# Color Film Question



## stevem (Jan 24, 2007)

I primarily work with Black & White film and really like Ilford film for that. (Kodak is alright but not as good as Ilford).

Lately I have been doing more color and since I don't really do it much I don't know what to buy, I have been buying Kodak but am becoming increasingly more and more disappointed with the outcome, in some cases the pictures came out horrible roll after roll on one shoot, none of them were usable but the black and white rolls used in that same shoot were perfect.

So I am wondering if anyone knows a good 35mm color film that comes in rolls of 36 exposures.


----------



## Ghetto Panda (Jan 24, 2007)

I used Kodak film once and i won't use it again i use Fuji film but i only get 24 exposures.


----------



## stevem (Jan 24, 2007)

Ghetto Panda said:


> I used Kodak film once and i won't use it again i use Fuji film but i only get 24 exposures.



I'd assume that Fuji makes 36 exposures as well. I think I actually might have bought some while in Japan, not sure though. Thanks, good to know I'm not the only one thinking of never using Kodak again.


----------



## cosmonaut (Jan 24, 2007)

I agree with Fuji. Personally I think they have the best color reproduction. Kodak film to me seems less saturated. IMOHO...
                              Cosmo


----------



## Ghetto Panda (Jan 24, 2007)

Here's a link to the product line of Fujifilm

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/consumer_film/lineup.html

I use the Superia X-TRA400 and i really like it the colours are great which is what i want.


----------



## markc (Jan 24, 2007)

Before you judge a film, there are a couple of things I would keep in mind: if all those rolls were shot at the same time, it could have been something you did; and where you take it can have a bigger impact on how the prints look than the film itself.

It might be worth shooting some more in different situations and bringing the rolls someplace else to see if they look any different. People do have their preferences, but no Kodak color film should be making prints that are unusable with any consistency. I would guess that it's something else. Do you have any examples to post? Which film was it? Portra NC will be different from Gold.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jan 24, 2007)

Over a 30 year period I have shot kodak, fuji, konica, even something called Mitsubishi.  I never shot lucky, but I have shot polaroid which is scotch aka 3m I think.

I have found subtle differences in all, but none that I had to toss because of the film.  The film makes negatives of slides not prints.  If the negative is bad it is true you can not make a decent print from it.  In those thirty years all the unusable negatives and slides I shot were my own fault and there have been enough to sink a rowboat.

I don't usually shoot Kodak because I don't like their color rendition.   I didn't think much of Konica because I found it soft focus.  I loved Mitsubishi but haven't seen it in years.  Scotch/Polaroid was bad to scratch and smudge also I think the film base was brittle.  Fuji I'm not crazy about because of its color either but now that I scan the film I would find either kodak or fuji acceptable.  If I was having straight prints from flim, I would go fuji and there are several 36 exp types, unless they have cut back as well as everyone else.


----------



## fmw (Jan 24, 2007)

cosmonaut said:


> I agree with Fuji. Personally I think they have the best color reproduction. Kodak film to me seems less saturated. IMOHO...
> Cosmo


 
Yes it is less saturated and more accurate.  Fuji may have the "best" color reproduction for your preference but it is not the most accurate.  It is very hard to beat Ektachrome for accuracy.  I'm a long time Fuji Provia user but even Provia is less accurate than Ektachrome.

Comparing prints is futile.  You aren't looking at the film any longer.  You may simply like the way X's machine prints better than the way Y's machine prints.  Prints these days are digital anyway so you are really comparing x's post process to y's.  I don't think there is much point in comparing color negative films for color accuracy.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jan 24, 2007)

good point bout the x and y


----------



## fightheheathens (Jan 24, 2007)

well, i like to use Fugi Reala for negs
and Fugi Velvia (either 50 or 100)

ive Used some AFGA before that i liked 
and ive heard Provia is really good.


----------



## Finsen (Jan 24, 2007)

I have shot with Fuji NPS160 (it is renamed Pro160S together with a new technology).  I really like the accurate color rendition of the film.  More importantly, it is designed for portraits, which would render skin tone more naturally.  I guess it also depends on the type of photography you are doing.  I would probably choose a film that has more contrast and saturation if I am shooting landscape.  But for portraits, I would recommend the Fuji portrait films.


----------



## cosmonaut (Jan 25, 2007)

fmw said:


> Yes it is less saturated and more accurate. Fuji may have the "best" color reproduction for your preference but it is not the most accurate. It is very hard to beat Ektachrome for accuracy. I'm a long time Fuji Provia user but even Provia is less accurate than Ektachrome.
> 
> Comparing prints is futile. You aren't looking at the film any longer. You may simply like the way X's machine prints better than the way Y's machine prints. Prints these days are digital anyway so you are really comparing x's post process to y's. I don't think there is much point in comparing color negative films for color accuracy.


 
I totaly agree with you on this. I find that the Fuji is easier to desaturate slightly in PS. I wish there was a balance somewhere betwen the Kodak and Fuji. It seems to me Fuji over saturates mostly with greens. I personally have never used Ektachrome but am a big fan of E-6 and would use it more if I could find a good place to get a good scan without it costing a fortune...

                         Cosmo


----------



## fmw (Jan 25, 2007)

cosmonaut said:


> I totaly agree with you on this. I find that the Fuji is easier to desaturate slightly in PS. I wish there was a balance somewhere betwen the Kodak and Fuji. It seems to me Fuji over saturates mostly with greens. I personally have never used Ektachrome but am a big fan of E-6 and would use it more if I could find a good place to get a good scan without it costing a fortune...
> 
> Cosmo


 
Provia is somewhere in between Ektachrome and Velvia.  It is perhaps slightly "more exciting" than Ektachrome without going over the edge like Velvia does.  Back when Agfa was still making regular photographic films, it would have been a good in-between choice as well.  I liked Agfachrome and used it from time to time.

Current fashion seems to favor oversaturation.  People are into bright colors these days.  I think that is what makes Velvia so popular.  I see oversaturation by Photoshop all the time.  Most photographers would do well to leave the saturation control in PS alone.


----------



## Imagee (Jan 25, 2007)

stevem said:


> I primarily work with Black & White film and really like Ilford film for that. (Kodak is alright but not as good as Ilford).
> 
> Lately I have been doing more color and since I don't really do it much I don't know what to buy, I have been buying Kodak but am becoming increasingly more and more disappointed with the outcome, in some cases the pictures came out horrible roll after roll on one shoot, none of them were usable but the black and white rolls used in that same shoot were perfect.
> So I am wondering if anyone knows a good 35mm color film that comes in rolls of 36 exposures.


 
If you have all the rolls of color film coming out horrible from 1 shoot and your B&W prints were fine, I'd suspect that the lab who developed the film stuck it in the wrong "soup"!  This happaned to me years ago. 10 rolls of slide film from a photo workshop I had attended were processed in PRINT film chemistry. Ruined!!! And no, I did NOT take the film to a Wal Mart or grocery store. This was a photo lab!


----------



## Don Simon (Jan 25, 2007)

fmw said:


> Most photographers would do well to leave the saturation control in PS alone.



Unless they're moving the slider to the left to compensate for the fact that their digital camera has already oversaturated their jpegs to start with! Which 99% do :|


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 25, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> Unless they're moving the slider to the left to compensate for the fact that their digital camera has already oversaturated their jpegs to start with! Which 99% do :|



Even with raw files I think that I get a saturation level closer to what I'm used to with film after I knock 10 points or so off the saturation in ACR.


----------



## Anthony Nardelli (Jan 25, 2007)

I used all sorts of Agfa, Konica, Fuji and Kodak slide and negative films and the best one for overall usage was Kodak Gold 100.  Some of the best pictures I've seen were done on Kodak Gold. Surprisingly, it's a good and well rounded film.  Once you get a better understanding of what you want you can try other films.


----------



## JamesD (Feb 3, 2007)

I've found that Kodak's Portra NC films are very good for normal saturation and a bit low contrast.  The Portra VC films have higher saturation (NC is for Natural Color, and VC is for Vivid Color) and also look quite good.  My personal favorite high-saturation films are Kodak's 100 and 400 UC films.

Anyway, these three films, although they're a bit more expensive, are quite excellent.  If you've been using the base-consumer stuff (ie 100 Gold), try a roll of Portra.  You might find that you're quite happy with it.  Or, you might decide to switch to Fuji (I've used, I think, one roll of Fuji--ever--and that was by accident, so I can't really comment on it).


----------



## mysteryscribe (Feb 3, 2007)

Just as a side note.... I have a hundred foot roll of kodak portra 160 out of date by 8 years.  Its also 46mm.  I have shot it reasonably successfully as 127 roll film but it is way way slower than when manufactured.  Just a passing note.


----------



## tiagovsky (Feb 8, 2007)

When you have the money to buy great films (like velvias, for instance.. or ProZs), I find out that kodak gold 200 is surprisingly... not bad at all (far better than it's 100 brother); then you have reala wich gives you a great natural colour; the superia line... only the 400 and above. 

