Difference between low and high ISO colour film

[dzzhang]

I know there will be more grain using a high ISO film, but I was wondering will there be any difference in the colour performance?

For example, two properly exposed images with the same colour intensity using ISO 200 and ISO 400 film respectively, will the one using ISO 400 perform better in its colour?

 

[RAZKY]

I know there will be more grain using a high ISO film, but I was wondering will there be any difference in the colour performance?

For example, two properly exposed images with the same colour intensity using ISO 200 and ISO 400 film respectively, will the one using ISO 400 perform better in its colour?

Depends on the brand and type of film, whether transparency or negative, and your personal definition of "better."

 

[dzzhang]

Depends on the brand and type of film, whether transparency or negative, and your personal definition of "better."

Hi, RAZKY, thank you for the reply. I mean negative films. Maybe I used the wrong word: "better". I should say: the difference in colour for ISO 200 films and ISO 400 films. For example, generally speaking, is the ISO 400 film more rich in colour?

 

[Strodav]

Each type of film has it's own characteristics. For negative film, as you go up in ISO the light sensitive particles are made a little larger to absorb more light, hence the grain. Some people find this "texture" desirable, but most like the more tack sharp results with lower ISO film. How the film is processed can make a big difference as well. The printing process is as important as how the film is processed. My recommendation is not to take anyone's advice here on the forum, but to buy yourself a couple of rolls of each type of film you are considering. Shoot similar subjects with them under different light and pick the film that better fits the type of results you are looking for. You might find you like them all but for different reasons and will use different films for different types of subjects.

Having started in film and still shoot medium format with my Mimaya 645 today, mostly Kodak Tri-X 400 B&W processed with HC110 developer. My recommendation is not to print your processed film, but scan it in on a photo scanner, then take it into your favorite Post Processing software for enhancement then either post on social media or print on a photo printer. In my case, I have an Epson Perfection V500 scanner, which has served me well for many years now, then to Lightroom / Photoshop / Topaz suite, then either post or go to an Epson XP-15000 13"x19" 6 color ink photo printer. With this workflow you can adjust color to your hearts content, adjust the tone reproduction curves, apply gradients (dodge and burn), reduce noise, sharpen, remove imperfections, remove blur, ...

 

[wfooshee]

It isn't just the ISO that makes a difference. Kodak film would have a different look from Fuji film would have a different look from Ilford film. not only that, a different line of film from the same company would have different characteristics, even at the same ISO.

There is no firm guideline saying this film is more accurate than that. Even worse, a film that you really really really like in bright sunlight might not compare well with another film on a cloudy day, even if both were say, 200 speed film.

 

[dzzhang]

It isn't just the ISO that makes a difference. Kodak film would have a different look from Fuji film would have a different look from Ilford film. not only that, a different line of film from the same company would have different characteristics, even at the same ISO.

There is no firm guideline saying this film is more accurate than that. Even worse, a film that you really really really like in bright sunlight might not compare well with another film on a cloudy day, even if both were say, 200 speed film.

Thanks for the reply!

I first thought that I can compare the colour difference for two films only different in ISO (assume same brand, same factory, same type etc.). Later I found that my assumption only exists theoretically as there were no such films that were only different in ISO, for example, the Kodak 200 colorplus and 400 ultramax, and Portra 160, 400, 800. They are not just simply different in ISO, but also they have different features which will affect the colour. Hence, maybe I cannot assume two films are only different in ISO.

The question comes from my friend saying: generally speaking, the films with higher ISO are richer in colour, and will be brighter in the same shadow area in photos with equal image intensity.

Now I may conclude that it is not because of the ISO, but other factors in films lead to such difference.

 

[wfooshee]

I wouldn't even say richer in color at high ISO. In general. Slower film produces a more "even" exposure in my experience, retaining shadow and highlight detail. Again, maybe a different brand of fast film would be different.My only concern with film speed when I was shooting film was higher grain with faster film.

 

[webestang64]

400 speed has been my choice of color print film since the 90's. In the 90's Kodak and Fuji (maybe others) started using the t-grain tech from the T-Max BW films. Today's 400 has very tight grain and yields outstanding color. I always rate my 400 color print at 320 to "bump" the saturation a bit.
200 speed has been the "go to" film for point-n-shoot cameras for decades.

Of course all of this moot unless you find a company to properly process the film and correctly scan (view and correct each scan).
Best is company's (like the one I work for, Schiller's) that use a control strip monitored C-41 processor (Noritsu V50).


Working in photo labs since the 80's here is my take on scanning color film.

DSLR cameras and flatbeds ("wet" scanning best) do very well.
Dedicated film scanners like the $100-500 ones on Amazon are OK, even an old Nikon Coolscan can be a bit better.
High end scanners at a lab like the one I use at work, Noritsu 1800 series, will give you outstanding results as it can yield a 16-bit Tiff. We charge $10 for each Tiff scan. But the basic scan we get is good enough to print very nice prints up to 16x24. ($10.95 dev and cd/drop-box).
Best of all is a drum scan but if you find a company that can do that you are looking at $35 each neg.

BTW Schiller's will give you back your negs.

 

[greybeard]

From what I can remember higher iso color film was more contrasty and didn't have the dynamic range of lower iso films

 

[mrca]

My color film is primarily portra 400. There is a different rendering of color between the 180, 400 and 800. Check youtube for videos comparing those films. Pick the one or 2 you think you like and shoot a roll in your style and make your decision.

 

[AlanKlein]

You never explained why you asked the question. Nor did you describe what kind of photography you do.

For example, if you shoot people a lot, you want a film like Portra that provides natural-looking flesh tones. If you shoot landscapes, you might prefer something with more contrast and higher color saturation like Ektar 100.

The other issue is do you use a tripod? If you're hand-holding the camera, and shooting people, you're going to miss a lot of shots due to blur if the film you select has too low of an ISO. You need a faster film.

Also, are you printing chemically or do you plan to scan and print digitally? Some films scan better than others.

So what is it you want to do?

 

[NS: Nikon Shooter]

-

The thicker emulsion layer on acetate is common to low
sensitivity films and thinner emulsion to higher sensitivity.

 

[dzzhang]

You never explained why you asked the question. Nor did you describe what kind of photography you do.

For example, if you shoot people a lot, you want a film like Portra that provides natural-looking flesh tones. If you shoot landscapes, you might prefer something with more contrast and higher color saturation like Ektar 100.

The other issue is do you use a tripod? If you're hand-holding the camera, and shooting people, you're going to miss a lot of shots due to blur if the film you select has too low of an ISO. You need a faster film.

Also, are you printing chemically or do you plan to scan and print digitally? Some films scan better than others.

So what is it you want to do?

Hi, I was to compare the colour between fast and slow films such as the contrast, colour saturation, etc. when all other things are equal.

 

[NS: Nikon Shooter]

ADDENDUM

Since the emulsion is thinner on high ISO films, there is less
overlapping of molecular clusters thus the grainier aspect. On
top of that, other consequences are the higher contrast and
lower saturation.

 

[dzzhang]

ADDENDUM

Since the emulsion is thinner on high ISO films, there is less
overlapping of molecular clusters thus the grainier aspect. On
top of that, other consequences are the higher contrast and
lower saturation.

This is exactly the answer I was trying to look for in the basic concepts!