Why do you still shoot color negative film?

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Last time I shot color neg was a little over a year ago, partly because I was going on vacation and wanted to take my little Olympus Stylus Epic rather than my Nikon DSLRs and partly because I wanted to play with C-41 developing while I still could. (I've done B&W in the darkroom for 40 years but have seldom done color.) Shot and developed four rolls of Fuji Superia 400 and still have eight rolls left I bought but didn't use. I have a basement full of film cameras so I will probably use up those rolls. But when the rolls are gone I'm not sure whether I will be buying more.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Because I have 5K feet of Vision film I can process at home.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have won this thread. :-)<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>my negatives are equiv to 22 mp and the scans are equiv to 6-8mp</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. But film is about more than resolution (IMHO). :-)<br>

<br>

Lex, cool story, if bittersweet.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Karim, are you sure that negative film has higher resolution than transparencies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. However, it depends on which emulsions you're comparing and which era you're taking them from. Velvia 50 out-resolved Kodachrome 25, but Ektar 25 out-resolved Velvia (IIRC). I only have one definitive document about this, and that was from 1992!<br>

<br>

Stock libraries usually only accepted slides for reasons other than resolving power.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I use Ilford XP2 and HP5 as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both are great films. HP5 is probably my favourite traditional high speed b&w film. XP2 I love at EI 1600 for its high contrast (yum). I have not shot either for a long, long time. But maybe...<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OTOH, I needed ISO 3200 this morning, so I grabbed the Fuji.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photographers were pushing colour negative film to ISO 3200 back in the 1980s. :-P ;-)<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not really subscribe to the "film slower working makes me better"-school</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither do I. It's rationalising. Film is great stuff. No need to invent reasons for using it.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>No winners just those who still love film.</p>

[scott_turner2]

<p>I just sold my digital cameras. Most people think I'm crazy, but there are several reasons why.<br>

First, the places I like to shoot, often involve a lack (or potential lack of) of electricity and carrying as little weight as possible. It's pretty handy to just forget about battery life altogether and bring along a manual film camera.<br>

Second, exposure latitude. Honestly, I don't think that much about exposure anymore. Which leaves me more time to worry about what's in the frame.<br>

Third, shooting experience. Shoot. Forget. Process. Christmas morning. Nothing like getting a roll back from the lab and seeing all of your images in your hands and not on an LCD screen.<br>

Fourth, the look. Can't replicate it with digital, though some have got close. There is substance to it. Digital feels flat/flimsy to me and lacks the depth that film has.<br>

Fifth, it forces me to visualize more. To think ahead, to see the image before it happens and not rely on an LCD screen. While this sucked at first, and I messed up a lot of photos, it is getting easier the more I practice!<br>

Sixth, I hate spending all that time in photoshop to get a certain "look". I'd much rather shoot and get the look by the film and lens combination. Much simpler.</p>

<p>What do I not like about film?<br>

Extra cost. Yeah the cameras are cheaper, but damn, the film processing costs for a good lab add up QUICK when you have a lot to develop.<br>

I have to be really selective, as I have a limited supply of photographs. Sometimes this is stifling creatively.<br>

Piles of negatives to deal with after you shoot. Much easier to deal with a couple hard drives.<br>

Low light is MUCH more difficult to shoot in, even at 400 speed. </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Scott contact me I can get you some nice frozen film.</p>

[hammerstone]

<p>Why do I still shoot color negative film?<br>

<br />Why not, it's still being made! Great latitude, colors, and the many ways it can be manipulated while still looking natural. I have absolutely no temptation to switch to digital. I'm also fortunate to have a pretty good lab only a few miles from where I go to class (I'm getting a roll of Cinestill 800T back today), and there are plenty of 1-hour photo drugstores around that could process it too. I'll probably shoot more E-6 when Ferrania sends me some in the Spring, but that has to be sent to a lab about a hundred miles North of me and usually takes a week to get it back. So I guess convenience plays a role, I suppose. I'm just getting processing and scanning, so there's that, too. I don't know anywhere in my area where I could get a good optical print made, in fact if I did I would probably go back to getting prints...</p>

[James G. Dainis]

"...when Ferrania sends me some in the Spring,"

 

Could you explain that remark? Do you get the film for free to use in classes?

