C41 film with high contrast

[jojoman2]

Hey folks, I've been shooting portra recently and am looking for something with a little more contrast. Suggestions?

I shot a roll of provia the other day but it's so expensive I don't know how often I can afford to shoot it, waiting for results from the lab.

Cheers,

J

 

[Swift1]

Hey folks, I've been shooting portra recently and am looking for something with a little more contrast. Suggestions?

I shot a roll of provia the other day but it's so expensive I don't know how often I can afford to shoot it, waiting for results from the lab.

Cheers,

J

Ektar... 🙂

 

[Jake Mongey]

Ektar is your best bet, I dont know any other C41 films with high contrast. This is usually where Slide films would be an option if you dont like ektar but want high contrast

 

[Ronald M]

Cheap consumer film.

 

[valdas]

Underexpose...

 

[tunalegs]

In 35mm? Kodak Gold or Fuji Superia. Lower the speed the higher the contrast.

 

[sevo]

There is not really all that much difference. In the past, if you did not mind shooting at ISO 6 and with unmasked film, SO-279 print film, the film used to make slides off (inter-) negatives, would have been the film to go to. As that does not exist any more, cine print film might fill that gap, but it could be even harder to balance its colour (or even to get hold of a small amount if you are not near a printing facility).

 

[Nowhereman]

jojoman2 - unless you don't scan it doesn't really matter much because a hybrid workflow gives you a lot of control of contrast and gradation as well as color temperature and tint. Here are some relatively high contrast Portra 400 images in this thread.

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

[Skiff]

Hey folks, I've been shooting portra recently and am looking for something with a little more contrast. Suggestions?

All of the colour negative amateur films have more contrast than the Portras and other professional CN films like Fuji Pro 160NS or Fuji Pro 400H:
Kodak ColorPlus 200, Gold 200, Ultramaxx 400, AgfaPhoto Vista 200, AgfaPhoto Vista 400, Fuji C200, Fuji Superia 200, Superia 400, Superia 800 and Fuji Superia 1600.
So lots of choices.

I shot a roll of provia the other day but it's so expensive I don't know how often I can afford to shoot it, waiting for results from the lab.

Cheers,

J

Cost is definitely not the right reason to stay away from Provia. In most cases shooting Provia is even the lower cost option compared to shooting Portra.
Because with reversal films like Provia already after processing you have a finished, perfect picture which can be looked at. No need for scans or prints, no further costs for scans or prints.
Overall costs are lower with reversal film.
And even better quality, too:
A slide on a lighttable under an excellent loupe and in projection delivers a 100x better quality than any picture on the (quality limiting medium) computer monitor.

And some excellent labs offer E6 processing at very attractive, low prices (sometimes even lower than C41).
For example in the US AgX Imaging:
http://www.agximaging.com/
For Europe Photo Studio 13:
http://www.photostudio13.de/

 

[ForestCap]

Have you tried Fujicolor C200?

 

[brennanphotoguy]

All of the colour negative amateur films have more contrast than the Portras and other professional CN films like Fuji Pro 160NS or Fuji Pro 400H:
Kodak ColorPlus 200, Gold 200, Ultramaxx 400, AgfaPhoto Vista 200, AgfaPhoto Vista 400, Fuji C200, Fuji Superia 200, Superia 400, Superia 800 and Fuji Superia 1600.
So lots of choices.



Cost is definitely not the right reason to stay away from Provia. In most cases shooting Provia is even the lower cost option compared to shooting Portra.
Because with reversal films like Provia already after processing you have a finished, perfect picture which can be looked at. No need for scans or prints, no further costs for scans or prints.
Overall costs are lower with reversal film.
And even better quality, too:
A slide on a lighttable under an excellent loupe and in projection delivers a 100x better quality than any picture on the (quality limiting medium) computer monitor.

And some excellent labs offer E6 processing at very attractive, low prices (sometimes even lower than C41).
For example in the US AgX Imaging:
http://www.agximaging.com/
For Europe Photo Studio 13:
http://www.photostudio13.de/

Well, the price per roll is higher than any C41 film. And if you plan on doing anything with the images in a digital area (sharing online, instagram, website, etc) then you do need scans so no, E6 is not cheaper than C41.

