 Douglas Robertson |
Is There a Best All Around Film? I recently discovered (thanks to this site) that the Kodak Gold (aka Bright Sun) 100 is actually quite a grainy film for it's speed. I was thinking of changing film anyway and would like some advice on the subject. I have done a little bit of research into this on the internet but I cannot make my mind up due to so many conflicting opinions -one review on one particular film will say it very grainy and the other will say the opposite - I understand this is partly a matter of personal choice. The films I was thinking of trying were Kodak Royal Gold 100, Fuji Reala 100 or Kodak Supra 160 (is this 160 actaully iso 100 btw?). Any other recommendations for all round shots would be helpful. My aim is to get some nice shots and enlarge then 8x10 (is this too big for these types of film?) I shoot everything really, people, landscapes snapshots etc and I know there is no perfect all round film but I was hoping someone might be able to tell me one that was pretty close to it. There is a fair chance that the enlargements I made would be of landscapes. Also, is it worth the extra money for the pro/more expensive film? It is not that expensive if orderd in bulk off the internet.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Douglas: Kodak's Supra line comes in ISO 100, 400 and 800. I'm uncertain about the continued availability of Royal Gold 100, but have yet to see a formal discontinuation notice from Kodak. The Supra line was created for general purpose use: stock, commercial and fashion work. The Portra line was created primarily for portrait and wedding photographers, the largest market for pro color negative. It has wider latitude and more restrained saturation. You will find greater selection among pro films because their market is more selective about film characteristics. The professional market doesn't want a "one size fits all" film. There isn't much professional general purpose color negative made except for Kodak's Supra line. Much of that is still being done by pros using transparency (slide) film, especially stock, fine art, and editorial work for magazines such as National Geographic. What these films are actually used for depends on what the photographer desires in terms of saturation, latitude, overall color accuracy, and emphasis on skin tone gradation/accuracy . . . in addition to grain characteristics. Supra 100 is much closer to Royal Gold 100 than Portra NC/VC 160 in latitude and saturation. For 8x10 enlargement from 35mm negatives, and if keeping graininess to a minimum is desired, I encourage using the lower speed films. Kodak has been using a "print grain index" (PGI) for a number of years now to define graininess of their color negative films. B&W negative and transparency (slide) films are still defined by "diffuse rms granularity," a more "clinical" and less subjective method used by the other manufacturers for all their films. There's no direct mathematical translation between PGI, which is measured using subjective evaluations of prints made from the negative, and diffuse rms granularity which is measured directly from the developed film. Kodak has made it nearly impossible to directly compare the grain of its color negative films with the other manufacturer's. Among Kodak's consumer and pro films, here are the PGI numbers for 35mm size enlarged to a 4x6 print. Lower number is less apparent grain. A difference of a few points is within the range of error of human judgement used to create them: Supra 100: 27 Portra 160 NC: 36 Royal Gold 200: 41 Supra 400: 36 Max Versatility Plus/Zoom (800): 48 Royal Gold 100/200/400 are without doubt noticeably finer grained than the Gold 100/200/400 films. If you want to try a "general purpose" professional film, or if you cannot find Royal Gold 100, try Supra 100. Shoot and compare Fuji's Reala (100) with it, probably the closest thing Fuji makes to Supra 100. Shoot a roll or two of Portra 160 NC or VC to compare a "portrait" film having wider latitude and less saturation with general purpose ones. Do the same with Agfa Ultra 100, perhaps the highest saturation color negative made, and compare that with the others. Skin tones generally do not fare well with super saturation and I'm not a fan of highly punched up color, but some love it for things that do not have a lot of prominent skin tone. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Douglas: I dumped out a lot of information about "graininess" and will now add a "kicker" to it all. Usually the concern about graininess relates to apparent sharpness of detail in a print (or projected image with slides) as viewed by a human. Although a major one, grain isn't the only factor that affects this. Apparent sharpness, sometimes called acuity, is a human perception not only affected by graininess, but contrast and emulsion thickness too. A more accurate correlation to what a human will perceive as sharpness is found in a film's "modulation transfer function" (MTF) curve which takes all this into account. How is an MTF created? Emulsion thickness: \ The thicker the emulsion, the greater the lateral distance across it a non-perpendicular ray path follows. This means that edge definition becomes "fuzzier" with thicker emulsions than with thinner ones. Although not the only factor involved, those films with thin emulsions tend to have have higher apparent sharpness compared to those with thick emulsions, and the effect is captured by the MTF curve. Compared to E-6 slide films (Ektachrome process), Kodachrome has a thinner emulsion, and this is part of the reason for its reputation for "sharpness." Fast films have thicker emulsions compared to similar slow ones because they must have greater quantities of larger silver halide grains. In addition to graininess affecting sharpness, the thicker emulsion does also. The Bad News: OK, why did I post all this? -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Douglas Robertson |
John - Thanks!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ken Henry |
It seems like you can't have one without the other. It's either sharp with grain or smooth with soft detail. Yes, Royal Gold 100 had both, was the sharpest and smoothest. Here is how I tested all 100 speed available negative film (pro and consumer) for it's sharpness and the results are below. With my camera on a tripod, 35f2.8 lens, My settings were f16 1/60sec. I set my focus very carefully. I took only one shot of each roll. Then I had them processed to 8" x 12" enlargements. I use 35mm for architectural and interior shooting. So I need the sharpest film available. All of my clients get 8x12 prints and CD's. So negatives are the best choice. All of my lenses are prime and shift. And I also print up to 20" x 30" with good smooth results by Golden Color in Los Angeles, CA. In my opinion and other witnesses the following results are; Next, remember this is my opinion, Royal Gold 400, almost as sharp, smooth, bold accurate colors. Compare this with portrait films for shooting people you may be surprised Reala, smooth, accurate saturated colors I may be changing to the new Agfa Optima 100. I like how it's been testing. This film is pretty darn close to being sharp as Gold 100 but it has more going for it, smoother than Gold 100, colors are bold and have a brilliance about them and a better three dimensionality, I like the bold contrast. You feel like you can step into these pictures. I think This would be vey good for landscape. I'm waiting for the new Agfa Ultra. Ken
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||