Topic: Transparency vs Print Film

[Aline]

I'm thinking about working with 120 transparency film rather than the Kodak Portra films I've been using--partially because I don't want to have to make contact sheets--and am wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the subject.  Any that you would recommend, or should I keep using print film. Thanks!

[LT]

Hi Aline

I'm nowhere near an expert on these things, having a serious colour allergy, but my brief experience (before the adrenaline shot was necessary) of using colour neg and slide is that the two are totally different beasts with their own set of rules.  I think you are getting incredible results with your colour work so why upset the apple cart?  I seriously doubt you'll be able to match the feel you're currently achieving, but maybe that isn't a priority for you?  I've never really liked the effect of slide film for anything other than landscape work - even the more muted palettes they offer are still too brash and punchy for skin tones and subtlety, IMO.   But for every opinion, there's an alternative ... and seriously, what does a colour-phobe like me know?

[vicky slater]

hi aline, well i've just looked at your pictures and hesitate to offer any advice at all, you have some *really beautiful* work (specially love the one of your daughter in the kimono in the chair).
i mostly use print primarily because i always get it cheap and expired on ebay but when i have used slide (always astia i think) i've absolutely loved it.
it's just so different to look at, so smooth and creamy, the astia at least is very gentle with the tones, great for skin and it just has a magical quality.
but it's harder to use, it's easy to under expose and i feel like i have to avoid extremes, which is fine depending what you're doing.
i'll post one of my daughter so you can see the colour.
hope this helps some.


[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[hookstrapped]

My experience in 120 is with Fuji Velvia 50, Fuji Velvia 100, Fuji Provia 100F, and Fuji Astia 100F

In a nutshell,  Velvia 50 and 100 are incredibly vibrant and saturated which is great for some uses but not recommended for people; Provia 100F is a nice more widely useful film with people but still rather saturated, can get blueish cast in shadows; Astia 100F is decidedly less saturated IMO to the point of being a bit dull.

My new favorite color film is a print film, Fuji Pro 160C -- beautiful balance of vibrant and natural color, can take a lot of contrast.

If you click my sig and go to "Diana color" most of those are Velvia 50

[Francois]

Print film also has a much wider latitude than slide film (from 5 to 7 stops compared to only 3)
Slide film needs precise exposure to be good. For vibrant color, you have to underexpose it slightly contrary to negative color film.

[db]

Fuji tran films are usually more saturated and often show more contrast than their Ekta rivals. And if you are prepared to pay for a Cibachrome style pos/pos print, the results can be amazing.

But as others have said, you have much less exposure latitude so you'll be wanting to fill, or at least meter all  your shadow exposures if you want to retain detail. If you're working with people in tricky lighting, my method was to shot the whole roll at a set exposure, then at the lab clip-test the first frame, then push or pull the remainder of the roll. Problem there is you use more film, and basically double the processing cost of each roll just to be sure the best pose/composition etc matches up with the best exposure.

And on the neg side I'm pretty impressed with films like the 160C. I don't shoot tran much any more...

With proofing, I lay the negs out on a scanner and making a quick digital contact proof that way, instead of paying a lab for proof  mini prints.

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

I love shooting trannie but when humans are involved I tend towards colour neg as it allows for a bit more colour latitude on skin tones.

[Ed Wenn]

With proofing, I lay the negs out on a scanner and making a quick digital contact proof that way, instead of paying a lab for proof  mini prints.

I do the same. 400-500% enlargement at a low DPI, say 150 or 72 for faster scanning. It's a reasonably quick way of getting a set of 'contact prints' to look through. My lab always provides negs in clear sleeves which really helps.

Aline, I'd echo the previous comment re not be worthy to offer an opinion on this to someone as accomplished as yourself, but I will say that using different formats, equipment, cameras, process and, yes, film can help set us off in a direction that sometimes bears fruit and is almost always fun and/or interesting. So from that point of view why not give it a go? However, if one of your main reasons is to get away from having contact sheets printed, I'd say stick with what you're so clearly good at (shooting print film) and work out your contact sheet problems some other way.

[gothamtomato]

I'd say it's not so much chrome vs negative as it is film vs film. Meaning; each film has its own pallette & look, and I'd choose which film based on the subject and conditions and the look you're going for.

If I want something bright and punchy, I shoot chromes. When I want more subtlety, I'll shoot negatives. That's now though. There used to be really beautiful chrome films with  a subtle color pallette, but they're long gone (the best was Scotchchrome 1000 - super grainy, lovely color. Sigh.).

It might be worth it to you to do some side-by-side test shooting of different films you're considering. For me, when I'm shooting color, I make all decisions based on the color pallette, rather than the format.

[original_ann]

Are you basing your (potential) decision to move to slide film just on the contact sheet issue?   I find making a digital contact sheet of my negs a scanner takes no time at all

I agree with gothamtomato.  I base the film (neg vs pos) upon the subject matter and the finished output/look I'm going for.   Mostly I'm going for a film look, but some of my output beg to be shot on transparencies.  I err on underexposure with slides (and overexposure for negs) but because of the smaller exposure latitude of slides, I think it's a fantastic way to really, really hone exposure skills. 

Personally, it was also helpful to shoot every type of film, both negative and positive that I could get in the US.  I found it a great way to discover favorites.  Right now for color I'm totally on a fuji 160S kick for negatives and 64T for chromes (at night).   

[GLOBETROTTER]

I've been using only colour transparencies for all my professional work for many decades and would never go back to colour negative emulsions.

Not too long ago, most magazines only accepted original colour transparencies for reproduction, although the swing to digital has meant that high-rez files that originate from film are now more welcome.

Fujichrome Velvia in 50 & 100 ISO are my mainstay for most subjects and this also allows me to produce outstanding quality digital files via drum or pro scanners for use in magazines, books, calendars etc.

The digital Tiff files burnt to CD/DVD discs are posted worldwide to the editors while the orginal colour-positive negs are kept safe for back-up (in case the digital files are lost or currupted) and the originals can be used in my major slide/talk shows.

[hookstrapped]

I'm also a big fan of Velvia 50 and 100 but Fuji Pro 160C is stunningly gorgeous.  Not as saturated as Velvia but still pretty saturated, and great for skin tones, it's an amazingly beautiful film.

[Aline]

Wow, thank you everyone!! I just got back from my travels shooting all negative film, but I'm going to check out chrome for some imagery--that's for all the info. You are the best!!

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[snewbery]

Am new to this forum, but reading through the responses, I'd add that one reason to prefer color  negative in LF at least has to do with shutter choice: I've been using an Ektar 14" with an old synchro-compur shutter for 4x5,  5x7, and 8x10 work. So far it's behaved well; but I'm not sure I'd risk a transparency, with its very narrow exposure tolerance...

Here's a 5x7 portrait with that lens, shot on Kodak Portra 160NC.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

[LT]

Am new to this forum, but reading through the responses, I'd add that one reason to prefer color  negative in LF at least has to do with shutter choice: I've been using an Ektar 14" with an old synchro-compur shutter for 4x5,  5x7, and 8x10 work. So far it's behaved well; but I'm not sure I'd risk a transparency, with its very narrow exposure tolerance...

Here's a 5x7 portrait with that lens, shot on Kodak Portra 160NC.

Hi Sheila - welcome to Filmwasters.  Some great portraits on your site.  How about starting an introduction  thread with a bit of information about you and using film?