Which print film has the lowest contrast?

[fju]

Including B&W.

[larrydressler]

Contrast is subjective with B&W it depends on how you process it.

[dweezil]

In colour fuji reala is pretty smooth

almost pastel like:

[Mike Gammill]

Slow films (not all) have a tendancy to have more contrast than fast films. Ilford Pan F+ is the most constrasty film that I use and I keep the contrast manageable by using Diafine. Rating films at a lower E.I. and reducing development may give you what you are looking for. Check the archives and read up on some other posters experiences. If you don't do your own processing, maybe try on of the C-41 black & white films and expose a test roll using E.I.'s from 25 to 400 or whatever range interests you and see what results you get.

[robert lee]

For color negatives, the neutral palette portraits films will have the lowest contrast. For even lower contrast, overexpose by 1 or 2 stops.

 

For B&W, choose a main stream film then expose generously as above and reduce development by 20% or so.

[r.t. dowling]

Portra 160NC certainly has lower contrast than Reala, no question about it.

 

Even lower would be the old Agfa 160 portrait film, if you can find a roll...

[bobmichaels]

I would bet that any of the traditional iso 400 b&w films (Neopan 400, HP5, or Tri-X) exposed at an e.i. of 50 or 100 with the development pulled 40-50% would give you such a low contrast neg that it would be very difficult to print. Using a slow acting developer would accentuate the situation.

 

But why would you want the lowest contrast developer? Photography is a series of multiple compromises where none of the extremes in any attribute seems to work.

[arjun_mehra]

With black-and-white, it can be a bit more difficult to say which film has the lowest contrast, as how contrastful an image turns out depends on choice of developer, length of development, and method of printing. I will say, Pan F + seems to have quite a bit of inherent contrast, compared with most other films.

 

With color (negative), I've heard Kodak's Portra NC line (160NC and 400NC) has rather low contrast. Here, printing and developing are less of a concern — more true now than in the past. Hell, one can't even get Portra paper anymore (at least not in sheets); all that's left is Supra.

[profhlynnjones]

When properly exposed and developed, b/w and color negs all have the same GBar, .50 to .55. Certain col print films such as Fujicolor 200 have better than average mid tone separation but by definition the contrast is the same. Thats the reason that we choose films for certain characteristics.

 

Lynn

[john_shriver]

Portra 160NC certainly wins in the C-41 market. Enormous dynamic range, pictures can look a bit dull. Very natural levels of color saturation. 400NC has the same low saturation, but more normal contrast.

[arjun_mehra]

John, as contrast (for my liking, at least) often becomes a problem in long exposures, I wonder if 160NC is suited for this application. Have you any experience, there? Thanks.