Color Film Question

[stevem]

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]

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

 

[stevem]

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]

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

 

[Ghetto Panda]

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]

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]

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]

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]

good point bout the x and y

 

[fightheheathens]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :|