Selecting Color Negative film for nature photography

[guts80]

Looking through the film guide here, I've come to conclusion that

Fuji NPH 400 should suit my needs quite well. However this article

was written about 5 years ago soooo:

 

I plan to be shooting landscape with a Nikon F3HP, what color

negative film would give me rich nautural forestory colors and vivd

sunsets? (I know I know....shoot slide film, but I need to make

prints easily and color negative is the way to go)

 

So with that in mind, any other recommendations?

[alan_olander1]

Others who use color negative film for nature photography seem to like Kodak 400UC, and there is an new 100 speed film (100UC) now to go with it.

[discpad]

Shing,<br><br>

 

You'll end up with clipping the red, green and blue (RGB) gamuts in your prints, since you're actually shooting in the Cyan - Magenta - Yellow color space and performing a <b>CMY -> RGB</b> conversion in the printing process: OK for portraits, <b>yukkie</b> for rich, vivid colors.

<br><br>

Since you already know how to shoot slides, why not print with Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) to get the "punch" you need?

<br><br>

 

<b>Cheers!</b> <br>

<a href = "http://users.snip.net/~joe"><u>Dan Schwartz</u></a>

[scott_eaton]

When it comes to nature photography so much more is dependant on your lab vs film. It doesn't do you any good to use a high quality film if your lab is using low quality amatuer papers that don't mix well with your film choice.

 

Try to find a lab using a Fuji Frontier since the popular Fuji digital lab tends to beef up colors and will be using very vibrant Fuji papers to begin with.

 

NPH is an exellent film to combine with Fuji processing/printing, but Reala is an even better choice. If your lab is not using Fuji materials the Kodak films such as UC 400 are a stronger option. Reala however is a superb choice regardless of what the lab is using.

[EricM]

"...what color negative film would give me rich nautural forestory colors and vivd sunsets?"

 

Reala 100@80

[hans_beckert]

Color negative film is not really the best choice. Use a color slide film, such as Kodachrome 64. Color negative films from the major manufacturers differ so little that is really does not matter which one you use within a speed group. What matters is the lab work.

[scott_eaton]

Contrary to Dan's replies, Cibachrome performs a far greater degree of dymanic 'clipping' in terms of gamut range than C-type. Somebody has obviously never printed Cibas commercially and watched those things slaughter even low contrast slide film.

 

If I want color saturation, I'll shoot slow speed neg films like Reala and print them on Fujiflex Supergloss. Much better looking images than Cibachromes. I used to print RG-25 in 120 format onto Fujiflex and Duraflex and they made a joke of our Ilfochrome dept.

[rowland_mowrey]

Shoot what you like, but try using a UV filter and a polarizing filter to 'fix' any haze problems.

 

Many people say use slide film, but it does perform clipping or tone compression in the toe and shoulder. You should get good pleasing prints from neg-pos films of whatever brand. Just a side note, Fuji is better matched to their paper, and Kodak is better matched to their paper.

 

Good luck

 

Ron Mowrey

[oskar_ojala]

I've made some nice images of this type of subject with NPH, but in general I would choose something with a bit mroe saturation and more contrast, like Kodak Portra 400UC. Superia Reala is nice too, but sometimes the contrast is a bit low. Slides have their advantages and disadvantages. Forget the Ilfochrome (Cibachrome back long ago) - it's a difficult material to work with (meaning you probably have to do it yourself and spend a lot of time and money practicing it) and the look doesn't really suit nearly all subject material.

[steven_loesch]

You really want a high saturated film for nature, but how you expose it also has much to do with the results. Try the portra UC series, or the Agfa Ultra 100. These are highly saturated films. Polarizer and warming filters can help color too.

 

I always overexpose my sunsets by a stop or two (on neg film). Tell the lab to print them dark....

[marshall]

Ilfochromes are getting harder and harder to find, and really good ones are near-impossible to find. Bad 'chromes are just really contrasty without a lot to offer for it. [Yep, they're just opinions, folks.]

 

For various reasons, I shoot slides, but if I had to shoot neg film, I'd use something like Kodak's UC films or Reala. NPH probably would be fine, but it won't pop off the page the way some others do. Then again, in printing, if you want pop, you can get it.

 

I wouldn't use Kodachrome, but Hans recommends it for almost any use, so there you have it. For what it's worth, though, any lab with a Frontier can pretty easily make prints from slides (in which case, I like Velvia 100F, Velvia 50 ("disneychrome"), and E100G/GX, pretty much in that order). All of which means that you can get good results whatever you shoot, so try some stuff out and see what you like. Good luck.

[discpad]

Scott,

 

Did your lab print Ilfochrome Classic, or Ilfochrome Rapid?

 

Also, did they use a contrast mask?

[scott_eaton]

I've been printing Cibachromes before I had a license to drive and was the head custom printer for a professional lab that made the stupid things before they (thank god) canned the service. In my professional opinion, the process sucks and is mostly popular with amatuers that have such bad technique and poorly shot slides they need any help they can get. Occasionally I'd get a decent 4x5 with enough compressed tonal range to make a decent Ciba, but that was rare. I love you guys that shoot brightly colored objects under sunny skies with K64 and want a perfect Ciba 16x20. All a contrast mask does is turn the bright, washed-out background into a dull grey, washed-out back ground. Boy, I want that for my wall.

 

I was one of the first to start making digital contrast masks with a film recorder to tame those things, and one of the first to figure out that virtually any slow speed *color neg* film printed on Kodak Duraflex or Fujixlex produced a better print with much better tonal ranges. Before LightJet's got popular I was getting pretty good at drum scanning a customers 35mm slide, output'ing it to 6x7 Reala via our film recorder, and then printing it on Kodak Duraflex. I never had a client that didn't prefer this print over the straight Ciba, and I've had so many so called 'Ciba Experts' give me credit for a "such a nice Cibachrome" when they print is a straight C-type Fujflex I've lost count. You should see Konica Impresa or Kodak RG-25 printed on Fujiflex. Astounding. Not only do the colors hold detail better, there's no contrast problems.

 

I have no issue with using slide film to enhance the colors in a scene because that's what slide film is inherently good at. If you want prints though, slide film does not fix the problem and can in fact make it worse. Find a well run Frontier and use slow speed print films.

[James G. Dainis]

The one feature of Cibachromes that I liked was the metallic sheen that the print had. I know of no other process that had that. <BR>

How can you capture the look of a slide on paper? I spent hours trying to get a good Ciba for a friend from a slide of a redwood tree. He complained that the tree trunk on the Ciba didn´t have the "glow" of the slide. Of course not. You´re not shining a light through it.

[oskar_ojala]

<i>The one feature of Cibachromes that I liked was the metallic sheen that the print had.</i>

 

<p>Yeah, that's the good thing about it, but there are really few slides that print well on Ciba. Scott pretty much sums it up. The problem is that R-type prints would essentially require us to choose films, exposure and even subject matter just based on the the limits of the paper, which puts C41 at a considerable advantage to slides. Today I see two ways to print slide film: digitally with a lightjet, frontier or similar (depending on budget) on RA4 or with an inkjet printer. Both are much easier to work with than Ciba and provide much better tonal transitions and subtler color renditions. The best part is that one finally has a good, consistent and inexpensive way to print slides.