Which fast film for colours?

Discussion in 'Film Forum' started by rotxlk82, Aug 9, 2008.

  1. rotxlk82

    rotxlk82

    Jul 20, 2007
    UK
    In my short time shooting film I have learnt that if I want the best colours, saturation and detail for landscapes and floral subjects Velvia gives images that are second to none.

    However Velvia is pretty slow and doesn’t really work in low light when I don’t have my tripod. So, which film gives punchy saturated colour but a faster speed? I really do like RVP however it’s just not fast enough for day to day use; I tend to find myself shooting flowers a lot and really value colourful images. Which film would you suggest?

    Thanks!
     
  2. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    Provia 400x of course!
     
  3. Yep, what he said.
     
  4. Taylor

    Taylor

    May 21, 2007
    Toronto, ON
    Actually, Provia 400 pushed two stops gets you more saturated colours. If you want neg film, then 800Z or 400H. Kodak Ultra Colour 400 should be good too but I've never tried it.
     
  5. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Y'all would not like my answer.
     
  6. Would that be "if you're gonna shoot slides you might as well use digital". It's about how I feel since they both have about the same dynamic range!
     
  7. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    Same dynamic range as digital? That doesn't correlate with my experience. I shot this scene on Provia 100, and shot it again on digital and got all-white skies. The difference is quite huge. On Provia I can actually see the sky.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Yep Ray, Phil's anecdotal image notwithstanding, that would be exactly my point, not to mention the ease at getting the colors EXACTLY how you want them. But I sure don't want to get caught on the wrong side of a film vs digital discussion HERE!

    Phil, I'm intrigued by the mention of a Nikon D500 in your signature. Care to elaborate?
     
  9. Hi guys
    actually, I don't agree. I wouldn't use a slide for such fast iso. I did it once with models in indoors and I didn't like the result.. comparing 50/100 with a 400 or more was like looking day and night about graininess. Better explained: I don't like that on a slide.
    I think you could find this page interesting.
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...eFamily/compare.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.9.16&lc=en

    ME, I'd go on a Portra 400 VC if I really have to use a 400. Until 100 ISO, I'd go on a slide.
     
  10. How fast do you want to go? I routinely push Fuji Press 1600 to 6400ISO with great results. Kodak Portra 400NC pushes nicely to 1600ISO.

    As for the digital vs. slide film, slide film and the D3/D700 sensors are equals, but if you are still shooting an older sensor, such as the D70 as I have, slide film still have a considerable edge. But color negative film still has a much broader latitude than digital sensors.
     
  11. rotxlk82

    rotxlk82

    Jul 20, 2007
    UK
    Thanks, I will look into getting some that. I've used Provia 100 before and I was happy with the very sharp results it produced.

    I'm not tied to shooting slides, if the results from neg film at higher speeds is better then I'm happy to use that.

    400 should be fine, however an extra stop might help. I certainly won't need faster than 800.

    Thanks for the insight, I'm happy to Velvia slides up to ISO 100 however beyond that I am looking for alternative solutions. I shall take Porta 400VC into consideration.
     
  12. Robert, I think you will be pleasantly surprised if you give the Portra 400VC a try for landscape work. Color negative film is capable of handling a very wide dynamic range. Here are some examples (Fuji Superia 400) shot under extreme lighting conditions - early afternoon on a blazingly sunny day!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  13. I've been witness to enough threads centered around slide film angst without commenting before, but I guess I'd better say something at some point. Using slide film at high noon in blazing sun isn't its purpose, really - it's meant for getting up and shooting at 5 a.m. when landscapes were meant to be shot. I wouldn't despise my pickup just because I can't race it at Daytona - it's meant for other purposes. Slide film does a very good job at doing what it was designed to do. Actually, I would say that color negative film is closer to digital - it's so forgiving that you can shoot without a lot of care and then salvage the exposure afterwards. I might as well shoot NEFs and then yank the sliders around for fill and recovery before I head off to LAB for color.

    Speaking of color, I choose my color by picking different emulsions - I don't want to try and guess the relation of color from flowers to grasses to mountains to skies ten years later, nor do I want the clerk at the lab deciding how my prints look. I want the color in the image so I can thumb through sleeves of slides and know the shot I'm looking for.

    I won't even get into how incredibly *%^#$ awesome medium format looks. Digital can't touch that.

    Sean
     
  14. Sean, for the most part I couldn't agree more. I posted the above images to show the inherent dynamic range of neg film not to suggest shooting transparencies in such light! I do disagree about negs being similar to digital as I have to do far less manipulations with color negs (and I don't use them to compensate for poor exposures). Now you talk about medium format - well I was over at my friend Matt's house last Monday looking at some 4X5 Velvia transparencies. These were for a paid job photographing vineyards for the owner. And yes, they were all taken in early evening light. Talk about sublime greens! And the distant mountains rendered magnificently. Viewed on his light table the detail was incredible. By the way he has a box of 8X10 Velvia that he's saving for some special landscapes he has in mind.
     
  15. And Ray, I certainly wouldn't accuse you guys of covering any poor exposures with it; I see 'forgiving' and 'wide latitude' often enough in threads about film that it starts to sound like the film's main characteristic is its ability to cover exposure mistakes, rather than looking at it from the perspective that it holds up over a wide range when you're shooting it in tough spots, and I wonder if newcomers to film think of pushing the merits of good exposure onto the back burner - the digital 'eh, I'll fix it in post' metering method. I think there's a really good element to that anxiety of the difference of 1/2 a stop when you're shooting slide film - it feels like you're getting your suffer points in. It's fun to bracket and see the subtelties between frames.
     
  16. Lol! How true about using latitude and/or pp to compensate for poor exposure although I can see doing this when an inadvertent mistake has been made on a "one off" photo! I wonder how many noobies would benefit from using a manual exposure film camera for a while. By the way bracketing for subtle changes is enjoyable on any kind of photo medium, no?
    That is unless, like my friend Matt, you're shooting 4X5 or 8X10 transparencies - ouch, the expense.
     
  17. mhcfires

    mhcfires

    Aug 23, 2007
    El Cajon, CA
    Expense is right! From the Megaperls website ordering from Japan, for a box of 10 sheets of 8x10: Astia $148, Velvia 50 $150, Velvia 100 $146. This is plus shipping. eek!:eek: