Kodak vs Fuji - fashion photography
I am just starting out in medium format. I am looking for a good color negative film for studio fashion photography.
I am interested in the difference between the Fuji 160S and 160C. I also would like to know how they compare to Kodak Portra 160NC and 160VC.
I appreciate any assistance.
PS. I have only shot digital previously.
Dunno about the Fuji, but this is a shot I did on Kodak Portra 160nc: http://life-electronic.net/blog/?p=332 VC is more saturated (VC=vivid color)
I only shoot Kodak, but a quick search indicates that Fuji 160S and 160C relate to each other in the same way as Portra 160NC and 160VC, namely they offer normal and higher contrast and color saturation respectively. Portra 160VC is Kodak's official recommendation for studio photography, it would be my choice too as I like punchier color, indeed I would use it out of doors as well. The difference is noticeable but not enormous, you can of course change the contrast and saturation any way you want if you intend to scan the negs. If you have only shot digital before, be prepared to use more contrasty lighting with film. Many people also downrate 160 film and shoot it at 100 or so for better saturation (no change to processing).
Originally Posted by 5nap5hot
The films you mention are all very good, it all comes down to personal preference, you will probably get almost as many answers as there are members on this forum , try them, It's a case of "suck it and see"
With the release of the new portra films all these films are closer to equal than ever. The only large remaining difference is color palette, and that difference is rather small and up to personal preference.
Obviously, first pick whether you want S or C, NC vs VC. Then I'd pick up whatever is cheaper and use it. If there is no price difference I'd pick up a roll of each and test it through your entire work flow. Whichever prints or scans/retouches easier to your desired end print is your winner.
For me, Portra NC. The new version is the best color film I've ever shot. But a lot of guys I know shoot VC and I always see cases of Fuji 160S in the lab waiting to get run.
Frankly, with fashion, it's really the last thing I'd think about.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I just realized you were asking specifically about studio photography. Personally in that case I'd opt for the punchier versions of these films (160C or 160VC), just b/c you'll have total control over light.
I don't shoot fashion, but when I made my test for Kodak v. Fuji, what it boiled down for me was colour palette. The greens on the Fuji turned a little too turquoise for my taste (at least the way it was printed on the Frontier my lab uses).
Now that I print RA4 at home, I must say that paper choice is another important variable in palette. Fuji printed on Kodak paper looks pretty much Kodak-ish, but I haven't tried yet using Crystal Archive, which I will do eventually.
Get one roll of 160C and 160VC to compare, it's really a matter of taste, and a minimum investment that's really worth it. In terms of basic performance, you can be sure they're both great. If you can, rent or buy a Macbeth colour chart to balance them properly, and get a better sense of how they render colours. At the minimum, a gray card shot will help.
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
I have decided to buy two boxes (5s) in 120 of each. I will try them out. It shouldn't take too long. I usually shoot about 200 frames in a session. ;-)
Thanks for all your replies!