medium format color film

[pedz]

Remember film?  I'm taking a trip to Michigan for the fall colors.  I'm going to break out my Fuji GX-680 for the first time in five plus years.

It seems Velvia 50 is no more.  I use to use that as well as Provia 100.  I found a few 220 professional negative (print) films.  I'm going to shoot and then scan the images.  I have a scanner but I might also take a few of the best to a professional service.  One article I found said that Astia is the best for scanning but I'm wondering if the negative films (print films) might give me more exposure range.  That use to be the case.

I've not been keeping up with the film wars so I thought I ask here what are the current perspectives.

[Craig Murphy]

The lab that I have used for film processing says they prefer negative film now vs transparency.  Say it scans better and has a better dynamic range.  They are big on Ektar 100

[Lightbox]

Velvia 50 is still available as far as I know, a quick search at BH Photo shows it in stock for $6.50 a roll. I shoot mostly with Fuji Astia and love it for the faithful colours and dynamic range for a slide film. Negative film will have more dynamic range and can handle highlights slightly better, but wont give you the super saturated colours of slide film, but I find it harder to scan and get good results without a lot of further tweaking in Photoshop. I think the main reason is that with slide film you can preview the slide on a lightbox and see exactly what details you have available and also how good your exposure was, with negative film its very difficult to do the same and have that preview of the image to give you a good base for scanning.

Although Velvia is a lovely film I don't use it very often due to scanning a lot of my film, I'd rather have lower contrast, extended dynamic range and faithful colours to begin with.

[wildstork]

What Shaun said...  +1 for Astia.  Far more accurate color and better shadow info.  If you can find some of the old RAP instead of the RAP 3... that's the bomb!  I think Fuji blew it when they redesigned it. It became more contrasty and more saturated... like a low octane Velvia.  I've got a freezer full of the old stuff, both 35 and 120, and have never seen anything I like better.

[qwz]

Try Kodak E100G
it is best all around 100 ASA slide film, it has more 'dull' look if your see on the light table but it's more better for scanning and digital processing than Fujifilm options.
Also it have more natural colours, 'cause you can always do "Velvia look" after scanning (too much contrast, purple and magenta casts, yellowish highlights and so on).
And don't forget about almost one stop of dynamic range against Velvia.
(and no greyish cast in shadow like Provia 100F).

Astia 100F is not bad at all too.
Another option is Provia 400X - for some windy conditions, it has very nice grain (RMS 11) and good colors too.

[marcmccalmont]

My favorite is Fuji Astia 100
With the high dynamic range needed outdoors in Hawaii I prefer Fuji Pro 160c print film
Worth trying a roll or two
Marc

[sojournerphoto]

Try Kodak Ektar 100 for very fine grain and high saturation (adjustable with exposure - more for more) or Portra 160NC (normal colour as opposed to VC - vivid colour). If you need higher speed Portra is also available in 400NC and VC and 800 (efectively VC) formulations.

Portra gives consistent and lovely colour in my view, but a bit more grain than Ektar.

Mike

[Rob C]

Something to note, apart from brands, is that different camera systems give quite different results or colour 'looks'.

The last 120 camera I had was a Pentax 67 ll, and I was in the brief habit of using Velvia 50 with it until I discovered that the look was not a lot similar to the way it worked in 35mm on Nikon. I had imagined that 35mm film was made from different emulsions, but Kirk G informed me that he'd seen differently in a factory (or so my memory has convinced me) and that the films are the same, cut from huge sheets. So, one man's experience may not be the same as you will experience on your equipment - optics play a part too.

I still have some 35mm cassettes of E100S which gave very nice colour with people and scenics which is certainly not what I found with Velvia; I was also pleased to discover that E100S makes for very pleasant skin tones when scanned and converted to b/w; it is perhaps kinder than Kodachrome 64 was - maybe less crisp? - but it has also been changed to something else.

Among the ton of stuff sitting in the freezer awaiting salvation or the museum is a pack of Ektachrome 64 EPR 120; I don't even own a 120 camera at the moment, but who knows... when I get famous, no doubt. Rich would be even better.

Rob C

[KevinA]

I know it's more grainy and less sharp, but I think colour neg when scanned has lovely thick looking colour and tone. Even at thumbnail size when I see my digi files next to scanned film I can't help thinking there is more depth to the colour in the film. No amount of tweaking or saturation adjustment does the same as shooting with film for me.
It might be just me but digital looks like it's painted on a glass surface where as film looks like it's embedded or dyed all the way through.

Kevin.