[Colin O]

<p>James, I guess Joseph is referring to FILM Ferrania's Kickstarter project:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00crep">

http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00crep</a><br>

<a href="https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/filmferrania/100-more-years-of-analog-film">

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/filmferrania/100-more-years-of-analog-film</a></p>

[wblynch]

<p>I've been working my way through 15 rolls of Kodak Gold 100 from 2003.</p>

<p>Damn that stuff looks beautiful, much richer than Gold 200 or 400. Not as clownish as Ektar (although I loves me some Ektar)</p>

<p>I wish Kodak would fire off another master roll or two of Gold 100.</p>

<p>To get results close to what I can get with $100 of film cameras and lenses would take $10,000 or more in digital dollars. That's a lot of film.</p>

<p>I process my own for fun an pleasure. Keeps the cost down and keeps me off the street at night.<br>

.</p>

 

[eric_m4]

<p>It's just more fun. I even print color negs in Black and White darkroom. I don't spend as much time in darkroom as I'd like but it's always more enjoyable than sitting at a computer. </p>

[hammerstone]

<p>"I wish Kodak would fire off another master roll or two of Gold 100."<br>

Man, me too! Maybe we can get a special order together someday... It's kind of sad that one can't get Kodak Gold or Fuji Superia in medium format anymore, maybe we can convince them to bring that back too. As it is, I prefer the look of consumer negative films to Portra, Ektar, or Pro400H. <br>

In fact, I've thought of a more eloquent reason why I still shoot color negative film:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17881839<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17881835<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17881830<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17881837</p>

[roman_p]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't shoot color film anymore because there are no RA4 minilabs in my area. And I don't want prints made from low quality scans or "dry" prints with obvious scan line artifacts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, sorry to hear about your situation. But where do you live? I live far away from big cities but have at least 2 photo labs within 25 min driving. They do hi-res scanning also. Plus Costco and Walmart’s (never used them anyhow). Plus Dwayne’s of course (well, shipping orders only – about 3000 mi away).<br>

Go back to the thread. Why am I shooting color neg films? Actually I shoot everything: color neg, B&W, chromogenic, E-6 and eventually, very rear, digital. Being heavily involved in wild landscape photography I have quite strong addiction to E6, especially Velvia (well, nothing else is available anyhow). Unfortunately there’s literally no room for negative films. But I still love color neg films and usually use them for general street photography, travel and occasionally portraiture. Film like Portra 400 has quite delicate and pleasant color palette and gigantic exposure latitude so it forgives your technical slipups and doesn’t require heavy bracketing (if any) as E6 do. Color neg films are cheaper than E6 and even than BW (film + processing if you outsource the processing). Some of them are still available about $2/roll from many retailers. It’s also easier to scan and adjust in PS. Might agree with Karim that many color neg films resolve more details that E6 but the grain/noise is usually more pronounced.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p> I am going to put a challenge soon to Lex and even allow him to do some color film. Details are to blow us all away because I know what he can do. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ruh-roh, Reorge. Rounds rike rouble.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p> Ja Tink Brother?</p>

[dr._karl_hoppe]

<p>(<em>a</em>) I like the 'look' and 'feel' of colour negative films.<br>

(<em>b</em>) Exposure latitude; I've gotten lazy in my old age, don't want to fuss around with transparency stock any longer.<br>

(<em>c</em>) I have a tremendous amount of film gear that can never be used digitally.<br>

(<em>d</em>) I'm working off huge stashes of colour negative stock in my freezer that will, at my rate of usage, outlive me.<br>

(<em>e</em>) I love shooting with vintage film cameras.<br>

(<em>f</em>) I like the anticipation of waiting to see how my handiwork turned out, no interest in 'chimping' every frame.<br>

(<em>g</em>) No interest in spending hours in post manipulating images on my laptop; that's fun?</p>

<p>My emulsions of choice are Kodak Ektar, Agfa Ultra (now discontinued, but plenty in the freezer), Kodak Portra 160 & 400, Kodak Gold 200, and Fuji Pro 800Z (also discontinued but dozens of rolls on ice). Once the local Costco wet Noritsu minilab goes away to the great darkroom in the sky, off my rolls will go to Dwayne's. I have no real interest in digital; that is my wife's purview, not my cup of tea.</p>

[glen_h]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't shoot color film anymore because there are no RA4 minilabs in my area. And I don't want prints made from low quality scans or "dry" prints with obvious scan line artifacts.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As far as I know, a large fraction of the digital printers run RA-4, or a similar process. Many are running Fuji Crystal Archive, which probably runs the Fuji equivalent of RA-4. But it is exposed by scanning lasers instead if an enlarger. The reciprocity characteristics allow for either microsecond or tens of seconds exposure. <br>

But yes, I do still prefer RA-4 prints from my scanned negatives and slides.</p>