But if I had to choose the best relation price/quality, I would go for Kodak portra VC (saturation lover here), or any one of the Kodak Supra family.


----------



## Alpha (Feb 8, 2007)

Provia is my slide film of choice, or Kodachrome when available. I don't shoot much color print film, but have had good results with fuji NPS, and with Kodak's Portra VC and UC.


----------



## ully (Feb 25, 2007)

I usually shoot Reala and Velvia, I have found that the Kodak UC was pretty good in 120.

Cheers


----------



## Majik Imaje (Mar 3, 2007)

This is what I have noticed, this is just my opinion! ok.. I am no body!

so I will give my opinion..

any place you take your film to for processing, is NOT going to go as good of a job and put as much care into that film, as you would.

those people in that "lab".. are just doing a job and they really don't care if they have to replenish chemicals etc as often as they do etc.

they just want to get home.. ! work sucks! no matter what you do or where you do it.. I know people are going to argue this point, lets move on.

THERE IS ONLY ONE FILM MADE: FOR EXACT COLOR matching ACCURACY

This film is made. for the sole purpose of matching the original subject!

and it works!

Buy one roll of Kodak Vericolor film VPS.



I GOT BORED with black & white quickly.. very quickly.. only because I knew I could never approach the quality and the finesce' of the masters.

black & white is an artform. all I could accomplish were snapshots!

so I was determined to LEARN color AND LEARN it better than anyone.

wether or not I have ever achieved this is obvious! I never have! or ever will.

BUT I DO KNOW. and remember very very well the words of a very famous photographer that said.. if you want to learn "color" then just pick ONE FILM and stick with it.. THEN YOU WILL LEARN that films "personality".

VERICOLOR film is unmatched in quality! stick with the best.. "Kodak"!


_"there is much point in comparing color negative films for color accuracy."_

and don't ever trust important film, to anyone, but yourself!

Processing color negative film at home in the kitchen is a snap, easy to do

very cheap to do, but it takes "practice"!

I cannot get anywhere near the same results with other films kodak or fuji, when I have had to use them on occassions, only because, I haven't learned their personality as much as I have practiced and learned Vericolor, thousands of rolls, hundreds of cases of paper, 

VERICOLOR for colors that Match.. Exacting colors! its the best stuff out there!

Learn how to use it!

I did.. it was perhaps the #1 reason for my success! EVERYTIME!


----------



## Majik Imaje (Mar 3, 2007)

read in a book or leanred in a school that said.. (no offense is intended here)

but it is posted on another thread.. that grey snow is a sign of underexposure, I replied that I would argue that issue, anyday and present this image as evidence of why I said what I said.






I walked right past these children. only stopping to compose and shoot one frame.. no light meter. I ddin't have time.. to do anything but -=click=- I already knew the exposure.. long before I ever saw them. shooting from the hip has to be quick! fast!  or you will never ever get that chance again! I was in the right place at the right time.
THAT ONE -=click=- has brought in more $ than you would ever believe!

a "few" homes worth!


----------



## selmerdave (Mar 4, 2007)

I guess it's good you bought your homes when you did, Vericolor no longer exists.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e26/e26.jhtml


Dave


----------



## Majik Imaje (Mar 4, 2007)

Well I never did buy any homes with the $$ we madeand it looks as though I was WRONG! OH GOSH!I didn't know Vericolor was discontinued!so EVERYTHING I typed must be wrong also!?so sorry for my mistake.. !  I was wrong!I am not afraid to admit it one bit! yes i was WRONG!thanks for letting me know! I sincerlly mean it.. !my name is Dave also !


----------



## Majik Imaje (Mar 4, 2007)

only because we purchased 100 rolls of vericolor in 2002. and now I am totally baffled where we even got that film from.

I truely did not know that Kodak discontinued making that stuff.. it sure was an incredible film.. !


----------



## Riggaberto (Mar 11, 2007)

stevem said:


> I primarily work with Black & White film and really like Ilford film for that. (Kodak is alright but not as good as Ilford).
> 
> Lately I have been doing more color and since I don't really do it much I don't know what to buy, I have been buying Kodak but am becoming increasingly more and more disappointed with the outcome, in some cases the pictures came out horrible roll after roll on one shoot, none of them were usable but the black and white rolls used in that same shoot were perfect.
> 
> So I am wondering if anyone knows a good 35mm color film that comes in rolls of 36 exposures.


I dont like Kodak for color prints.  This is backward for many people but for me I like Kodak slide film, and Fuji print film.  Even the cheaper superia stuff is great.


----------

