

Could you give me a break down for the type of film you use and the reasons ?

 

 

THanks

 

jay

[john_shriver]

You can't go wrong with either the Kodak Porta family (160NC, 160VC, 400NC, 400VC, 800) or the Fuji Professional family (160C, 160S, 400H, 800Z). These are the "portrait" films with realistic skin tones.

 

Note that punchy colors and natural skin tones are almost mutually exclusive. But it sounds like you would prefer the VC (Vivid Color) versions of the Portra films.

 

The consumer (supermarket/drugstore) films are all about high contrast and high color saturation. Kodak probably is still better at this game while maintaining decent skin tones.

[bgelfand]

Portra is good, but for mixed flash and natural light with good color, I prefer Kodak Ultra Color 100UC. It reproduces skin color well. It also scans nicely.

[michaelchristensen]

Good answer above. Personally, I like the warmth of the Kodak Portra family. Light, the color of light is everything and all films perform well when used accordingly. I love people shots with Reala w/flash. Having done a lot of digital lately, there are many times I wish I would have shot a simple roll of film and forgone the digital workflow and trying to make it look like film.

 

The best information you'll get is from the Kodak website on each of these films. Best results will be where you control the light either in studio or out of studio.

 

I'm a lesser fan of the Fuji portrait films as they seem to be cooler, blueish-green on skin tones .. probably my mistake on the few times I have used them .. usually working the light issues gives of course better results.

 

I wish more wedding photographers here on photo.net would use film as I see some quality issues with digital work .. albeit slight, I tend to really appreciate a well-done film shot. This has nothing to do with composition and technique, but I really admire those who take the time to work the film. While digital is close in many respects, and notwithstanding the flexibility of saving the shot and adjusting exposure errors .. which is why digital seems to be so popular .. I must concede that film appears more real to me on many levels. As I write this I'm looking at a snapshot I took of a 9 year old girl in her white gown while attending a wedding, taken with black & white film ... with that old Canon F1N .. simple camera, inexpensive roll of film, and processed at my lab with no post processing - straight from the machine .. didn't use the histogram, didn't blow out the highlight, didn't have to tweak the ISO .. didn't have to take a shot-gun blast of shots to post process. Magical.

 

Now, I'm off to working with my D200 and refusing to let the digital workflow beat me! Maybe I should have bought the Fuji S2,3, or 5. I want real skin tones with jaw dropping compositions.

 

Kodak Portra is a wonderful film. I've used under all conditions and find it still works for my taste. Not as punchy and contrasty as Reala ..

[benny_spinoza]

Michael...just a short comment. It is actually "hard" to get a wrong exposure for film. Underexposure by one stop doesn't hurt much, and over exposure by 2 stops is hardly noticeable. Digital images have less exposure latitude than film, so it is useful to refer to the digital camera's histogram. But with film such as Kodak Portra and a decent light meter, either handheld or built-in the camera, one almost has to work at getting a poorly exposed image.

[eddy_d]

Hello. I used the fuji 160s this past summer. I photographed a model with it outdoors. I was using ttl metering and hand held and a reflector. It was my only time using this film. I shot it at 200 and opened a stop as I always do. I did not get punchy colors with it but neutral skin tones. Was I happy with the results and would I use it again? Absolutely.

[benny_spinoza]

Michael...just a short comment. It is actually "hard" to expose film so that it doesn't print well. Underexposure by one stop doesn't hurt much, and over exposure by 2 stops is hardly noticeable. Digital images have less exposure latitude than film, so it is useful to refer to the digital camera's histogram. But with film such as Kodak Portra and a decent light meter, either handheld or built-in the camera, one almost has to work at getting a negative that doesn't print well.

[photography by a.f. smith]

I'm gonna throw my vote in for the fuji pro family rather than the Porta films. Its a matter of personal preference though.

[anthony johns]

try kodak hd400

ans as always, you can't go wrong with having some kodak gold 100 or fuji reala 100 on hand