looking for favorite portrait films (high key, outdoor people portraits)
TLaek
work inside in a sunroom using natural light. I also do portrait work
outdoors. Which films would you recommend and why? I have been researching
different Fuji and Kodak films and intend to try some different films but just
wanting some input to know where I should start. Thanks
photo35744
--
"TLaek" <tl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010424231900...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
strawberry9
b&w portrait has much going for it. Even good color portraits have one
serious color problem: people change color (by the hour, day, year, etc...)
-dan
"TLaek" <tl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010424231900...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
Stephen M. Dunn
$Just wondering what your favorite film is for people portraits.
Kodak Portra 160VC. Why? Well, 160 because I'm anal about grain.
Portra because I happen to like it. VC because I prefer more
saturation over less saturation, so long as the skin tones are good;
the grain of VC is only slightly more than the grain of NC, and I
find 160VC's image structure perfectly good on an 8x enlargement.
I'm not so fond of 400VC because of the grain. I've only tried
NPH once, and found it too grainy for my tastes, too; also, I think
250 is probably its best speed. I can't see any significant difference
in prints of frames at 320 or 250, but when I scan it, I definitely
prefer it at 250. I haven't done extensive testing of other films
because I'm pretty pleased with Portra.
However, here's a caveat: you might want to match the film you
use to the paper used to make your prints, and if you use a Fuji
Frontier for your printing, you might want to match the film to that,
too. Sometimes I get great results from Portra on a Frontier, and
sometimes the people have chalky skin tones. Scott Eaton, one
of the frequent contributors to discussion threads on photo.net
and a man who knows his films and papers, is convinced that
Fuji films - NPH in particular - are the best match for a Frontier.
For special enlargements, I use a pro lab that happens to print on
Kodak Supra III paper, and they give me lovely results from
Portra.
(Scott's opinions, helped by some prodding from Bill Tuthill,
are the reason I tried NPH in the first place. Given the good
results it gives on a Frontier, I might have ended up using it
for a faster film except that it's not really that much faster;
if Fuji had a real 400-speed portrait film that matched or
beat 400VC's grain and worked as well with the Frontier as NPH
does, I'd use that as my faster film for people shots.)
$ I have been researching
$different Fuji and Kodak films and intend to try some different films
This is the key - as you said, _you_ need to try some different
films. Depending on your equipment, your style, and your tastes,
you will find the film or films that work well for you, and they
may or may not match my choices or anyone else's.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
Jeannie
printed using Fuji Frontier, and I'm very, very happy with the results.
--
Jeannie
E-mail: moonflour at bigfoot dot see oh em
Web: http://www.talisweb.com/jeannie/
"Stephen M. Dunn" <ste...@bokonon.stevedunn.ca> wrote in message
news:GCFIw...@bokonon.stevedunn.ca...
Skip
unbeatable.
However, NC works better for me when using flash or studio light for portraits. Just my
experience.
Bill Tuthill
> ... I've only tried
> NPH once, and found it too grainy for my tastes, too; also, I think
> 250 is probably its best speed. I can't see any significant difference
> in prints of frames at 320 or 250, but when I scan it, I definitely
> prefer it at 250.
After reading Ctein's review of 400-800 speed films in Photo Techniques
magazine, in which he said that NPH was a third stop faster than 400,
"perhaps mere sample variation," I bought a roll and tested it (because
of its poor scanning performance I do not normally use NPH).
Sure enough, the roll I tested with expiration date 2003-1 look best
at EI 320, and better at 400 than at 250.
Fuji must be responding to photographer input. If it were me doing
portraits with NPH, I would test a batch before proceeding.
--
Boycott TV news, get yer daily political spin from http://bartcop.com !
RAS
than 400.
"Bill Tuthill" <ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tej5sf3...@corp.supernews.com...
Your Name
"Jeannie" <see.message.b...@address.com> wrote:
> For what (small amount) it's worth, I just got a roll of NPH 400 (@250)
> printed using Fuji Frontier, and I'm very, very happy with the results.
Where in Atlanta could a fellow go to get Fuji Frontier prints?
I'm new to this high-brow picture-taking stuff. Folks keep referring to
"C-41 processing." What is that?
Please be so kind as to also email your reply. I seldom have time for
Usenet.