Color transparancy or negative film?

[ChrisN]

I'm planning a trip to the desert country this (southern) winter, and wondering what colour/color film will work best for me.

Should I use negative or transparancy film, and why? All my film is scanned at home. I generally have very few photos printed, but would expect a few worth hanging if the trip goes well.

Amongst the transparancy film, the Fuji products are the most readily available locally, and I've heard excellent reports about Velvia. How do the various Fuji films compare? I'd be seeking good colour saturation to bring up the rich desert reds.

Thanks!

 

[wlewisiii]

I like Reala, personally, but it is a neg film & Velvia does have far greater color saturation to my eyes. If you do go with Velvia, find the ISO50 version, I'd suggust.

William

 

[Trius]

My experience in desert country (albeit the US southwest) is that dynamic range can be a challenge, so for chromes I take something that is more balanced in that regard. I don't like Velvia for those situations ... if I want the Velvia look in a colourful desert area I can buy a local postcard. 😀 My personal preference is for Kodachrome, but if I were not able to get it or wanted something in the E6 line, I would consider Astia, but take along something a little more saturated as well just in case.

For negative stock, I really, really like Reala 100 and Portra 160 (both versions) ... my experience with lab scanning is that both Reala and Portra scan really easily. I have yet to find a lab that does a really good scan from Kodachrome. But you scan at home, so I'm sure you could scan K64 well with a bit of tweaking.

The reason I like K64 for the desert is from experience, not just theory. My Kodachrome shots of the Grand Canyon and other areas around there are great, and still convey the feel and emotion of my visits.

 

[aad]

Reala 100 for negative, Provia 100F for E6-I find Velvia can be a bit overwhelming for my scanners.

 

[css9450]

I've heard excellent reports about Velvia. How do the various Fuji films compare? I'd be seeking good colour saturation to bring up the rich desert reds.

I'd choose Velvia for any overcast weather I'd encounter (pushed to 100 if necessary) and Provia 100F for sunlight conditions. I really like how Velvia's extra saturation adds punch to cloudy weather shots.

 

[dmr]

I would recommend Kodachrome as the first choice. I did some very gorgeous Death Valley shots a year ago with that.

I've also used Velvia 100 and yes, the colors pop, but it's a totally different look and feel.

I've never had trouble using slides for desert scenes.

 

[mike_j]

It depends on how you intend to present the finished work to some extent but I tend to go for negative film, its wide exposure latitude is very forgiving which is helpful in harsh sunlight conditions. It scans well and can be tweaked over a wide range in photoshop/lightroom/whatever. Also stock is available in most countries. I generally use Fujifilm Superia as a good allrounder but arguments can be made for other emulsions.

 

[jan normandale]

Hi Chris, I just shot a roll of 220 Velvia 100 ISO, the colours look great.

I’d go for something that does what you want though. All the films discussed here are great films and do certain things well. But if you are looking for drama consider the Velvia, the Portra might be more accurate if that is important. Also Kodakchrome has stood the test of time as dmr and Trius note.

If you want and you are scanning there are apparently ‘modes’ you can use with your scanner to make emulations of the various mainstream colour films. So you have lots of options.

Personally, I’d take some of each and use it as the situation dictated or to achieve what I wanted. If you are shooting 120’s it’s easier to finish off a roll to reload with a film you want to specifically use.

Good luck and don’t forget to share the photographs when you get them.

 

[MadMan2k]

For whatever reason, almost none of my landscapes that I've printed have been the ones I shot on print film. I shoot it sometimes, but something about it doesn't seem quite as good as slide film. I do like the new Portra 160NC though, the colors are just right and it's a pretty good speed.

Part of the problem for me might be the fact that I'm evaluating it from the scans since color negatives are hard to tell anything from, and I haven't had one scanned other than from an automated machine that compensates for shadows and proceeds to blow out the highlights in an attempt to get shadow detail...

Print film does work well in the forest, under a lot of tree cover and diffused light, but in harsh sunlight, especially in winter, in the desert - I haven't been happy with it.

 

[Avotius]

Just remember that slides are 100 times harder to scan right then negatives, which is why lately I find myself more and more shooting negatives. I have been shooting fuji reala and superia 400 with great success in all things. But besides that I love fuji Provia, while I was a big velvia 100f fan I found that shooting people with that film was weird, and then found myself loving the smoother tones of provia. Might think about giving that a shot.


First shot: Reala in a high contrast situation. I think it handled it very well. I have a 50x50 inch print of this, very nice.

Second shot: Provia 100f, the sky is blown completely which isnt so surprising given this sun was just behind that mountain, but the village is fine, on close inspection I can see very good detail all though the image, and on the a3 sized print there is even a little bit of detail in the mountains.

Third shot: Velvia 100f, this film did great things for the colors in this shot but not so great things for the very very high contrast, sky area is blown pretty bad and the dark areas are completly dark. 50x50 inch print of this is sharp but I would say the reala or provia is easier to deal with later on.

