What color negative films do you guys prefer?

What color negative films do you guys prefer?

  • Total voters
    112
Olsen said:
Negative colorfilm is surpased by digital sensors today, but the only one that get close (well...) is Kodak Portra 160 VC - in my view. Note: NC is for flash light portraits and look too dull outdoors. The Portra VC on a Leica- or Zeiss-lense equipped camera gives beautiful colors, high contrast and 'good' resolution. The lenses resolves better than the film.
Click to expand...

Surpassed in what way? Not in contrast range - color negative film still holds a commanding lead over the best digital sensors. Resolution maybe, but that's a whole hairy debate once you start talking about aa filters vs scanning and film grain vs digital noise. Not conclusive IMO.

NC can look dull outdoors, but that's a matter of preference, not poor performance.
 
charjohncarter said:
I prefer Kodak Portra 160VC, but also like Kodak Gold 200. My most used color negative film, and I shoot a lot of it, is Fuji Superia Xtra 400. The Fuji film is $1.33 for a 24 roll at Costco. To develop and put on CD another $4.83. Sometimes I shoot 3 rolls a week. And I shoot mostly B&W.
Click to expand...

Ditto on the Superia Xtra 400. I bought the last bunch for a little more than a buck a roll at Costco - it was with a discount coupon. It works well in most situations for me.
 
Superia xtra 400 is $8 for 6 rolls of 24 exps regular price at costco for me. They have more packs than I know what to do with. It's my default color film.
 
Olsen said:
Negative colorfilm is surpased by digital sensors today, but the only one that get close (well...) is Kodak Portra 160 VC - in my view. Note: NC is for flash light portraits and look too dull outdoors. The Portra VC on a Leica- or Zeiss-lense equipped camera gives beautiful colors, high contrast and 'good' resolution. The lenses resolves better than the film.

Higher ISO on negative film is today old fashioned grainy, - to say the least, and surpassed by giant steps by Canon 5D, 1Ds II/III etc. etc.

B/W is another matter.
Click to expand...
Color negative above ISO 200 certainly has more grain than 4/3" or larger digital sensors and probably less resolution than 10+ MP sensors at least on 24x35 mm frames. So for pure documentative photography color film (both slide and negative) really is surpassed by digital sensors. There are also forms of photography such as sports and wildlife, where the high ISO performance of digital sensors is so important that most people will not even consider using anything else than digital.

As for the rest, grain is not necessarily bad thing. Even color film grain is much more pleasent than digital noise and can be used for artistic effect. The of course there is dynamic range, where color negative film still has a several stop edge over most DSLRs. Fuji S3 and S5 pro come close. The irony is though that you will have to scan the film with a high quality scanner and use a CRT or professional flat panel (TFT) display in order to see it, since most color papers and consumer panel displays have a much more limited dynamic range than color negative film.

But enough for both real and imaginary technical points; they are not the real issue. The analogy I often use is that if painters were photographers, most painters using acrylic paints would claim that oilpainting has been surpassed by the much easier acrylic technique. But of course painters are not photographers and they do no such things. They understand that the choice of technique is also an artistic choice. In fact some painters still use egg tempera, which is an extremely difficult and time consuming technique used before oil paints were invented...
 
Neg film fav

Neg film fav

Just Porta now, any flavor. Gave up on Fuji, to much noise in shadows when scanning. I still use Fuji for transparencies, however.
 
Dr. Strangelove said:
The analogy I often use is that if painters were photographers, most painters using acrylic paints would claim that oilpainting has been surpassed by the much easier acrylic technique. But of course painters are not photographers and they do no such things. They understand that the choice of technique is also an artistic choice. In fact some painters still use egg tempera, which is an extremely difficult and time consuming technique used before oil paints were invented...
Click to expand...

I like this analogy. I may borrow it from time to time, if you don't mind.
 
rogue_designer said:
I like this analogy. I may borrow it from time to time, if you don't mind.
Click to expand...
Feel free to use it. I came up with it because some people were comparing film to vinyl records, AM radio and other obsolescent playback media. That comparison is clearly wrong, since playback is just playback -- a record player is not a creative instrument like cameras and films are.

Well, record players can be creative instruments for DJ's, which is exactly why most of them still like to use real vinyls and record players instead of CD's or hard drive players with digital scratch and playback speed simulation...
 
Prefer? If I had my way I'd shoot Kodak 400UC only, but it doesn't always work out that way, because I have to either order it online or make a special trip to get it. I like Fuji color film too, particularly the 400 and 800. The only film I absolutely abhor is Kodak HD, awful ugly stuff.

:)
 
fdigital said:
I've found negative film doesn't compare to slide - the latter is much much much sharper and more accurate.
Click to expand...

I found the opposite to be true. Funny old world, ain't it.
 
I use the Kodak Portra 160 and 400 VC mostly. Not because the Fuji films aren't excellent, but because with my workflow, I don't have to jump through quite as many hoops to get the color balance that I want.
 
Fuji Reala and Portra 800 if I need high speed colour. Both are really nice, but the bigger problem today is to find a decent lab. C-41 processing in most labs in my area are getting sloppy, no idea what it is, but the results are no longer as good as a few years back. Not only are the proofs looking worse, even my scanned images are less stellar.
 
Couldn't vote because my favorites are Gold 100 and Fuji press 400. Am anxious to try Fuji's 800, read good things about it and would like to see for myself.
Jon
 
I had very good gesults with Kodak 400 VR pushed to 800....Anyone here to tell which color films can be pushed if need should arise?
 
Hi!

I used only 1 color negative film on the last 2 years.
If I remember correctly, it was a Superia 800 film. I didn't like it too much.
When I do color photography by film, I'm doing it with Sensia 100. It's a good film. all the color shots on my gallery is from it.


Yaad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom