best vibrant colors in a film ? share !

P

proenca

Proenca
Local time
1:25 PM
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
258
Location
Lisbon
View My Gallery
Hi folks,

After trying several dozens of films, some labled professional ( and priced as such ), my heart is set on the consumer Kodak Gold... the colours and contrast are rich.

Actually, consumer films I prefer out of professional films, since wheras professional films may have more neutral ( and therefore desirable for a professional who wants to post process after ) colours and constrat, I do really like Kodak Gold.

What about yourselves ? Im fond of slide film as well ( velvia ) although it can be nasty to skin tones.

Anyone has a preference in film to share ? and why ? C41 please 🙂
 
A little bit expensive but so far my favorite color (slide) film is Fuji's Provia400X. Recently I used Kodak's UC400 sometimes too. Why ? Hm... Both films have something special, the colors sometimes seem to "pop", especially the blue tones.
 
Kodak Porta VC ... either 400 or 160

Great for both landscapes and portraits

Kodak UC is too red for my taste; though the colors are pretty vibrant (the example attached is UC400)

Fuji Superia is a fine film and easily available
 

Attachments

  • 202876016-L.jpg
    202876016-L.jpg
    141.8 KB · Views: 0
I recently used some comnsumer Kodak 400 ASA and in short it was a waste of money, very grainey and very contrasty, which made everything look clumped. I'm a huge fan of Fuji pro 160S. Great skin tones and normal contrast made for scanning and then you can do as you want with the contrast. The pro 160C is a bit bouncy and not as good for skin. IMHO, that is, Andrew.
 
Somehow i found most C41 films can be good with careful exposure and good processing. SOme of them though are more difficult when scanning.
E.g. i got really nice results from Fuji Reala when i let the lab do machine prints, but i still could not figure out how to scan it (the negative) to get the same great colours.

The only film i will stay away from FOREVER is kodak gold 200. I think it's just rubbish.

A nice surprise I got from plain consumer agfa 100 and 200.

If you allow me to sneak in a non-c41 film... My all time favourite is kodak e100SW slide. I know..it is discontinued..have not tried the replacement e100gx, but even a few years expired e100sw worked miracles for me. Just unbelievable good colours in my yashica gsn.
But it really screws up when overexposed.
 
Rate fuji 160 at ISO 120. You'll still have good latitude and credible tones.

Or shoot velvia 50 at ISO 60 or velvia 100 at ISO 120. Now that is nutty. But nutty colours seem to be the fad these days. Here is an example without a polarizer or GND.
 
Pherdinand said:
The only film i will stay away from FOREVER is kodak gold 200. I think it's just rubbish.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I wonder why it's rubbish, I like it for mid-morning shooting because I think the yellowish tint negates the UV in the shade a little. Let's see if I can illustrate:

1398503142_c5314974c8.jpg


I hope this is not rubbish 🙂

Plus, my XA seems to like Kodak 200 ASA (be it Gold or Max or HD).
 
I like Gold 100 very much and find 200 not bad either (and 200 seems to scan better in the colors for me than 100). 400UC is nice as well. Fuji Reala is one great film too. Are you scanning the negs? If so it really does not matter as long as you get the accuracy or color balance you want. Then you can play with saturation sliders in PS and give the images all the "vibrancy" you want.
 
Pherdinand said:
The only film i will stay away from FOREVER is kodak gold 200. I think it's just rubbish.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know more about why you feel this way too. It's actually a beautiful film albiet a tad grainy. I would agree on your assessment of the Kodak 400 and 800 as rubbish but not 200, and certainly not 100. Perhaps it was your printer? Having worked in a professional color lab back in the early 90's I have to say that the lab print machines not set properly or operator error can make a film that can normally print beautifully look absolutely awful. i.e., I too disliked the Agfa consumer films for a while until I saw what a print looked like when the operator set the printer properly. It was like night and day...

Unfortunately I cannot get my scans of the Agfa films to look quite right so I do not use them much anymore.
 
proenca said:
After trying several dozens of films, some labled professional ( and priced as such ), my heart is set on the consumer Kodak Gold... the colours and contrast are rich.

Anyone has a preference in film to share ? and why ? C41 please 🙂
Click to expand...

I like the Kodak 100 and 200. I prefer Fuji overall, but if I'm looking for Fuji 200 and can't find it, or if Kodak is cheaper, I will take it. I'm not particularly fond of the Kodak Max 400 and 800.

I used quite a bit of the rebranded Agfa Vista a couple of years ago, but it's all but vanished.

Why C41? Because it's there! 🙂
 
Kodak UC 400; 3 pack of 36 frame rolls at the wmart for 12 $. No grain, great latitude, superb colors; in shade, sun, at night; no problems with multi lighting. That is what I use, have used since Agfa 400 Vista went out of business. I have always been disappointed by the dullness i see in Reala and the green tinge of anything color Fuji, except - of course - their BW Arcos 100 which would be my choice for BW film. Slides I have not shot in decades.
 
It all depends upon the lab work. I've seen crap results from what I know to be excellent films, and very good resutls from otherwise very mediocre films. If the lab tech knows their craft, you'll get good results. If you get a kid who doesn't care about his weekend job, good luck.

Many folks here are very happy with results they get from films that others are scoffing at. This probably has more to do with the labs than anything else. If your lab sees a lot of Kodak Gold, they probably know how to handle it.

With that out of the way, I will second the votes for Agfa Ultra films. I have a brick of the Ultra 50 still in my freezer. I'll pull this out for really saturated punchy color from good colorful subjects in bright daylight. I shot a roll of this stuff at "The Gates" art instalation by Christo in NYC's Central Park a few years ago, and the images looked like chromes. For weddings, I used to shoot Kodak Portra, but switched to Fuji Pro. I switched because my lab does a better job with the Fuji film, not because I think the film is any better (or worse).

These days I pretty much only shoot b&w film, though. I do what color work I do mostly digitally these days.
 
I've gotten surprisingly good results from Kodak Gold 100 and 200. I've gotten surprisingly bad results from the 400 and 800. I don't use it much anymore-usually using Portra 160 and 400 when not shooting chromes. However, the consumer Fuji 400 is really worth looking into. I prefer the Kodak only because with my hardware/software combo it's easier for me to adjust the colors with the Kodak.
 
uhligfd said:
Kodak UC 400; 3 pack of 36 frame rolls at the wmart for 12 $. No grain, great latitude, superb colors; in shade, sun, at night; no problems with multi lighting. That is what I use, have used since Agfa 400 Vista went out of business. I have always been disappointed by the dullness i see in Reala and the green tinge of anything color Fuji, except - of course - their BW Arcos 100 which would be my choice for BW film. Slides I have not shot in decades.
Click to expand...
You preferred Vista 400 over other ISO 400 films? Don't get me wrong, I like the color rendition as well, but Vista 400 is in my opinion very grainy and much more so than Superia 400 or Ultra (Max) 400.

By the way, has anyone tried Kodak Color Plus 200? It is the cheapest Kodak color negative in here (Finland), but Kodak websites do not seem to have anything about it. I wonder if it's sold under some different name elsewhere. However, it is NOT the same film as Elite Color or Gold 200. I tried it once and the results were fairly good, perhaps even better than the Superia 200 I normally use in P&S cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom