Good Fine-Grained Film for Portraits

[hughitb]

Folks,

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 ...

[arigram]

It is my understanding that Kodak Portra is made exactly for this purpose.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...l?pq-path=2985

[2F/2F]

Sounds like a good question for HybridPhoto.com.

[Athiril]

No its not a question for Hybrid Photo, fine grained and sharp film is fine grained and sharp film, which is the subject of the question, ie: he's asking about film.

I really dislike the automatic responses going on here as of late soon as someone mentions their scanning even as an aside, its not helpful.

OP:
Fuji Pro 160S cannot be beaten imho.

However you may want faster film for your lighting conditions, Pro 400H is good, as is the Portra 400 speed, and Kodak Ektacolor 160 ("Pro 160" printed on the emulsion) which I've recently tried, is the second cheapest 120 C41 film on ebay I've found, and is excellent (apart from trying to load it yourself for your own processing onto a plastic film.. need to wash/wet the film in the dark in water first, otherwise it jams and one side crinkles).

If you dont need fast speed film, and if youre going to be scanning on a high end scanner (CoolScan 8000/9000, imacon/flextight etc) then use Astia 100f, it is gorgeous, you could also try the new Ektar 100, though I wouldnt go Reala 100 except for its low cost, as Pro 160S has the same resolution with slightly finger grain, according to Fuji, which I seem to agree with so far from my limited examination of the films.


Even Pro 800Z will do you.

[David Brown]

No its not a question for Hybrid Photo, ...

I really dislike the automatic responses going on here as of late soon as someone mentions their scanning even as an aside, its not helpful.

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.

[Mark Antony]

12x12 shouldn't be a stretch for 160 Portra /Fuji NPS 160 I like Fuji NPH 400 even though it will have a slight grain at the upper limit of your print size but as you're using flash I'd recommend the 160.

[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.

[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?

[jnanian]

most color films scan OK ...
it seems that your lab might be scanning the film for you ..
can you ask then what their suggestion would be for a good neutral
color print film ? then shoot a test roll to see how it looks
after they scan it for you and make your decisions from there ...
your local lab/service bureau would be your local "hybrid photo dot com"
and may be able to supply you with better answers.


have fun!

john

[keithwms]

Fuji pro s... pro h if you need the speed. The fujis will handle the slightly mixed light quite well. 12x12 and 16x16 are not the slightest challenge for them or any other recent colour print film; pro h can handle that well too and you may actually prefer the contrast.

In general, scanned colour print films will appear grainy in the shadows if you don't expose sufficiently. So... as usual, err on the side of slight overexposure.