Struggling with 35mm Colour Neg Choice

[ChrisPlatt]

Pro Image 100 looks pretty good, but is a tad expensive, about $50 for 5 rolls.

Ultramax 400 seems like the only affordable film stock that isn't Gold. I think I'd opt for that if I shot more color and wanted to save a bit over Pro Image 100/go faster.

Color film has gotten expensive. Fortunately I don't use C41 color often.
Last fall Freestyle had Pro Image 100 5-packs for $36.49 so I bought several.
Popularly priced Ultramax 400 is my preferred faster C41 film option.

Chris

 

[8bit Barry]

I've never tried that one, I've still got a bit of Fuji (Kodak) 400 and I use a lot of XP2+ otherwise.

I’m a massive fan of XP2 I don’t use any other B&W film. I just love the smooth tones.

 

[Coldkennels]

I think ISO 400 is a minmum for me on a rangefinder. It just makes the whole handheld experience so much more versatile.

I used to think this. However, with a good rangefinder - and a good lens! - you can go much, much lower without worry. A rangefinder is a lot more stable than an SLR at slow speeds, and at least for me, I find it much easier to accurately focus a 50/1.5 on a rangefinder than an SLR.

I rarely shoot anything faster than 100 ISO now, and 25 ISO is totally doable in most scenarios. Hell, I've even handheld 6 ISO films in a Leica!

 

[Out to Lunch]

Anyone ever use Vibe Photo Max 400? I've seen some nice photo samples on YT.

​

 

[8bit Barry]

I used to think this. However, with a good rangefinder - and a good lens! - you can go much, much lower without worry. A rangefinder is a lot more stable than an SLR at slow speeds, and at least for me, I find it much easier to accurately focus a 50/1.5 on a rangefinder than an SLR.

I rarely shoot anything faster than 100 ISO now, and 25 ISO is totally doable in most scenarios. Hell, I've even handheld 6 ISO films in a Leica!

It does depend on your composition (if it requires greater depth of field) and whether your lens can resolve the corner sharpness, but that’s sound advice.

It was only recently I was made aware that these fast lenses were simply because slow speed films were all that were available. Fast glass fixed this rather than lenses being designed for extremely shallow depth of field visual effects.

 

[oldwino]

Pro Image 100 & UltraMax 400 are both good. I like the Fujicolor 200 & 400, too. More natural colors than Kodak (even though they are made by
Kodak, I think the formulation is different than the Kodak emulsions). Of course, the Portras when you need the highest quality. And Ektar 100 when you want punchy colors (but not so good with skin tones, so watch out).

Most of the films from smaller “producers” are just gimmicks. Repackaged stuff. Hit and miss.

 

[Coldkennels]

It was only recently I was made aware that these fast lenses were simply because slow speed films were all that were available. Fast glass fixed this rather than lenses being designed for extremely shallow depth of field visual effects.

I've recently acquired a small pile of Miniature Camera World magazines from the late 1930s. They are incredible to read, and it's fascinating to see the results dedicated amateurs were getting with the equipment available at the time. I also found this list online of the films available in 1942, for context. The easiest way to convert to modern speeds is to take the Weston numbers and increase by two "notches" (100 Weston = 160 ISO, 50 Weston = 80 ISO, 24 Weston = 64 ISO, and so on).

The only colour roll films listed in 1942 are Kodacolor (20 Weston, or 32 ISO) in 120, and Kodachrome Regular and Type A (8 Weston, or just 12 ISO) in 35mm:




If folks could manage with these films for general purpose use back then, I figure there's no reason we need 400 ISO film now!

 

[wlewisiii]

We don't need planes, trains and automobiles either. I'd rather not live without them though. Same with decent speed emulsions.

 

[Tim Murphy]

We don't need planes, trains and automobiles either. I'd rather not live without them though. Same with decent speed emulsions.

Dear wlewisiii,

I agree with that 100%. I enjoy nature and wildlife photography the most. I'm not a sit in a blind with a tripod and gimbal and wait for something to come to me kind of guy. I like to walk around and shoot what I see when I see it. With a modern digital camera, it's relatively easy to get perfectly useable images shooting at ISO 3200 and even ISO 6400, with 600mm lenses that are f6.3 on the long end. In good light ISO400 will work, but there are times when the higher ISO's are important, even with lenses that have IS/OS/VR.

