Lazy slide shooter thinking about switching to negatives(?)

[runswithsizzers]

<p>Please advise: What color negative film would be the most appealing to a longtime 35mm slide shooter for travel/landscapes - if the goal is to gain wider exposure latitude in harsh lighting, while preserving as much color and "pop" as possible? </p>

<p>After much searching in these forums and others, I've narrowed my list of potential negative films to the following - which I plan to test side-by-side with my regular slide films before deciding what to take to the harshly lit canyons of Utah in May:</p>

 

<ul>

<li >Kodak Ektar 100</li>

<li >Fuji (Superia) Reala 100</li>

<li >Fujifilm Pro 160C</li>

<li >Kodak Portra-160VC</li>

<li >Kodak Portra 400VC</li>

<li >Fuji Pro 400H</li>

</ul>

<p>Is there something here that doesn't belong, or something missing that I should try?</p>

<p>When shooting slides I generally keep one body loaded with ISO 100 film for the majority of my shots, but also having some "fast" slide film (ISO 200 or 400) in a second body for low sight stuff inside museums, night street scenes, etc. I was considering a similar strategy for negatives. Would ISO 800 be pushing my luck for negative film?</p>

<p>Background</p>

<p>I've been shooting mostly slides since the early 1970s - Kodachrome then, and more recently Ektachromes and Fujichromes. Mostly travel and landscapes. <br>

http://garywright.smugmug.com/<br>

I generally scan my slides at home, with no particular problems, except for Kodachromes which don't work very good with my infrared dust reduction on my film scanner.</p>

<p>I've had pretty good luck getting the shot I want with transparencies exposed in the midwestern/southern United States, Canada and Europe, but I've had some problems with exposure under harsh lighting in the deserts and mountains of the southwestern US - Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. More underexposed frames than I'd like, but also some shots with blown out highlights.</p>

<p>I'm a bit lazy about carrying the tripod - so I'm constantly struggling with the low shutter speeds that come with ISO 100 slide films. I'm also getting lazy about setting up the slide projector - which needs repairs. Since most of my "slide shows" are now DVDs played back on the TV, I'm starting to question if slides are worth the frustration for me.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

-gw</p>

<ul>

</ul>

 

[tim gray]

<p>I can't say that I shoot in the same situations as you do or have the same tastes (not much of a slide shooter), but the Kodak pro films are nice. Fuji's films are in a bit of a shakeup right now and I'm not sure which ones are sticking around. I think 400H is at the very least. </p>

<p>Ektar has good saturation and a more limited dynamic range compared to the others. The Portras are great. The NC series has the best dynamic range, but the VC isn't far behind. Depending on your tastes on saturation, I might pick one of Ektar 100, Portra 160VC, and Portra 160NC. Then get a 400NC or 400VC. Lastly, Portra 800 is great too. If you don't shoot that much 400 speed stuff, maybe pick a slow speed film (100 or 160) and a faster one (400 or 800) and skip carrying all three.</p>

<p>I know people love Ektar, and it's great stuff, but I think my go to set would be 160VC and 400NC, plus a couple rolls of 800 just in case. I shoot more people though than carefully composed landscapes, so the handling of skin tones of the Portra stuff is nice.</p>

<p>It really depends on your tastes with respect to grain and saturation though. Looking at some of your photos, I might say Ektar 100 and Portra 400VC might make a good pair.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've still not shot my test roll of Ektra, but so far the sharpest color negative I've found, unfortunately, is Indian-made Fuji ProPlus 100 film. The images were very crisp and reminded me even of my beloved Kodachrome II and 25.</p>

<p>It's widely available in the Indian sub-continent, but the ISO 100 Fujicolor I have found in the USA is by no means the same film, unfortunately, although there's nothing objectionable about it.</p><div></div>

[runswithsizzers]

<p>Les, thanks for the advice.</p>

<p>I've shot some Provia 400, but not the Sensia - is this a pro-vs-consumer relationship, or is the Sensia 400 significantly different from Provia 400?</p>

<p>Having just learned Reala is probably/possibly being discontinued soon(?), I'm not even going to try it. What is it you don't like about PortraVC?</p>

<p>My scanner is an old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900 (VueScan). I've been pretty happy with it on properly exposed slides and negatives, but under-exposed slides are a pain. Multiple sampling helps keep the noise down in the dark areas, but I spend quite a bit of time in Photoshop trying to tease details out of the shadows. Obviously correct exposure is the key - which is what started me thinking about negatives vs slides.</p>