 

[sepiareverb]

I'd suggest pulling any slide film in such harsh light- even a third of a stop would help. Contrast is the main problem with slides, and contrast is the main problem in the desert. I lived in New Mexico for a while, and had a half a year of contrasty B&W negs before I got it through my thick head that it was the light. When I moved the New England I had to learn to develop film all over again (again).

I often pulled Velvia 50 1/3 stop, and the Kodak E100VS or GX 1/3. The E100VS can tak a 1/2 stop pull well, without getting washed out shadows. Hard when travelling to do any testing beforehand to be sure what to do. If you could approximate the conditions for some tests run some- you could also try a few films and see what gets the colors you want. Velvia 50 is supposed to be coming back out soon (I was told this by a shop owner who had just been to some trade show) a fine film for red.

I agree that Kodachrome is a good choice- perhaps the best if pulling isn't an option, for the contrast in Kodachrome is softer than the Velvias and the Kodak E100 films, and the reds are excellent- all colors actually are quite nice with Kodachrome. For reds, the E100GX is great, but blue skies can be disappointing. Fuji Velvia will give a good red and blue, but again it is the contrast that can ruin an otherwise great image.
I don't have a good suggestion for a print film- I'm working my way through my freezerful of Agfa Ultra100 which is the only color print film I've ever fallen in love with. Print would help a lot with the extreme contrast you may encounter, better shadow details and ability to take overexposure without being empty. But for color- The new Kodak Portra films seem a good choice, I have some here to try out but haven't had the weather to really work with it.

Enjoy! I do miss the desert sitting here with a foot of new snow outside the window and more forecast every day this week. Was thinking of trying to get a trip in next year to SE Arizona in February or April.

 

[ChrisN]

Wow - thanks for all this good advice. As I expected, there's a wide range of experience and options here! I'll have two bodies to play with, which will give me more options, and will be shooting in 120 format (6x4.5). I might take a grab-bag with several rolls of each, and treat this trip as a test run, with a view to settling on a film for later trips.

This will be interesting - the last time I shot slides (Kodachrome) was about 25 years ago!

 

[Rhoyle]

I mostly shoot chromes in most situations, simply because they give me a color reference for when I scan. Scanning print films leaves one guessing about color balance-admittedly there are some people who are darned good at guessing, judging from results I've seen. With my scanner, (epson 4870) print film comes out with just a bit more grain, while chromes scan quite smoothly.

 

[mackigator]

What about the difference in workflow?

What about the difference in workflow?

Can't comment on different films for desert use, but I love scanning slides on the Nikon Coolscan 5000. Easy, fast, high quality results.

With slides, I proof with a lightbox and toss the bad ones. By the time I scan, I know what I want. The only downside I have to slides is waiting on the return mailer (2 weeks). And often my slides have that extra something (100 ISO) that I really like. They also store well for quick searching.

With negatives, I get them back after no more than 24hours, but I have to make a preview scan to see what is really there. This slows me down compared to working with slides, even though the Nikon scanner works equally well on negatives. The difference in scan effort is significant because of the preview issue (only).

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

The difference in scan effort is significant because of the preview issue (only).

I agree strongly. This happened to me recently. Usually it takes over an hour to make low res scans of a roll of color film. I recently shot some work with Velvia and editing time was cut down tremendously. I only scanned the frames that looked good on the light table and save tons of time. As far as cost savings though, C-41 wins hands down. But as we all know "time=money".

 

[lZr]

I don't recomend any slide for desert country (or area), because any stop up or down will kill your image. Better to use negative film, like Reala or Kodak UC. Using software you can pop any color you want like in slide. And then, sometimes, you may want to project slides from your trip on the wall. I recomend Fuji Sensia or Astia

About the scanner - For good slide scan, you need 4D dynamic range

Edit: I have to much err's with slides in desert areas of my country. I do bracketing for good results.

 

[RObert Budding]

I'd shoot chromes with an SLR so that I can place my graduated ND filter properly. Rangefinder? I'd shoot neg film.

 

[PATB]

I agree strongly. This happened to me recently. Usually it takes over an hour to make low res scans of a roll of color film. I recently shot some work with Velvia and editing time was cut down tremendously. I only scanned the frames that looked good on the light table and save tons of time. As far as cost savings though, C-41 wins hands down. But as we all know "time=money".

I thought I was the only one who find it easier to scan slides in a hybrid workflow with color film.

Most of the posts I read on the Internet indicate that slide is harder to scan. I use a Nikon Coolscan V with Vuescan and scanning slides is like point and shoot. I scan to Tiff to get about 40-50MB per scan. I rarely have to make adjustments in Lightroom. And editing is a breeze using a lightbox and loupe (and the slides look gorgeous on the lightbox 😱 ). Slides are also much easier to insert into the scanner, way faster than putting strips of negative film into the slide film adapter (I don't use the strip adapter as it sometimes scratches the film). I mainly use Fuji Provia 100F and 400x. I would use the 400x all the time if not for the cost. Slides have sped up my workflow so much I only shoot slides on long vacations.