With film for me at least with my cameras ISO 400 is borderline useless for long telephoto work, even on sunny days when using 400mm and 500mm f4.5 lenses. Birds and deer and things are not always out in full display, sometimes they are in some pretty dense and dark surroundings. Because I'm not as steady as I used to be handholding shutter speeds slower than 1/500th are a no go for me. I bought a couple of 3 packs of Lomography ISO 800 film to see if they make things any easier for me. I just have to make sure I only load them in film cameras with a shutter speed maximum of 1/2000th or faster. Thankfully I have more than a few choices for that, or I'd need ND filters for daylight hours with ISO 800. 😉

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

 

[AveryWagg]

My fav these days is Fuji 400, but but I've got ProImage 100 in the M4 right now. It kind of depends what I think I'll be shooting over the next week or so..

..Avery

 

[Rayt]

For color print film I really like Portra 160 and 400 even when Fuji 400H was available. I know Kodak GOLD is cheaper but considering the overall cost of photography with shipping film back and forth for development and prints in the end the savings aren’t worth it to me.

 

[8bit Barry]

For color print film I really like Portra 160 and 400 even when Fuji 400H was available. I know Kodak GOLD is cheaper but considering the overall cost of photography with shipping film back and forth for development and prints in the end the savings aren’t worth it to me.

Yeah it’s so expense as it is, a few pounds more for the far better results aren’t going to matter.

 

[das]

If you are scanning negs, Fuji 200/400 works great. Relatively easy to correct. Nice, fairly accurate colors.

Gold 200: Kind of cool in 120, not worth it in 35mm.

Pro Image 100 / Ektar: Too strong of color casts when scanning and difficult to home correct. Has the "real deal" film look though!

XP2: The easiest to use, most versatile 35mm b&w film and can be bought in 100 foot rolls. It is also fantastic in 120. It is no T400CN, though,
which was a better stock (RIP).

Flic Film Elektra 100: I LOVE this film for outdoor photography. It is respooled Aerocolor IV.

Portra (Any Iteration): For the price and if you are scanning and correcting everything, not worth it. It also has difficult to correct casts. Much better proposition in 120.

Ultramax 400: Do not see any advantage to it for its slight price bump over Fuji 200/400.

If you have access to a lab that uses the native software for the Pakon and Frontier scanners, they can do a much better job correcting films like Pro Image, Ektar, Portra, etc.

 

[BernardL]

Portra (Any Iteration): For the price and if you are scanning and correcting everything, not worth it. It also has difficult to correct casts. Much better proposition in 120.

Please explain why 120 is a much better proposition. No difficult-to-correct casts in that format? Or relatively cheaper (per roll, not per frame), so that the color casts are an acceptable evil? Or the grain/resolution in 135 are subpar in your opinion?

 

[das]

Please explain why 120 is a much better proposition. No difficult-to-correct casts in that format? Or relatively cheaper (per roll, not per frame), so that the color casts are an acceptable evil? Or the grain/resolution in 135 are subpar in your opinion?

In a scanning workflow, the claimed lack of "grain" in Portra does not really matter that much because in LR/PS, you can just dissolve it a bit. Because many home scanners (amateur and pro) tend to artificially amplify grain that you would not normally see in a darkroom or lab print, I do not consider that any type of photographic heresy. If Portra's only advantages are the "lack of grain" and/or some nostalgic, unquantifiable "film look" (whatever that means), compared to the alternatives, those advantages do not mean much in a digital workflow.

If Portra were the same price as Ultramax in 35mm, I would certainly use it more. I used to use Portra alot before Kodak decided years ago to jack the prices on it. For a 120 neg, the extra work that it takes in color correcting is worth it to me because the shot itself is of much higher quality and richer than 35mm. For color 120, there are not that many non-cine options anyway. Ektar is a nightmare to correct and not a good all-purpose, all-situations film. Gold 200 is ok, a semi-pro film that gets way better in 120.