160s is my new favorite film in both 35mm and 120. I used to just shoot Portra 160nc/vc but Ive grown to really love 160s and its cheaper too damn portra prices.
pentaxshooter wrote:
160s is my new favorite film in both 35mm and 120. I used to just shoot Portra 160nc/vc but Ive grown to really love 160s and its cheaper too damn portra prices.
Thanks for the comment as well, Mrladewig
Unfortunately none of my local shops keep the Fuji Pro line in stock, so when I want to use it, I have to order it. I shoot 4X5 primarily and Kodak has stopped production of readyloads, so I might have no other choice for color negative when I'm backpacking. I do try to do business with the local shops when possible and that has resulted in more portra for me. The newest Portra 400NC is huge improvement in grain size. I found that I like skin tones a tiny bit better on the Portra line, but both lines are excellent.
Ektar is pretty fun. I got a lot of photos I liked off the first two rolls. I've ordered another 5.
If you get any, try shooting it at EI 50. That's what I did and it seems to have turned out nicely. It has a decent amount of color saturation, but it doesn't seem unnatural, which is nice.
kidtexas wrote:
That last shot has really pretty light.
Ektar is pretty fun. I got a lot of photos I liked off the first two rolls. I've ordered another 5.
If you get any, try shooting it at EI 50. That's what I did and it seems to have turned out nicely. It has a decent amount of color saturation, but it doesn't seem unnatural, which is nice.
I always try to shoot print films at least 1/3 of a stop slower than what they are rated. A good friend suggested that as a way to get more shadow detail and make easier to scan negatives. I normally only overexpose by a full shot when I'm messing with some really expired film.
Thanks for the tip, I'll have to try that with my next round of color neg films though it might be a while. I already do that with Ilford XP2 but hadn't thought about it with the color films. I get much better contrast and highlight density out of XP2 at EI 200, so its reasonable to expect the same from color films.
TWoK wrote:
I always try to shoot print films at least 1/3 of a stop slower than what they are rated. A good friend suggested that as a way to get more shadow detail and make easier to scan negatives. I normally only overexpose by a full shot when I'm messing with some really expired film.
That does lift shadow detail, but it actually makes the negatives harder to scan rather than easier. Scanners prefer negs which are slightly thin so scans actually thrive on a bit of underexposure. However a 1/3 stop change isn't likely to provide enough of a density increase to appreciably bother a scanner.
Scanners shouldn't have any real problem with the dynamic range in color negative film (or B&W neg for that matter). Even if the highlights are dense from over exposure, the max of that actual negative is usually only a Dmax of 3ish. The range is less than that. The scanner should be able to pull that out with no problem. Slides on the other hand...
I overexposed by a stop due to a lot of the early info coming in about Ektar 100. There doesn't seem to be much room for error on the underexposure side with this film. In fact, if you read the datasheet, the Sunny 16 recommendations are slower than for some of Kodak's other ISO 100 films (slide films). Looking at the characteristic curves too in the tech pub shows the curve lifting off right around -2.0 log exposure, where for some of Kodak's other films (Portra) they have another stop or two of shadow range, coming off around -2.5 ish.
Whatever. Haha. The negs look good at EI 50, but if you like EI 80, that works too. Color negative in general likes a stop of overexposure if you can get away with it. If not, it's not the end of the world...
kidtexas wrote:
Scanners shouldn't have any real problem with the dynamic range in color negative film (or B&W neg for that matter). Even if the highlights are dense from over exposure, the max of that actual negative is usually only a Dmax of 3ish. The range is less than that. The scanner should be able to pull that out with no problem. Slides on the other hand...
My 4990 also has no trouble with highlight density on any C-41 film I've ever scanned. I've never once had anything clip at 255 (or 0 depending on which way you look at it). But I do have trouble with insufficient density in shadows to provide good contrast. So for me a denser color negative should be no problem. Next time I try a roll I run a bracket and custom scan each to see how it goes. I don't think I could pull this off in silver negatives though.
This is an interesting thread to read if you want to find out more about color neg film and over/under exposure. Ron Mowrey is a retired Kodak emulsion engineer, so he knows his stuff.
damn portra prices.
