Good Fine-Grained Film for Portraits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hughitb

I don't think that light from outside is going to be an option in the places I will be shooting this. There are likely to not be any windows at all as it is going to be done in band rehearsal rooms. Have you seen any of these places? I've spent a significant portion of my life in them and they are almost all windowless horrible dumps (or at least the ones my band practices in :-)) So, I don't think the mixed lighting can be avoided completely.

---

Ah, yes. In that case, I'd just bring enough strobes that you can ignore the ambient lighting. The strobes will very easily be at least 4 stops brighter than those dreadful fluorescents, and the ambient lighting will become irrelevant as long as your shutter speed is faster than, say, 1/30 sec., and you could even get away with slower, but there wouldn't be any reason to. Depending on the look you're after, you might want an edgier film than Portra 160NC, which I originally suggested. Ektar 100 will give you more saturated color.

There is an apt dutch phrase that comes to mind: waarom makkelijk doen, als het ook moeilijk kan? Why do it the easy way when you can also do it the hard way?

At this modest size, 400 speed Fuji Pro H will be great and will handle the mix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2F/2F

What a nonsensical statement that it is "not a question for Hybrid Photo". It is absolutely, 100%, no doubt a question for Hybrid Photo dot com, with no room for debate. It is perhaps and perhaps not a question for APUG, with plenty of room for debate.

If you want to ask a question about a film solely for scanning purposes, it best belongs there. The final output always tempers the responses to film questions...always. The entire process must be considered to give an appropriate response. The answers may or may not be different due to the intended printing techniques.

At any rate, the specifics do not matter all that much. I view it as a general matter of principle. Having the question in the right spot will benefit both Websites. It will clean up this analog retreat, and provide better answers to the OP, without these types of exchanges ever having to take place. This is not to mention the fact that it will increase traffic on that site, and add appropriate and valuable material to its archive. These are exactly why Hybrid Photo dot com is there in the first place. My initial statement was made to promote that Website as much as anything.

This is not about judgment and persecution of hybrid technology...not at all. It is simply about proper categorization and archival for both APUG and HybridPhoto. Isn't it annoying when you go to look for something in a filing cabinet, and you keep coming across a bunch of stuff that is misfiled and in your way, because the bozo who worked there before you didn't know how to follow the most basic, simple filing protocol?

...and P.S. If you are going to make attitudinous statements about what you feel belongs and does not belong here, which we all should feel entitled to do to some degree, at least send in your bucks! It is only right. It is pretty low class of you, IMHO.

---

Firstly, get off your high horse, that is immature and a pathetic dig at my character, and is not relevant in the slightest, secondly, you do not have a clue of my financial situation, if I trust or use any kind of online money transfer services or even have anything more than a debit VISA, or if I live in a totally foreign country that rules out other forms, nor do you know if I am even of age to be able to do so on my own, nor do you have any clue about my needs and uses of this site, how I feel about that, and whether I find it worthwhile, or if I find that its only 1 or 2 people deserving of what little money I actually get.

That's a lot of assumptions to be making, and thirdly, is absolutely judgemental indignant attitude to be taking to someone you dont know a thing about.

On Topic:
It is background information he provided on what he will be doing it, which may garner extra tips, the most relevant information in the OPs post is lighting condition/location, grain structure and resolution of the film, this is the perfect place for that, if you cant answer that, dont post such a useless reply.

The answer would be the same regardless if he mentioned scanning or not, because, well I actually continued reading the OP's post after the s word, and actually read what he was asking about, which is indicative in the title:

Fine grained and sharp film for portraits in x lighting condition.


Just because he happens to be scanning, does not make it a topic for Hybrid Photo, that is his reproduction method, but he is asking about film itself, I think that should be painfully obvious, I'm sorry that it's inconvenient for you for the word "scanning" to be seen in your precious home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markbarendt

Athiril,

When the question specifically specifies scanning as part of the process it is off topic at APUG.

A good film and exposure for use in an enlarger may not be worth a darn in a scanner. I don't know and don't care to know.

Why in the world would somebody want an opinion on picking a film for scanning from a group that doesn't have that as a core strength?

---

So, you dont know and you dont care to know?

Right, lets make this clear.

The OP wants suggestions for fine grained and sharp film for portraits, it doesn't matter how he's going to transfer that to a useable image, that is irrelevant, it happens to be useful to mention background info and intentions for people asking for help or advice, since he doesn't know that much about it.

Fine grained and sharp film for portraits is going to be fine grained and sharp film for portraits, stay on topic with your answers.

You don't know and don't care to know about scanning, so dont bother trying to argue that it makes any kind of difference at all, because you don't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop

Can you clarify how it is not a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com? It would certainly be right at home there, so I don't get this stance at all.

Like I said, 100% OK at Hybrid Photo...and who knows how much OK at APUG...therefore it definitely belongs at Hybrid Photo, which is what my post said in the first place. Saying that it does not belong there makes no sense, because even if it belongs here (which is open for debate), it certainly belongs there as well...and it does so more so and more definitely.

Try reading what I actually wrote in both of my previous posts, and calm the hell down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hughitb

Because I am kind of dumb sometimes. Sorry about that.

---

So am I sometimes. Grumpy sometimes too, didn't mean to take it out on you.

Title: Good Fine-Grained Film for Portraits <-- this is what the thread is about, full stop.

I am about to start doing a portraiture project. I will be using colour 6x6 film and getting the negatives scanned and then printed. I want to make reasonably large prints - maybe 12x12 but possibly larger e.g. 16x16 depending on cost.

They will be indoor portraits, lit with a combination of flash and fixed light(s). I'll be shooting them with a Rolleiflex. I have little clue really what I am doing and I have little or no experience with colour film.

