Landscape/Nature photography film choices

[rickbehl]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I realise the idea of a perfect film is very subjective but I thought I would see if there was any general consensus on the matter. Up to now for landscape and nature photography on 35mm and 6x7 I have been using a combination of Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and Provia 100F. My main shooting is geared towards the fairly low light levels (magic hour). I haven't really experimented with Kodak film for landscape (although I do use Portra as my main portrait film). I'm pretty happy with Velvia and my main decision between which of the 3 films mentioned I will use in any given situation is usually determined by the amount of light available (if very low then use Velvia 100/Provia 100F, if very bright then use Velvia 50).</p>

<p>My question is what is/are your perfect film(s) for landscape/nature photography? and do you use any combination of pushing/pulling on these films? Is my thinking right in that Velvia 50 doesn't handle too well for longer exposures hence Velvia 100/Provia 100F are better for very low light?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,<br>

Rick</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't know your final use of the film, so it is hard to tell. Chrome film is going to have a much smaller dynamic range than will negative film. Since I scan all my film, I see no advantage to shooting chromes and so shoot the Portra 160vc for just about everything. That might be a little too fast(grainy) for 35mm, but again, what do you do with it? My work for the railroad that is on my website is all shot on 160vc, mostly LF on the ground and MF (645) from the air, with the latter being Portra 400vc primarily.</p>

<p>When I shot chrome film, I routinely pushed and pulled it, although pulls were never as good as pushing. In fact, I pushed all my chrome film 1/2 stop (normal exposures) just because I felt it clarified it a bit better and that was also what matched my polaroids. I just don't like the limited dynamic range of chrome film for landscape, but have used it as have many over the years and in most cases, it probably isn't an issue.</p>

[starvy]

<p>John, your pictures always have a very conventional yet professional feel to it so I would go along with your advice. The Porta 160 is an amazing film and renders well to pushing or pulling.<br>

I would also recommend Fuji Reala 100. I personally love the look of this film.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>Ektar 100 is my choice.</p>

[stephen_schoof1]

<p>I use Velvia 50 for most everything outdoors, even in low light levels. Since the 'magic hour' generally requires a tripod or other support anyway, I'd rather do a 4-second exposure on Velvia 50 than a 2-second on Velvia 100 and get 50's colors and contrast, which I generally prefer over 100. It is true that Velvia 50 requires more compensation for reciprocity failure - longer than about 15" and I need to add +1/2 or +1 stop, but this usually isn't a problem for the stuff I shoot. By the time it's dark enough to need 20" or so at f16, the light has often faded from its peak anyway. The exception is moonlight, where I really like 100's cooler color cast and greater sensitivity.</p>

<p>As you would expect, pushing any of the Velvias increases contrast and grain. I like Velvia 100F (not 100) pushed to 200 for wildlife (it has warmer greens than 100). Velvia 50 pushes nicely to 100 and in a comparison with it versus the two 100-speed Velvias, I preferred pushed 50 in many situations.</p>

<p>Kodak's version of Velvia is E100VS, which I find too grainy in 35mm, but some people like it. Its colors are different than any of the Velvias and are worth exploring if you've never shot it.</p>

<p>If you're scanning, I suppose you can shoot whatever you want and adjust in post, but for me there's nothing like a nice original Velvia or Kodachrome slide straight out of the camera.</p>

[melmann]

<p>For medium format I'm pleased with Velvia 50 and 100, Ektachrome 100G. Tried Ektar 100 and didn't like the look - dull colors and not much contrast. B&W is Tmax 100, Plus-X 125, and Portra 160VC (scanned in as 16 bit greyscale - love the tones on this one). Don't pull/push films. I scan everything using a V-700, 2400ppi for archive, 4800ppi for printing specific images.<br>

For 35mm I'm working through my last rolls of Kodachrome 64. Don't know what I'll use in this size after all that's gone. Might do strictly B&W with Tmax.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Most of the time, you want the finest grain for the most detail and best enlargement capability for landscapes. In general, the slower the film, the finer the grain.</p>

<p>Negative film has much more dynamic range than reversal film, but reversal film has higher ultimate resolution, largely due to the high contrast of the developed image. One stop in equals nearly two stops out for Velvia, 8 stops in equals 5 stops out for Ektar. Lower contrast films like Kodak Portra and Fuji NPS and NPC have slightly more dynamic range than Kodak Ektar and Fuji Reala.</p>

<p>Either Reversal or negative film are equally easy to scan and print digitally, and digital printing gives you much more control over color, contrast and saturation than optical printing.</p>

[rickbehl]

<p>Interesting comments from all!</p>

<p>I never considered shooting Portra for anything other than portraits and I think I'm with Stephen on the colours and contrast you get with Velvia 50. There really is nothing like it. Although for some people it's just a bit 'Too' much... I've tried a roll of Ektachrom E100VS and thought it interesting enought to explore for further experiments. Here's a good article I found on the Velvia (50&100) vs Ektachrome vs Provia characteristics:<br>

http://www.maremmaphoto.it/filmtest.eng.html<br>

I've also tried Ektar but again I have to agree that for me having a great shot on a transparency (especially 6x7 or larger) on a light table is the most brilliant way of showing these images. A good scan and some post-prod to try and get close to the scan is always worth an attempt especially if the final goal is a print but there's just something magical about viewing slides on a light box (or even projected) which cannot be recreated easily...<br>

Stephen, out of interest in what situations would you shoot Velvia 100 (or 100F) instead of Velvia 50? Is it when you don't want the colours too be too excessive?</p>

<p>Rgds<br>

Rick</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_schoof1]

<p>Rick, the only time I really find Velvia 50's colors to be too much are in some sunset/sunrise situations where I am using 4 or 5-stops worth of graduated neutral-density filters to hold back the sky. Occasionally the combination of the supposedly-neutral filters, rich sky, and high-saturation film will create a magenta/red color cast that is just over the top. Note that Velvia 100 will do the same thing with reds to an even worse degree. In these cases Velvia 100F or Provia is a better choice for me. The situations are rare however and I usually shoot sunsets and magic hour solely on Velvia 50 with no trouble. Velvia 100F also can be a better choice for situations with lots of caucasian skin tones, but I personally don't find Velvia 50's skin tones as offensive as they're often made out to be.</p>

<p>I do use the 100 speed Velvias for trail running when I only carry a tabletop tripod and end up bracing the camera against trees and rocks. In those situations the difference between a 4-second and an 8-second exposure can be significant. I use Velvia 100F for green forest shots in spring and summer, and Velvia 100 for skies and warm light in fall and winter.</p>

[rickbehl]

<p>Thanks for the response Stephen. That's interesting that you prefer Velvia 100 for the trail running. I have heard that some folk actually push Velvia 50 to get the extra stop of light with pretty satisfactory results. As for colours of the autumn/fall there's an interesting thread going on in this topic at the moment elsewhere on the forum. I'm just trying to decide what my main film of choice will be on a trip I am planning to Japan this fall... I know the colours are truly amazing shades of Red/Orange so I am just wondering if I should try something other than Velvia 50 which I know is a certain winner with Green landscapes/forest and Blue skies...<br>

Rgds<br>

Rick</p>

[stephen_schoof1]

<p>Regarding your trip, it's a personal thing of course and I've seen other people get good results on all the films mentioned. It would be an easy choice for me though: Velvia 50 for 95% of it, with a handful of the other flavors thrown in when more speed is needed. And you are right about pushing - Velvia 50 shot at 100 often looks as good or better than the 100-speeds, except for more grain. I think part of the reason I use the 100s for running is that they are there and I feel like I ought to use them for something! Good luck with it.</p>