Color film recommendations

[paulfish4570]

for c-41 film, as you will be west of the mississippi, buy a few rolls of memories 200 at dollar-type stores. it is not available at stores east of the river. very inexpensive, lovely color ...

 

[v_roma]

Thank you all very much for the suggestions. I think I'm going with Ektar as a compromise between portra (my comfort zone 🙂) and slide film. I will also be taking a polarizer. I own one already that I've used with my X100 that happens to be the same size as the thread in the lens I was planning on taking. I agree that polarizers are useful for much more than making skies bluer. They really cut down on glare and reflections, making colors deeper and increasing contrast (in a good way).

Thank you also, Paul, for the memories 200 suggestion. I will be on the look out for it!

 

[v_roma]

Anjoca,

I've used mostly Portra 400 and, as the name implies, it's a portrait film so the reds are toned down to give you great skin tones. Maybe that is what you are seeing as being washed out...? It has a subdued color palette for sure compared to many other films. As for overexposed, I'm not sure. I haven't really seen anything like that with my portra 400 photos.

I'm not sure why, perhaps it's something I'm doing wrong, but Portra 160 always looks washed out and overexposed to me, whereas Ektar almost always gives me lovely results. Ektar isn't ideal for skin tones, but I've learned I'd rather tweak the saturation in post-processing than deal with Portra lately. That said, Porta is still a decent all 'round film.

 

[anjoca76]

Anjoca,

I've used mostly Portra 400 and, as the name implies, it's a portrait film so the reds are toned down to give you great skin tones. Maybe that is what you are seeing as being washed out...? It has a subdued color palette for sure compared to many other films. As for overexposed, I'm not sure. I haven't really seen anything like that with my portra 400 photos.

Oddly, I don't get the same washed out look with the 400 as I do with 160. Again, I'm not blaming the film; it's a user error. I'm sure it's something I'm doing, especially in terms of overexposure--it could be something as simple as the time of day in which I've just so happened to use Porta 160 that gives me that impression. But regardless, I find myself reaching for Ektar more often than Porta 160 these days when I want a slow color negative film. My guess is that since I mainly shoot Ektar and slide film, my eyes are more or less turned off by subdued colors.

 

[steveyork]

I've been digging Kodak Gold 100 lately. An inexpensive and under appreciated film. And it looks like film, not some digital want-to-be.

 

[thegman]

Oddly, I don't get the same washed out look with the 400 as I do with 160. Again, I'm not blaming the film; it's a user error. I'm sure it's something I'm doing, especially in terms of overexposure--it could be something as simple as the time of day in which I've just so happened to use Porta 160 that gives me that impression. But regardless, I find myself reaching for Ektar more often than Porta 160 these days when I want a slow color negative film. My guess is that since I mainly shoot Ektar and slide film, my eyes are more or less turned off by subdued colors.

I find Portra 400 less saturated than 160, 160, on over exposure does get sort of washed out (pleasingly, often), but 400 just sort of "handles" it, and retains it's contrast. Just my experience, I think Portra 400, is slightly less of a portrait film than 160, if you see what I mean.

 

[HHPhoto]

You really only lose about a stop on either end compared to negative film, and the difficulties of shooting slide film are vastly overstated.

Try it out. If you take care to get proper exposures with negative film, you will have no problem with slide film.

New experiences, man.

It'll be an adventure.

Get the hell out of that comfort zone.

+1.
I've started shooting slide film when I was 12 or 13 years old. With a simple manual, no automatic SLR with centre weigthed metering.
I've had no problems at all with exposure with slide film even with this basic set-up.

For landscape shots slide film is excellent. Whether you are using natural color films like the Provias or more saturated like the Velvias is either a matter of personal taste or is determined by your actual subject on that special location.

If you want to use color negative film I recommend Reala and Superia X-Tra 400 for landscape. Better rendition of green compared to the Portras. Higher sharpness and resolution, too. Grain is coarser with X-Tra 400 compared to Portra.

Cheers, Jan

 

[paulfish4570]

well, rats. the memories 200 film is sold in the 99 cent store chain. cost is - surprise! - 99 cents per roll. the chain has stores only in texas, nevada, california and arizona, according to the chain web site. so i don't reckon you're going to pass through any of those going to montana.

 

[Matus]

Unless you explicitly do not want stronger colors I would take Velvia 50 and Ektar 100. Velvia when the light is soft, Ektar when it is not 🙂 That would be my choice.

 

[loquax ludens]

well, rats. the memories 200 film is sold in the 99 cent store chain. cost is - surprise! - 99 cents per roll. the chain has stores only in texas, nevada, california and arizona, according to the chain web site. so i don't reckon you're going to pass through any of those going to montana.

Hey, I've got one of those stores 3 miles from me. I've never noticed the film, but I wasn't really looking for it. I'm going to try some of it and see how I like it. Do you happen to know what brand film they are repackaging?

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Ronald_H]

If you scan your negatives, the character of your film is a moot point. You can influence everything in post processing. C41 is a standard process, all development is (in theory) the same. The human factor and the variables with it, come during exposure and printing.

I therefore hold the (unpopular) opinion that you can just as well use the cheapest film available and perfect your technique. It's either Fuji or Kodak anyway, so it's going to be difficult to find bad film. Sure, Ektra is finer grained than Superia 400, but you have to ask yourself if this is really ever going to show in all but pixel peeping exercises.

I bought a batch of Superia 400 in 2011, it was expired in 2005. I put them in the freezer and started using it. It works perfectly, but you have to expose it as ISO 100.


Lowlands 2011 - roll 4 by Ronald_H, on Flickr

 

[paulfish4570]

lo, i have been told memories is made on the old konica film gear. whether the company uses left-over konica stock, and coats it with fresh chemicals, i do not know. i do know it is very nice film.
couple o' samples, processing and scanning by walgreens:

this one was right at sunset:

 

[v_roma]

Paul, very, very nice. Love the colors.

 

[paulfish4570]

thank you. it is the one color film that i always would have on hand if it were locally available ...

 

[HHPhoto]

If you scan your negatives, the character of your film is a moot point.

Hi Ronald,
I have to disagree from my experience. Even with very skilled post processing you can not make different films look completely identical (and why should we, variety is good).
You can not convert a Gold 400 into a Superia X-Tra 400 or vice versa. Not possible to make Pro400H and Portra 400 looking completely identical.
It doesn't work with the colors, and of course it even does not work at all with factors like grain and resolution.
You cannot turn a very grainy, low resolving film into very fine grained and high resolving film.
Same with the film simulation programms: If I compare the results from a Velvia simulation and compare it to the real Velvia then the results are different.

Films do have different characters, and that variety is very good!
It is an essential part of photographic art.
Different films are like different colors in painting.
Let's keep this variety alive by shooting different film types!

Cheers, Jan