Film Comparison

[polyglot]

I have here two photos taken with different films of the same scene (same camera, lens and CPL too - all I did was swap backs while it was on the tripod) about 1 minute apart:


One is a chrome, the other is negative. Negative colours adjusted "to taste" and according to my memory, so there are some hue differences.

What films do you think they each are? Which do you prefer and why?

[tomalophicon]

Top is Velvia 100 and bottom is Ektar...

I prefer the top because the water looks nicer.

[railwayman3]

Is there a prize?

[L Gebhardt]

The loss of shadow detail in both bothers me. The colors in the bottom one are nicer in my opinion. My guess is that the bottom is negative because of the lower contrast in the sky.

[bdial]

I'm also guessing the bottom one is negative, and I do like the color better, especially the rendering of the statue. But both could stand some more exposure, IMHO.

[polyglot]

eh, you're onto me... top one is RVP50 and the bottom one is Ektar. Clouds edges are blown in the chrome so I don't agree about more exposure despite the black-hole rock (it's really black and slimy and shaded; needs about 4-5 more stops before coming to Zone III).

I have another Ektar frame that's +1/2 and a little better, shows a little more shadow detail. I picked this one for comparison because it was shot at Sunny-16 box speed just like the RVP.

railwayman: merely your edification at having Beaten The Internets.

[cramej]

Not my photograph and it's already been taken, but here's my take on it:

I like the contrast from the chrome better, but why did you only tweak colors on the negative? If you're scanning then tweak colors as much as you want on both! Second, everything but the clouds is underexposed because you're on the shadow side. If you want the rest to be properly exposed, you have to let the highlights go. It needs at least 2 more stops to get it there. Everything that's not directly lit in these is a big black blob. Blown highlights are only a bad thing when they're in the wrong place. I've learned to let my highlights go when using rim lighting or back lighting on portraits.

[Hatchetman]

I prefer the first, as the second one has an overall blue cast to it. Of course that could have been introduced in the scanning process.

[tomalophicon]

What the... the Fuji looks loads better.

[L Gebhardt]

Not my photograph and it's already been taken, but here's my take on it:

I like the contrast from the chrome better, but why did you only tweak colors on the negative? If you're scanning then tweak colors as much as you want on both! Second, everything but the clouds is underexposed because you're on the shadow side. If you want the rest to be properly exposed, you have to let the highlights go. It needs at least 2 more stops to get it there. Everything that's not directly lit in these is a big black blob. Blown highlights are only a bad thing when they're in the wrong place. I've learned to let my highlights go when using rim lighting or back lighting on portraits.

I don't care for blown highlights, or blocked up shadows. I would just avoid the RVP or Ektar for this type of shot, and go straight to a low contrast negative film, like Pro160S or Portra 160. Then expose for the shadows.