BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Photography Question 

anonymous
 

What film should I be using?


Hi all, I am new to this site! I am very impressed!

My question is: I have just started my own business. I photograph babies, children, families either indoor (with natural light or bounce my speedlite). At the moment I am using Fuji Superia X-TRA 400. I only use colour film, so my clients get the choice in whether they want their prints col or B&W. But although I use Fuji I get my prints done at Kodak in Sydney, as I am very impressed with the work this man does and his b&w's off my colour film is amazing - no pink or green tones. Do you think I am getting the best out of my film? I don't want to change processors, so can anyone suggest another film that they are happy with? I use to use Kodak Max but wasn't too fussed with it and was recommended to use Fuji.

Thanks

Natalie

Oh, and I am sure you will see me asking a lot more questions in the future now I know you are all here! I have just started 5 years of study at TAFE for Photography.


To love this question, log in above
February 07, 2005

 

Kerry L. Walker
  Kodak Portra series is good for portraits. 160NC has very little grain and can be enlarged easily.


To love this comment, log in above
February 08, 2005

 

Robyn L. Mayne
  Hi Natalie

I was searching for info on Fuii Superia and cam upon our question. While I cant give you any advice, I am interested in which Kodak store you get your film processed at. I live in Sydney too and my usual lab has closed - disaster. I'm on the lookout for a new one. It's really hard to find a good one amongst all of the mediocrity! Your help would be appreciated. By the way did you try other film - I always use Fuji and have always been happy with it.


To love this comment, log in above
December 01, 2005

 

Justin G.
  Natalie,

For neutral colors, great skin rendition go with

Portraits
Kodak Portra 160NC -or-
Fuji NPS160

Candids, neutral colors same as above but 400 speed
Kodak Portra 400NC
Fuji NPS400

For punchier colors but skin tones still balanced

Portraits
Kodak Portra 160VC
Fuji NPC160

Candids
Kodak Portra 400VC
Fuji NPC400

The way I remember the letters is on the Kodaks, remember NC as neutral color and VC as vivid color. On Fuji side of the house remember NPS as "skin" (for soft skins) and NPC for "color" for punchier colors. That's how I remember them when I get to the store and I'm like "crap which one was it???" Both you can order at bhphoto.com and adorama.com (but I'm not sure about the aussie shipping). I think they have bulk if you do you're own bulk (it would save a lot of money!)



To love this comment, log in above
December 01, 2005

 

Mark Feldstein
  Natalie: When you said "I am very impressed with the work this man does and his b&w's off my colour film is amazing - no pink or green tones." My thought was that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. :>)
Mark


To love this comment, log in above
December 01, 2005

 

Kevin Ekstrom
  I agree with Kelly. The traditional choice of the pros for portraits or wedding photography is the Kodak VPS.I blieve Agfa is still making Portrait 160. fuji claims that Reala sees color more like the human eye. The choice is yours.Try many and decide which works for you.
I must say the Kodak VPS 160 is a great film. Its very fine grained and the skin color is excellent.


To love this comment, log in above
December 01, 2005

 

Mark Feldstein
  One trick to getting excellent results with color negative films is to overexpose them by one stop. Like the VPS Kevin mentioned, rather than shooting it at ISO 160, you'll get better color saturation at 100. Agfa Optima color neg. films are also excellent and require less overexposure. In fact, I find that the Agfa Optimas that are sold in 50, 100, 200 and 400 ISOs, provide truer colors at their recommended speed than do the Kodak pro emulsions like VPS. IMHO.

The best way for Natalie to determine what works best with her processor is to test various kinds of film and keep records of exposures. Testing should include a full frame shot of a color test card made under the same lighting as the scene, whether indoors, outdoors with or without flash. That way, you'll be able to best determine which film to use under which circumstances for what subjects and know how it will respond to the various conditions you work under.

Mark


To love this comment, log in above
December 02, 2005

 

Mark Feldstein
  One trick to getting excellent results with color negative films is to overexpose them by one stop. Like the VPS Kevin mentioned, rather than shooting it at ISO 160, you'll get better color saturation at 100. Agfa Optima color neg. films are also excellent and require less overexposure. In fact, I find that the Agfa Optimas that are sold in 50, 100, 200 and 400 ISOs, provide truer colors at their recommended speed than do the Kodak pro emulsions like VPS. IMHO.

The best way for Natalie to determine what works best with her processor is to test various kinds of film and keep records of exposures. Testing should include a full frame shot of a color test card made under the same lighting as the scene, whether indoors, outdoors with or without flash. That way, you'll be able to best determine which film to use under which circumstances for what subjects and know how it will respond to the various conditions you work under.

Mark


To love this comment, log in above
December 02, 2005

 

Justin G.
  well 100 isn't one stop slower than 160, it's 2/3s if i'm not mistaken. 1 stop would be 80. anyways 2/3 - 1 stop should be substantial. so for 160 film shoot at 125 or 100 or even 80. and 100 films shoot at 80, 64 or possibly 50. go with 2/3, i've had the best results with this.


To love this comment, log in above
December 02, 2005

 

Mark Feldstein
  When you're dealing with color film stock, that has about a plus and minus 4-5 stop exposure latitude, 100 for a 160 ISO film is close enough to one stop, although yes, technically, it is about 2/3 of a stop over.

For slower speeds, say ones rated at ISO 100, halving the speed to get a full stop overexposure is a good number although subjective based on my experience. That's why I highly recommend experimenting with different film stocks exposed at different ISO's.

For transparency films, underexposing by 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop delivers better color saturation. Any more than that and you'll probably block-up the shadow areas through underexposure. Also, pushing transparency film will lose contrast while pulling it 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop, even 1 full stop, will increase contrast. There are a lot of variations with this and again, testing and experimenting (preferably using a color card in some shots on the roll) is a good idea to see what you like best.
M.


To love this comment, log in above
December 02, 2005

 
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here

Report this Thread