make me appreciate color film

Shooting 160 NC and VC in 120 and 4x5 - well... the dynamic range and color saturation is perfect for architectural work. I don't have to shoot HDR, because the film holds what I need.

It all comes down to what you are shooting and why. I have yet to find a digital solution that offers me the range and resolution of large format color negative film.

For me the only advantage to digital is a workflow one. I don't have to have it processed.

But I can't make you appreciate it. If it was the right solution for you, you probably already would.
 
I'm not much of a color fan myself either. I think it's harder to get a good color image, than it is to get a good b&w image.

Heres one image though, which is one of my favourite color shots I've taken:

hiiumaa3.jpg


This was shot on Superia 400 I believe
 
I'm one of those weirdos who really enjoys shooting colour film in my rangefinders. I would shoot a lot more of it if it wasn't so expensive compared with home-rolled and processed B&W, and wasn't so difficult to scan well. In the hands of a masterful darkroom printer, prints from colour negs can be gorgeous, and emulsions like the new Kodak 400VS are stellar. But these days it's generally B&W in my RF's and colour on my Canon 5D.

Bessa R3A, CV 25/4, Fuji Reala
64835622_f15af0f5e3.jpg


Bessa R3A, CV 40/1.4 SC, Fuji Reala
64838422_ef471f9057.jpg


Bessa R3A, CV 25/4, Fuji NPH
64836015_6b8350fe06.jpg


Bessa R3M, CV 50/1.5, Fuji NPZ
386922682_323dd47934.jpg
 
hans voralberg said:
I only shoot Reala and NPZ, and since Reala is too flat for you, which it is really, here goes NPZ
Click to expand...
iso800 is far too grainy for me. I already struggle with low-iso color films because the grain is quite murky

blw said:
teus- a bit off topic, but I have to ask. Is that the World Scout Jamboree or World Explorer Jamboree?
I'm a proud Eagle Scout and just had to ask- especially in light of seeing females at the Jamboree. I quite enjoyed looking through those and appreciate your sharing them here.
Click to expand...
it's my pleasure if you liked the set. its from the 2007 World jamboree, when we celebrated a 100 years of scouting. I was fulltime photographer for the Belgian contingent. it was a marvelous job, and I've seen every corner of the world village 🙂

BillP said:
So.
This is a shot that only really works in colour:
As is this:
Click to expand...
wow, just as some other links, this is breathtaking. as I discovered recently while doing nature macros, my eyes aren't trained well enough to compose with different colors. I'll definately shoot some color film again. I'm going on a small trip Sunday and might shoot some color then.

a lot of people get very nice colors, but this appears to be under hard (or early) sunlight?
 
ahaa!
this could explain my murky tonality and grain

Roger Hicks said:
Extra exposure on C41 normally gives better tonality and a bigger cushion against underexposure (= better tonality again), and finer 'grain' (dye clouds) at the price of reduced sharpness.

Extra exposure on conventional B+W generally gives better tonality but coarser grain and reduced sharpness.
Click to expand...
 
wray said:
This one wouldn't be quite the same in b&w.
Click to expand...
good colors, not too much of a color cast, skin tones look OK to me. what tech details?


marke said:
Yes, that much I understand. But again, I ask why? Please share what you don't care about Fuji. I'm just trying to learn what some people prefer about some films as opposed to others.
Click to expand...
oh, sorry, I even don't know myself. Fuji would be a bit too neutral and cold balanced, and maybe kodak gives me better tonality. Tomorrow I'll know what my roll of Reala looks like, with bracketed exposures, and under nicer light
 
Don't know if my C41 work will convince anybody of anything other than that I haven't shot a lot of it, but here's a few.

Nikon FE2, 24mm f2.8 AIS on Fuji Reala
1456927510_416296193d.jpg


Olympus XA w/Fuji Superia 200
2104653053_9385e95064.jpg


Nikon FE, 24mm f2.8 AIS on Fuji Superia 100
2282593555_7b19d21014.jpg


Nikon FE, 75-150mm f3.5 E on Fuji Superia 200
2351788182_b721cd3cf5.jpg


For a little perspective, here's an a different shot I took of the mannequins in B&W:

Nikon FE2, 50mm f1.4 AIS on Kodak BW400CN
2282593781_deafd77f8b.jpg
 
Teus said:
hah, looks like we got a lot of the same equipment. photos look OK to me, the second having a strange color cast.
Click to expand...

Heh, got all that too, do you?

It's good stuff, but I find my XA to be a mixed bag. It's so small and light I have trouble not twitching when I trip the shutter and I end up having a lot of shots where I'm tilting the camera and not noticing.

That shot at the docks may have been suffering from some veiling flare, but it's actually a fairly accurate representation of what the light was like.
 
Kodak Super Gold 400 for me, all the way: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nagoya_boston/tags/kodaksupergold400/
A 20 pack was something like $25 over here. GREAT film, doesn't blow-out on bright days and (with steady hands) is also great for low-light shots.
Ultra Color is 2x the price and just doesn't spin my propeller.
As others have shown, Fuji Reala is excellent, too.

I rarely shoot slide film these days. I've photod my city to death, so I only use it for sunsets and vacations. I don't shoot digital at all.
 
Last edited:
I just developed my first film of Kodak UC400 last night. Seems having turned out well, so I am going to try some pushed UC400 next (up to 1600 ISO). Not sure how grain and colors will look like but I see it as an experiment and self-developing C41 is fast and easy. 🙂
 
OK, got my reala. EI 50 helps a bit, but results are fairly poor to my eyes. low sharpness and I can't get tonality right, even with editing. I probably need some modern glass: the old collapsible summicron's colors are ugly, my J-12 performs a bit better (and warmer).

samples from a dual scan III with auto exposure: http://satsuki.nl/teus/photos/tech/reala/reala.jpg

real world photos:

reala2.jpg



this leaves me fairly unhappy, digital captures require way less editing to look snappy. I should try some "ultra color" or so, in my SLR with 50mm f/1.8 AF (or f/1.2 with older coatings).what do you people think?
 
Color, in general can be amazing in and of itself. I am the same way--i have been photographing with b&w film for decades, and even travelling to a few of the same places, and all in b&w. This past summer, I returned to one of my favorite places, and photographed in color, as well as b&w.

In order to maximize the color outdoors, I primarily photographed during the golden hours, early morning and early evening as the sun was setting. In doors I was really paying attention to the color of the interiors and to the light falling inside people's homes.

I was using Kodachrome 64 and 200, and I was kodak 100 NC (color Negative film).

Also, one way to get inspired about color is to look at some books by Richard Misrach, Joel Sternfield, Alex Webb, and Steve McCurry of course, and even some of the color work by Harry Calahan. I think it will give a different perspective about what you can do with color, but like anything, it is a different way of seeing, which takes practice.

I would also try slightly overexposing the negative just a bit.

If you are interested I have one of color image on my blog.
 
The colors are dull, but I'm not sure that you have low sharpness there. Can't really judge from this size, but it seems to me that what you have is low contrast. And this IS what you'd want if you are to scan - you can increase contrast as much as you want in PS, but it doesn't work quite the same the other way. That's why I love Reala - I get shots even in the middle of the day (and this means a lot of sun here in SoCal).

My advise is to scan to raw/linear tiff, then do all the adjustments in PS. Keep the changes and apply them next time. It might not be spot-on, but will save you mileage.
As a point of comparison you might want to find a place that uses Noritsu or Frontier (I've got good results from both) machines and scan it there once - just for reference.

btw - I've heard people complaining about the C-41 colors out of Minolta scanners (never about the resolution!), and most seem to get better results with Vuescan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom