In no particular order...
- NPC rated at iso 80 - 100 dev. normal - this a good to great gen purpose film with some problems in shadow areas. Good saturation, and contrast, but can block-up if exposure is too great and can be too thin if exposure is light. In otherwords it has a small exposure range.
- Portra 400 uc rated at 160 - 320 dev normal (grain is close to or as good as most 160's) Excellent saturation, better shadow detail than NPC, it has good contrast but not as contrasty as NPC (this is one of the few films that doesn't require high contrast to achieve high saturation) Like most portra films it has a huge exposure latitude. It is very hard to over expose this film.
- Reala rated at iso 25-100 dev normal - This is IMHO the best gen purpose film. the more you expose it the greater the contrast and saturation and the grain is -- in my experience -- the finest of the remaining colour neg films except the konica 50 (which is not contrasty of saturated) This film can be downright flat if under exposed (which is great in high contrast settings) and has a huge exposure latitude. The film changes charector as the exposure changes.
Ektar 25, PRN, Agfa Ultra...
It is a sad state when the best films are those that were designed decades ago and are nolonger made.
For architectural photography i use (i shoot 4x5 for architectural which limits my recommendations):
- Portra 100t. Exposed 50-64. Best all around film for mixed lighting. Npl has problems with shadows requires an exposure of iso 50. The extra layer for flo lighting actual makes filtration more difficult
- 160vc exposed 50-80. Lacks the 'punch' i would like, but is a good film for daylight especially when exposures are long.
- NPS exposed at 64 to 80. Terrible for long exposures narrow exposure latitude. Good colours moderate contrast.
For tranies I like RTP, Provia, EPP[/list]
What about Provia 100F is it that you like? and for which applications? Also, why do you say you would not use negative film for anything?"
There are a couple of reasons I do not like negative films. One is I do not feel they are as crisp or saturated as transparencies. I am a bit color blind and I can see the colors on transparencies and even see colors I had no idea were in the scene. I cannot see this on negative film, any color negative film. i think I tried everything available in the US.
I print some stuff on Inkjet unless it is real good and then i send it in for the pros. but everything is scanned for filing purposes. Negative film is a PITA to scan. It takes forever for me to do color correction and I seem to always have to. Probably my scan technique because others do not seem to have to do this. Because of the slight color blindness this is extra hard. Transparencies have not been a problem in any way. SInce I hate to work on photos on the computer I cannot see a reason to practice. Just go with what works for me.
I love Provia for the colors. they are crisp not fake like velvia. It reproduces skin tone realistically for environmental portraits. Provia has little reciprocity failure, though i do not shoot at night except for lightning shots. I have gone up to the one minute mark with no problem at all. It totally kicks tail with lightning photography where I often leave the shutter locked open for two to three minutes. Pushing it two stops is quite easy and no problem. I tried the kodak films before they had the G designation and did not find them bad but my eye and the eyes of viewers were always drawn to the work on provia. It has that certain something.
Now the fine print
All of the above is my opinion and not based on any scientific test whatso ever, and never will be.