Color Film Suggestion

W

wontonny

Well-known
Local time
8:35 AM
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
278
I'm going to Yellowstone in a couple weeks and I would like to know some color film suggestions. I just want a low speed (~50-100 ASA) that has good color rendition. Why does Kodak Porta-160 cost so much? There's so many to choose from, I dont even know where to start. I'll just be developing the rolls at Costco probably. Some links on B&H would be preferred and your reasons why. For black and white... I'm just using Tri-x or Agfa APX 100
 
Last edited:
Kodachrome. Costo still will do it, they send it to Dwaynes, comes to around five dollars to process. To print it, just scan the good ones and go back to costco.
on sale at http://www.photosuperia.com/kodak-kodachrome-kr-13536-64-speed-36-exposures-color-slide-film-usa-p-717.html
For prints fuji NPS in harsh sun, and NPC in bleaker light... those are 160 speed analogs of kodak's Portra vc and uc respectively.
http://ultrafineonline.com/fuprfibl.html
Or everybody likes Reala- it's in 100 speed, but I just have not bought any yet..
http://ultrafineonline.com/stst20rofure.html
 
Reala. Cheap, high resolution, nice colors, and very easy to scan. Around US 2.50 per 36 roll
at B+H. And 400 Superia for the "golden light" shots :)

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Reala. Cheap, high resolution, nice colors, and very easy to scan.
Click to expand...

Agree. Very good general purpose lower-speed color film.

Kodachrome is one of my faves too, but I consider it to be a "special occasion" film. :) It's not as saturated as Fuji Reala, and Kodachrome most definitely cannot take a joke as far as exposure is concerned.
 
wontonny said:
I'm going to Yellowstone in a couple weeks and I would like to know some color film suggestions. I just want a low speed (~50-100 ASA) that has good color rendition. Why does Kodak Porta-160 cost so much? There's so many to choose from, I dont even know where to start. I'll just be developing the rolls at Costco probably. Some links on B&H would be preferred and your reasons why. For black and white... I'm just using Tri-x or Agfa APX 100
Click to expand...

Reconsider your thoughts.

portra is best for portraits, not landscapes. Tri-x, old school - try Plus X or the Ilford equivalent 125asa, or even Neopan 100.

For 100asa color neg try Reala. That is probably your best bet.

On chrome try Velvia 50, cause its easier than K64 to scan.

PS: don't feedthe animals
 
I would add that I would not hesitate to recommend Fuji Astia if you'd consider slide film. Yes, not inherently vibrant in color or contrast (like Velvia) but therein lies the strength IMO. You will preserve the best in subtle color tonality and subtle contrast with excellent shadow detail you could never get in Velvia. From that "base" the potential is much better, you can scan the slides and in PS (or similar) add color saturation and contrast when and where appropriate almost to where it would resemble Velvia, or tweaked back a bit from Velvia, which is what I prefer. Plus it's much better to use on those bright, contrasty days, in the forest shadows, and for converting to B&W the more subtle contrast and shadow detail is a big plus.
 
Yeah, skip the Portra, either version is poorly suited to scenic shots.

Kodak Gold is my favorite. Colors just are more natural, without artificial over-saturating or muting. What is a brilliant yellow when you take the picture is brilliant yellow in the print. Same with reds, blues, and greens. I can't really say that about other films I've used.

Kodachrome if you don't need prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top