Favourite Colour Film...

[Pherdinand]

kodak e100gx all the way. Yes,it is slide film.
If it must be C41, fuji reala is a very good iso 100 film. 400 and faster in color neg are not looking god to me, i rarely get something real nice from these.

 

[ferider]

If I were buying film for a trip today it would be 80% Reala & 20% Fuji 1600. The 1600 is an "ok" film but it's still the best fast color out there. If I don't need the speed, then I always prefer Reala to anything else on the market. It just looks right to my eyes.

William

Like William said. Except I add some Superia 400, too.

I actually find Superia 1600 (exposed at 800-1200 or so) easier to scan than other fast color negative films I have tried, including NPZ.

On the other hand I just ordered 40 rolls of 50 ASA Velvia; I used to love that but haven't used it in years ... We'll see what my scanner says. 🙂

Roland.

 

[thomasw_]

As with some lenses that leave some detail to the imagination in their rendering, so too do chrome slides. I prefer kodachrome 64 over colour negatives for that very reason. I think of it rather like appreciating a good read "between the lines" in a story or poem. Though, it is likely that negatives are better for certain applications. That said, Kodachrome 64 does a heck of a good job rendering with human skin.

 

[shadowfox]

The new Kodak Ektar100 is stunning.

Agree, but also expensive 😀

At one time I thought I knew which ones are my favorites, but then I got results like this from a cheap local pharmacy-chain store Walgreen (rebranded Fuji as far as I read about it):

So I don't know... 🙄

One thing I know is that I've yet to see a picture -- my picture -- off Portra 160 NC and Reala 100 that I really like.

 

[wlewisiii]

Good point on the 400 Roland. I considered 80/10/10 and that probably would be better than pulling the 1600 down that far.

William

 

[MikeCassidy]

Real photographers only shoot Tri-X developed in Rodinal.

 

[40oz]

Kodak Gold 100 and what used to be called "MAX400", I think it's now "UltraMax400," are my easy favorites. I haven't bought the 400 color film in a year, but at the same time I was buying MAX400, they also had their HD 400, so I'm guessing they just added the "Ultra" name to MAX400 for marketing reasons. It used to be "Gold 400" at one point, I'm pretty sure. Heck, even Gold 100 was called something else a year or so back, then returned to the "Gold" designation. Guess some new marketing flack was bucking for promotion or felt "change is good" for it's own sake. Whatever. Kodak makes very good "consumer" films, in my mind.

I like them because skin tones are natural, colors are captured the way they look rather than unnaturally lurid or "pastelized." The fact that they are readily available in any gas station, supermarket, and drug store across three continets I've traveled makes them an easy choice for vacation films, as well. If people didn't like them and/or found them too expensive, they would never have become so ubiquitous. They see no glory as "pro" films, but why should they? They are particularly suited to outdoor shots and work well under incandescent lighting to boot. A nice all-round film to my eye. And they seem to have a long shelf life.

I didn't like any of the Portra films, and think the extra cost is merely because they are aimed at studio photographers who can use profits to pay for film. The NC Portas were too muted when shot outdoors for my taste, and the VC versions were just not bnatural colors, so scenes looked different and not better in any way. I thought the NC Portra looked like Fuji Superia, which is nice but not to my taste. Considering a studio professional can light the scene to suit the film and has different needs than the street or snapshot shooter, I'm not sure why non-studio photographers would use them.

I haven't used a Fuji color film I liked, but that isn't to say they don't exist. I just haven't seen it. Beyond the occasional shot by someone else, I just find them either too lurid (Velvia), too muted (Superia), or unnatural. But every eye is different. I would never say they aren't good films.

 

[FA Limited]

Real photographers only shoot Tri-X developed in Rodinal.

i was thinking this forum was entirely like this but quite relieved to see a thread on colour film!
i'm new to this stuff, but here is what i think of some of the films you mentioned.

i bought a box of Press 800 and i like the results quite a bit so far. it's not as saturated as i thought it would be except for reds where it seems to be overly responsive. it also doesn't particularly respond well to underexposure. best thing about it is the price, about $60 for 20 rolls. considering 800Z and Portra 800 are >$6 a roll, i can get over the redness as most of my shooting at this speed is more for fun.

i also liked the colors from 400H and found the color saturation seemed sufficient enough to me. although i haven't tested it extensively for landscapes where it can be dull. 400H can be found for $4 a roll at B&H imported making it quite a deal for pro film.

also tried out 400UC but seems a bit too saturated for indoor / architectural use and it seems to tend to golden colors. but works well on landscapes without blowing it

 

[dhk02]

Recently I've been slowly coming to accept that kodak gold 200 is my favorite color negative film. What I like best is the way it handles greens, it makes your summer shots pop just a little more. Now I just have to get over the slight embarrassment I feel when I go to B&H stand next to a bunch of "pros" placing all kinds of exotic orders and order up 5 rolls of good old $2.50 a roll kodak gold.
as far as above 200 I'm testing kodak high def 400 (I heard it's rebranded royal gold 400, I'll let you know) I've found that Fuji Superia XTRA 400 is as close to a no suprise generic film as possible, for both the good and bad.
I've only shot 800 twice and both kodak ultramax, a lot of grain but I needed it to get the shot, so a grainy shot was better than no shot.

 

[fbf]

c41: 160NC, no doubt about it. all time favorite
e6: RDP III , perfect general purpose slide, easily get decent result.

 

[charjohncarter]

For me a lot depends on the format, 35mm I like Ektar 100 and Reala 100 or one of the Portra 160s. Medium format, I like anything under 400. But I will use 400 Kodaks. Here is MF Reala 100 in medium format, with a Balda Hapo 66e:

 

[FifthLeaf]

Judging from your Flickr, it seems like you've already experimented with many different color films. Just trust your experience and gut.

I generally prefer negative to chromes - vivid colours are all well and good, but I don't like slide film's lack of detail and dynamic range.

All the more reason you should go by your own experiences. I would have suggested Kodak or Fuji's VC and C films because of the contrast and color, but it sounds like that's what you're not interested in. Go for the lower contrast films to get more dynamic range; and go with Kodak or Fuji based on who's colors you like better.

 

[urban_alchemist]

Judging from your Flickr, it seems like you've already experimented with many different color films. Just trust your experience and gut.

That's exactly why I'm having such a problem choosing what to fill my bags with. I use ALOT of color films, and find much to like and loathe with all of them. I'm still looking for that perfect film: low contrast, real colours, reasonable grain and speed, but it is elusive.

The closest I've got is Fuji's Pro 400H - creamy whites, lovely greens, not too saturated other colours and great grain for a 400 film. But, it 'pops' a bit too much for my liking in bright light.

Yet for some reason I find the lower ISO films don't share the same tonality. Kodak 160NC is the closest (for some reason Fuji 160S seems much more saturated than 400H), but its greens are dull and dead...

Fuji Superia are lovely, generally, but like most consumer film, there's too much orange and red in the skin tones...

So... I'll continue the search. 🙁