Can someone suggest a good film to use? I'm looking for fine grain, lots of detail and so on. I imagine more or less anything would do but thought I would consult the wisdom of APUG in case there are obvious ones to go for ...

Relevant information underlined.

Your problem with it being here italised.

6x6 colour, portraits, mixed lighting, fine grain & sharp film, wants to make good 12x12 and 16x16 prints, thats the relevant information and he is asking about film suitable for that, the method of reproduction is irrelevant here, he is not asking about the method of reproduction.

Let me fix that for you though.


"Folks,

I am about to start doing a portraiture project. I will be using colour 6x6 film. I want to make reasonably large prints - maybe 12x12 but possibly larger e.g. 16x16 depending on cost.

They will be indoor portraits, lit with a combination of flash and fixed light(s). I'll be shooting them with a Rolleiflex. I have little clue really what I am doing and I have little or no experience with colour film.

Can someone suggest a good film to use? I'm looking for fine grain, lots of detail and so on. I imagine more or less anything would do but thought I would consult the wisdom of APUG in case there are obvious ones to go for ..."

Now try answering that.

Because mentioning scanning is irrelevant, youre not answer what kind of scanner or scan resolution needed for good 12x12 and 16x16 prints, youre answering on what film is going to best in that mixed lighting and make good sharp prints at 12x12 and 16x16 with fine grain.

The fact if he mentions how theyre being printed is irrelevant or not, he's after the source quality, ie: the film which is exactly what he is asking about.



And if you dont know anything about scanning, then you shouldn't be suggesting that it makes any kind of difference to film choice. Thus your point is moot and not particularly valid to begin with, just answer what you can, for what he wants to know, all he wants to know is film for portraits, in colour for a specific print size from an original negative specific size, in specific lighting conditions, its not hard to comprehend.

X film is finer graind than Y film, given a perfect reproduction of both, X print will be finer grained than Y on a big enlargement.

So, if you know about scanning, then you know 16x16 might be pushing it for a flatbed scan, as they are akin to lousy soft enlarger lenses, and it'd be recommended to use a real/dedicated scanner, or get a drum scan done, which is likely possibly anyway since he said he'd be getting them scanned rather than scanning himself.

Now that is irrelevant to advise them, "oh you'll need to scan it on at least this scanner" because this is APUG, and secondly, the reproduction is not being asked about and is the OP's responsibility to ensure a quality reproduction.

It is is the same as if he said "I'll be optically printing these negatives to ilfochrome", it might be helpful, but a total shot in the dark and definately not the main focus of the topic at hand to tell him "oh dont use x brand enlarger, it's a bit too soft for 16x16 prints".

The method of reproduction is not the topic at hand, its not relevant to the OPs question, and is the OPs own responsibility, the core topic is most relevant to APUG:

"What portrait films are recommended for sharp fine grain 16x16 prints from 6x6cm negatives in mixed lighting conditions?".

That is the question you should be answering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athiril

Fine grained and sharp film for portraits is going to be fine grained and sharp film for portraits, stay on topic with your answers.

You don't know and don't care to know about scanning, so dont bother trying to argue that it makes any kind of difference at all, because you don't know.

---

Hugh defined the topic, that included scanning and one thing I do know is that a scanner is just a specialized digital camera.

Although I'm no guru on using a scanner, and don't care to be, I am highly skilled in digital photography, color management, PS, blah, blah, blah...

I understand enough to know that there are better sources of info, on what film might be best for scanning, than APUG. Places that could and would actually give Hugh feedback on the nuances and why's one might work better for him than another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop

Read what I wrote, not what you think I said. It was most moderate, and was logically and well explained. You are having a hissy fit over nothing.

Here is what I stated: "Sounds like a good question for HybridPhoto.com."

Very simple...totally non exclusionary...most helpful...and 100% correct.

...and then you said, no, it is not.

Now, again: You have stated twice that this is not a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. Please explain why it would not belong there. You cannot...because it most certainly would fit right into the pocket there; 100%, no question about it...meaning that it is most certainly a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. As I said, maybe it belongs on APUG, and maybe not. That is certainly not 100%.

Now..this is what I mean when I say to read what I wrote...because if you read what I wrote, you will also see what I did not write...certainly not what you seem to think I wrote. Did I ever say that it is NOT a topic for APUG? I did not. I said maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, and that there is plenty of room for debate on the issue. Why do I have to spell it out so much when it is there is clear, logical, and well-written English?

Now.....I will ask the question again, and I hope that you take the time to comprehend it this time: You have twice made the assertion that it is not a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com. How is it NOT a topic for Hybrid Photo dot com? How can you make that statement, knowing what Hybrid Photo dot com is all about? .....or have you not actually read what Hybrid Photo dot com is about? .....or APUG, for that matter?

See above post:

Basically, if you dont know about scanning, dont suggest film choice is going to be different than for the same task as if he were optical printing, because you simply dont know that, and its not the OP's question anyway.

If you do know about scanning, then like I mentioned above you'll know that the film choice is going to be the same, especially for a 16x16 quality reproduction.


This is the question he is asking
"What portrait films are recommended for sharp fine grain 16x16 prints from 6x6cm negatives in mixed lighting conditions?".

He did not at any point ask which film is better for scanning. This just happens to be his choice of reproduction in this process, and it doesnt maky any difference, there isn't a better place than APUG to discuss film abstract of variables other than the variables of the film itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Brown

Perhaps 2F/2F was ,indeed, trying to be helpful; in that the folks at hybrid photo would have better answers. I know that I am certainly not the only apug member who simply has no idea what film would scan well.

---

When shopping for film to do a job, I always visit www.flickr.com for examples of what it (what ever film) can do. I vote portra 160NC for the creamy tones. Try http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=portra%20medium&w=all .