best colour film for urban landscape?
I read about certain colour films - usually slow - being prefered to others for photographing the natural landscape because of their effect with greenery etc.
I am curious to know what film(s) are preferred for use in built up urban areas (excluding the effect of glass).
I know that it is subjective but I wonder is there a film that is, in general, more effective than others with muted colours. Or is it just: the slower the better?
I have had good luck with 100 ASA slide films and 160 speed color print films in sunlight. But that is just me.
I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way.
It's all about what film works for YOUR color urban landscape!
Test, test, test.
My choice probably won't be yours.
There are many ways to approach this: you can aim for a film with saturated colors in order to highlight the punch and the vibrancy of artificial city colors, in contrast with the dull grit of concrete, or take the opposite approach with a very muted film like Astia or Portra NC to emphasize homogeneity, dullness, whatnot. You can use tungsten film to shoot interiors with a more natural color balance, or use daylight to get a warmer tone. You can use a very fast film to have grain, or very slow film to get details, etc.
A medium is always subordinated to what you're trying to accomplish. If you want to think in terms of aesthetic parameters first, color films are spread across the variables of: saturation, palette (rendition of colors: some films will make greens more blueish, etc), contrast, grain, and light balance (tungsten vs. daylight).
On top of that is the "character," the gestalt effect of all of these parameters plus more that takes people in white lab coats to describe properly.
Go to the Kodak and Fuji websites, download their film information brochure, think about your subject, then go shoot a few rolls of various films to see what you like. That's about it. Oh, and check also the gallery of JD Callow here, he does some pretty fine urban color work by cross-processing slide film and printing on RA4, but that takes some more time and dedication.
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
Although I usually shoot the off-the-shelf Fuji 200 and 400 for urban scenes, two films come to mind as giving me very pleasing results ...
First, Kodachrome 64, near and dear to many of us. Example:
Second is kind of a moot point, I still have some and use it for urban scenes, and that is the now-discontinued Walgreens/Agfa 200. Example:
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Kodachrome 64 is my top pick for great greens and red reds.
Superia 800. Lovely, just a bit of grit and nice and fast for handholding.
I'm not sure what the difference would be b/w rural and urban landscapes. I usually choose the speed of my film based on the light. The slower the better - but since I usually shoot 35mm handheld (espescially "urban street") - I adjust for the kind of light (sunny v. overcast; day v. night etc.) rather than by locale.
There was a time when a sunny day in the city meant Kodachrome 64. I've given it up before it gives up on me and still trying to find my new "favorite" when conditions are otherwise "just perfect".
I have some ideas there and I will try them. Thanks for the various input.
I use Velvia 100 for the urban landscape as well as the natural landscape.
But I'm weird.