<p>When you suggest I "do away" with harsh lighting, I assume you mean avoid taking photos under the noon day sun. Good advice for an art photographer, but not always practical for a travel photographer. Sure, I'd love to take more gallery quality landscapes, but sometimes I have to settle for a "we-were-here vacation snapshot" (my traveling companion is not going to tolerate hanging out in one spot for 4 hours until the light is right). Still, I want my less-than-art snapshot to have the best exposure and composition possible under existing conditions.</p>

<p>Am I right to assume I'll have a better chance of getting a good exposure with negatives than with slides?</p>

<p>-gw</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't shoot 35mm film, but I use Portra 160vc in both MF and LF cameras and find it to be very good. I had tons of the stuff left over from a big job and so haven't tried the newer versions, but understand that the grain is much better.</p>

<p>My only concern with the newer Ektar 100 would be innate contrast, as I hear it is high. Scanning can dig way more out of a negative than can wet darkroom printing and so it may be very good for you. I plan on testing both the new portra 160vc and the Ektar. High speed films all seem to be pretty grainy and that is one area that digital is surpassing film in. I shoot many digital iso 1600 portraits and they would be almost unusable if they were film, even MF.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>It might be a case of "better the devil you know"...</p>

<p>While color negative obviously has more latitude, personally I've found it more hassle to scan, and I really miss the immediacy and color reference that slides afford.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Really, all the films you mentioned are very good. Fuji a few weeks ago announced that they were discontinuing several films, I don't even remember the whole list, but for "color and pop" I'm very happy with Ektar, 400VC and Fujicolor and Superia films - for everyday use, Fuji 200, 400 and 800, bought on the web at a discount, is a great inexpensive option. You can shoot it straight for contrasty, saturated color or overexpose it for more muted tones.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Travel AND landscapes?</p>

<p>For landscapes you want the finest grain and sharpest reproduction, which translates to "slow". Reala (100) works well, but is (I believe) being discontinued by Fuji. Kodak Ektar 100 is even finer grained and should be available for the forseeable future. I am very pleased with Ektar, at least in medium format, and find it easy to scan (easier than Reala) with a Nikon 4000/8000 film scanner. You get the best results if you use a tripod and attend to all the details, even in bright sunlight.</p>

<p>I presume "travel" means without a tripod, for people and cityscapes, sometimes with flash. For this, it's hard to beat an ISO 400 film. Fuji Pro 400H (formerly NPH400) is my favorite - good flesh tones, modest contrast and medium grain. It is not as punchy as Superia 400 and somewhat more expensive. Then, you don't need a "punchy" film for people.</p>

<p>Film rated at ISO 160 is usually intended for portrait and studio work - fine grain, low contrast and long dynamic range. Fuji Pro 160C is a good "people" film, but the grain is much coarser than Reala/Ektar and it is on the slow side for hand-held use. Take a pass.</p>

<p>Fuji NPZ800 (or whatever it is called these days) is rather nice to work with - fast enough for low light and the grain is not much more than in 400 film, but much more contrasty than Pro 400H. It's fine for indoor sports and concerts, but I haven't use it much for anything else. Just about any DSLR will do better at ISO 800 and higher, unless you like grain and contrast.</p>

<p>It is always a challenge to get good color balance when scanning negative film. There's no good way to set up a profile, as is very easy to do with reversal film. On the plus side, it much more tolerant of exposure than reversal film, especially for highlights, and holds a lot more shadow detail. It makes sense to keep the variety of film at a minimum, and concentrate on learning how to deal with what you use most often.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I think Ektar is here to stay for quite some time. They've introduced new sizes twice, and they wouldn't do that unless it's been meeting or beating sales expectations. IMO it's an extremely useful daylight film - just remember to use it with the expectation that you will be handling it digitally and doing a white balance step, because Kodak knows that nearly everything gets digitized now and they didn't put their efforts into correcting the blue cast that gets picked up in shadows. Bright light is required for 100 film - in less than bright light, I think 400VC is great for, well, everything :)</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Portra and Ektar are superb choices for film! You are able to have more or less saturations using the Kodak line up. The Portra 800 is a great film for low light.</p>

[robert lee]

<p>"My scanner is an old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900 (VueScan)."</p>

<p>Ahhh, good. You're doing post yourself. Okay, the differences among the films don't matter so much then. Issues of saturation and color balance are to a large extent adjustable. So are grain and sharpness if you're willing to be a bit more aggressive about things in the digital darkroom.</p>

<p>In any case, I mildly prefer the Kodak films over the Fuji counterparts, meaning Kodak Ektar and 400VC. The palette is warmer, and just require less overall tweaks straight out of my scanners. Of course, this is almost entirely dependent on your scanning hardware and software specifics.</p>