The consumer films are going to be a bit higher contrast typically. Also, you can experiment with pushing film. Ektar is a great really punchy film as well and rivals color you can get from E6 films.

 

[Bill Clark]

This is what I did and I liked the results.

I got more vibrant colors, made it seem like higher contrast, when I overexposed negative film one-half to one stop over exposure. I did his when a lab was doing the processing. This could also be accomplished setting the ISO at a lower number. I didn't do that as I wanted to be consistent otherwise I found I would question, now did I set to a lower ISO and don't need to over expose or do I need to over expose?

When I started to do my own C-41 processing, I usually would overdevelop the film.

At any rate, that's what I did and the results were what I liked.

 

[Skiff]

Well, the price per roll is higher than any C41 film.

No, that is not generally true. For example Provia 100F is also available re-labelled as AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100. And in several countries CT Precisa is much cheaper than Ektar and the Portras.

And if you plan on doing anything with the images in a digital area (sharing online, instagram, website, etc) then you do need scans so no, E6 is not cheaper than C41.

In most cases an amateur photographer wants the pictures for himself enjoying them. That is perfectly possible with reversal film and using it on a lighttable and / or in projection. Best quality - no additional costs.

Most amateur film photographers don't have own websites or instagram accounts. And for those who have they will only share a tiny fraction of all their shots online. For that 0,01 % or 0,5% of their shots it is absolutely sufficient to scan just that certain picture which is wanted for online presentation.
It is absolutely not necessary to have the huge costs to scan all film / pictures you have taken.
Reversal film gives you exactly that freedom.
But you don't have that advantage with negative film: A developed negative film only is worthless, looking at a color negative makes no sense. You always need either a print or a scan to enjoy a colour negative. You always have these additional costs to the processing costs.

With reversal film you have the biggest flexibility, the most options:
- you can just hold it to the light and enjoy it
- you can use a slide viewer
- perfect quality with an excellent slide loupe on a lighttable
- oustanding unsurpassed quality with projection
- you can make optical prints from it with BW direct positive paper
- you can scan it
- you can make prints from the scans.

With negative film you only have the options scanning and prints (either optical or from the scan).

I am shooting both reversal film and negative film: My overall costs for reversal film are significantly lower.

Ektar is a great really punchy film as well and rivals color you can get from E6 films.

The colour brillance of reversal film on a lighttable and in projection significantly surpasses Ektar scanned and viewed on a monitor and in prints (that is mainly for physical reasons and the advantages reversal film here has as a transparent medium which leads to an optimal efficiency of light and perfect illumination).
And all current reversal films also have a superior detail rendition (sharpness, resolution, fineness of grain) compared to Ektar.

 

[Skiff]

I got more vibrant colors, made it seem like higher contrast, when I overexposed negative film one-half to one stop over exposure.

It is right that certain colour negative films (but not all) deliver a bit more saturation when overexposed 1/2 to 1 stop.
But that does not result in really higher contrast, just the opposite: Overexposing with CN films leads to a bit lower contrast.

But important to know: With overexposing colour negative film a lot more is happening, and the stronger the overexposure, the stronger the quality losses:
- decreasing sharpness (due to halation effects in the emulsion)
- decreasing resolution (due to halation effects in the emulsion)
- decreasing highlight detail (not as problematic as with digital, but you are loosing detail)
- colour shifts
- loosing speed.

For best overall quality (concerning all technical parameters) correct exposure is the optimal solution.

 

[Bill Clark]

Interesting article on over exposing negative film (note what the results are when under exposing):

http://www.35mmc.com/02/05/2016/overexposure-latitude/

To my eye, the under exposed sample looks washed out and little contrast.

Which do you prefer?

 

[Skiff]

I know the article, Bill.

I've done lots of test over the last decades of all the numerous CN films I've used.
And I have tested all (without exception) current CN films on the market.

The best results with CN films I've always got at box speed, and at 1/3 to 1/2 (max. 2/3) overexposure (slight overexposure only if I really needed more shaodow detail, and had no fill-in flash at hand).
With more than 2/3 stops overexposure I've always had losses in overall quality (see my above post).

 

[Bisakok]

Following on from what Bill says, I often shoot Portra 400 at 640 and get the lab to push it a stop. I like it!