Color Fim Recommendation for B&W Shooter

nasmformyzombie · 08-13-2007

I shoot B&W film 99.9% of the time. But I have an outdoor project for a family member for which I need to shoot color. The last time I shot color is several years ago, I used Fuji but don't remember what I used and I no longer have the negs.

Is Fuji Pro 160C a good choice? What about 200 or 400 ASA films?

40oz · 08-13-2007

You are going to get a recommendation for every color film on the market before this thread dies

I'll start by saying I like Kodak Gold and MAX films, in 100, 200, 400, and 800. Colors are accurate, not subdued or over-saturated. Greens are green, blues are blue, reds are red, and skin is not sickly or ruddy. I don't like the Kodak Porta films for my photographs. Never used them in a studio setting, which is where I bet they are aimed and why I don't like them much.

nasmformyzombie · 08-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40oz

You are going to get a recommendation for every color film on the market before this thread dies

In general I prefer Fuji to Kodak, so let's start there.

ltketch · 08-13-2007

I tried the Fuji Reala recently and was happy with it!

dmr · 08-13-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by nasmformyzombie

In general I prefer Fuji to Kodak, so let's start there.

I agree, and the plain old off-the-shelf Fuji C41 which you can get anywhere is actually very good.

wlewisiii · 08-13-2007

I agree with the sentiment of Fuji over Kodak completely. Any of the Fuji Supermarket, er, Superia films are excellent. The absolute best of Fuji, though, is Reala. It's just simply a delight to shoot.

William

keithwms · 08-13-2007

Something that cannot disappoint: Fuji pro s (NPS) 160 rated @ 125 for boosted colour; otherwise rated at box speed.

Likewise, Fuji pro h (NPH) @ 320.

NPZ also isn't half bad, but again I would overexpose it a half stop or so.

The common superia/reala films are also good, I just am not quite so confident in the quality control as the ones mentioned above.

Also, if you want to delve into colour, why not shoot slide... try velvia 100, astia 100F, and provia 100F and 400x.

Keith · 08-13-2007

I used some 100 Reala in my Ikonta recently and was impressed with the way it represented the colours in this shot ... subtle and very accurate. I also like Superia Extra 400 for an inexpensive film ... it's very good as well!

yarinkel · 08-13-2007

What are you going to shoot?

ISO 100, Fuji Reala is really good.
ISO 200, I'd rather use 100 film (really less grain) or 400 (not much more grain than 200 but more speed).
ISO 400, I like Kodak 400UC.

If it is specifically for portraits, Fuji Reala, Kodak Portra and Fuji Astia (in slide) all give excellent skin tones.

mfunnell · 08-13-2007

I just shot a few rolls off on my M3 the other day, using ISO 100 colour neg film with the intention of conversion to b&w because the harsh sunlight (and lack of an ND filter for my Elmar) precluded faster C-41 B&W film (and I don't yet soup my own and was too impatient to send out for development). I used Kodak Gold 100 and Fuji Reala 100, because that's what I had to hand.

I like the Gold 100 when converted, mostly because I like the grain structure that comes through (not that web-sized images really show it):

I like it less for colour:

(not that these are fair comparisons, just sample shots)

...whereas I rather like the colour from the Reala:

(I find the combination of colours in this particular shot a bit stomach-churning, though.)

I've also found the Fuji Superior Pro160S, Superior 400 and Pro400H, and even Superior 1600 (in its place) to be pretty good. I haven't had much luck with the Fuji 800 films for some reason.

I rather like Kodak's HD 200, and their Max 400 is OK (but I prefer the Fuji stuff at ISO 400).

As always, of course, despite trying to "think in black and white" I was too easily distracted by colour. I had fun, though, which was the point, and I'm trying to learn more about how my modern Elmar 50/2.8 sees things.

...Mike

afineman · 08-13-2007

Everyone has their own favorite color neg films. What "look" do you want to achive? I used exclusively Fuji color neg film since 1993 but I recently switched to the Kodak Portra NC series film, on the rare ocasion that I shoot color neg. I did a test with the Fuji NPH and NPS vrs the Kodak 400 and 160 NC film and I prefered the look of the colors and contrast with the Kodak film.

This is the Kodak 400NC (couple with baby), and Fuji NPH (now called Pro400H) (birthday cake in backyard)
Both taken with an M6 and 21mm Asph

And since you asked about the 160C by Fuji. It is a very contrasty film when compared to the 160S, the 160C has look of more like a 400 or 800 asa film due to the contrast but with the grain of a 160 speed film. It is nice, but I prefer to add contrast in post most of the time.

NickTrop · 08-13-2007

Kodak UC Professional both 100 and 400 are my absolute favorites. However, color film is like beer... haven't met one in modern times I can say I really don't like - even the cheap ones.

Tim Gray · 08-14-2007

If you're scanning, I've been happy the couple times I shot Portra 160NC. It simply captures everything and then you can always boost contrast and saturation a bit in Photoshop...

payasam · 08-14-2007

For outdoors work, nothing faster than 100 needed. For a decade and a half now, I have used Fujicolor 100 outdoors and indoors. Lab processing -- in particular, print quality -- is so variable that preferences become meaningless.

ibcrewin · 08-21-2007

I think it all depends on the look you want to achieve. I used superia 100 because it was $2.00 at B&H. I took some pictures with the wife and kid down by the boathouse at central park. The greens look great. Skin tone is awesome. Overall I was really happy with it.

But wait. I've seen some work with NPH C and that looks pretty awesome too. I pretty sure this was taken with NPH C. http://www.inbalsivan.net/baby.html I had asked her what film she uses and I think that's what she said she used.