User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: pro or consumer film

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    rockingham
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    pro or consumer film

    Hi, if you plan to develop only and then scan and edit in photoshop,would buying pro 160 be a waste compared to cheap superia or similar ?
    thanks.

  2. #2
    Member smallfooties's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Dec 2007
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    449
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not sure...hmm...it would be good to find out what the others know...
    but i would think the quality of the negative would still make a difference if that makes sense?

    Nikon D700 in all it's glory!

  3. #3
    Member ricnak's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    33
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Like most things in life... you get what you pay for!

    I never used pro film, then again... I'm no pro. I did notice how much better pro photo's looked though. Buy the best you can justify and afford.

  4. #4
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    16,830
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Try both, then you can tell us. You're talking of 35mm I suppose. I use the Pro because I can't get anything less in the 120 size. Am...

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,440
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not 100% sure but I've heard somethng like there are pro and consumer versions of the same film but named differently of course. The results are essentially the same but there is guarantee of consistensy from batch to batch with pro film so u always get predicable results.
    So if I can find consumer film in 120 size I'd definitely give it a go. I bought a bunch of 135 film from the classifieds here a while back but have no camera to test them out yet so I can't say how they compare with my own experience. But I doubt I'd be able to discern subtle differences anyways.
    Nikon FX

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    rockingham
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks for the replies.
    I guess what I want to know is in regard to 35mm negative film,eg,a roll of big w fuji 100 or 400 compared to a pro 160 iso film,if I edit the scanned -ve ,can I get the cheap film to look like the pro film and if so then I cant see why you buy professional film. If you dont edit but just print from the -ve then yes you probably would see a difference.

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,440
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think if your pp skills r good, u can achieve similar results. But then u could probably achieve the same pp digitally captured images.
    IMO part of the fun in shooting film is the individual characteristics of each film but as I'm findng out now that I've just purchased a scanner, the scanning process requires some work too to translate those characteristics to a digital file.
    I think u could try to find the specific consumer version of a particular pro film (rather than any film u find in Big W or Kmart) and ur results should be very close if not identical to that pro film.
    But u havn't been specific with the pro film u're talking about. Is it portra 160VC, porta 160NC etc etc.

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    24 Jun 2009
    Location
    rockingham
    Posts
    31
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thanks Swifty, you're right about the fun part of trying different films .was getting too concerned with the rising cost of film, in particular slide film inc processing.not ready to go fully digital yet so will try to scan as to keep the films characteristics.

  9. #9
    Member Peter Anson's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Apr 2010
    Location
    2138
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by conscuba View Post
    thanks for the replies.
    I guess what I want to know is in regard to 35mm negative film,eg,a roll of big w fuji 100 or 400 compared to a pro 160 iso film,if I edit the scanned -ve ,can I get the cheap film to look like the pro film and if so then I cant see why you buy professional film. If you dont edit but just print from the -ve then yes you probably would see a difference.
    I was wondering along the same lines, so I bought pack of 8 Fuji 400 superia. It's so different to the digital proccess. I'm on the last roll now. Once I got used to the idea of it looking anything but digital I started liking it. I'm not sure that I would use the same film again. Thinking of the Chinese 100asa "Lucky" film
    For B&W I usually use Ilford, but have tried the Kodak C41 B&W. Of-course the Ilford, no matter which film, Delta , HP,or the C41 it will give superior negs, which means, once you got the scanner software set up nicely,will give good digi "negs" to work with.
    All in all, I'd say the pro films will give better negs every time.
    That said, I rather like the grainy Fuji 400 and I'll keep using cheap color but Ilford B&W every time.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the real difference between consumer and pro film is the way they are made. The consumer film, although usually slightly different rendition to the pro film, is simply made knowing that it will sit on a shelf for long periods. Pro film will go straght into a fridge, and used quickly. This means the colour out of the factory is spot on, where the consumer film is designed to shift over time to the right colours. Certain consumer films are better at some subjects than pro film ie, Pro X chrome is generally considered inferior for skin tones to the far cheaper consumer Superia 400 chrome from the the same company. I second Swifty's thoughts on the hybrid film process...good scanning skills will enable you to get colours spot on with most films.

    The main benifit for pro's is that they can shoot from 'pro packs' which are all cut from the same section of the master roll, giving them consistant colours for a given job.

  11. #11
    Member doigal's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 2008
    Location
    HH
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Shoot velvia and you'll see the difference.
    Cameras: Canon 20D, Canon A2, Fotoman 617, Hassy Xpan II, Mamiya C33 TLR.
    Flickr Album Redbubble Prints

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hi doigal, and congrats on the win yesterday. velvia is nice, but not that great for people.

  13. #13
    Member doigal's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Jul 2008
    Location
    HH
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No its terrible for portraits, in fact its only really there for rich deep landscapes and sucks for everything else. For people I would try kodak portra or maybe even ektar. I havnt used the Fuji C-41 films much so i cant comment on them.

    PS, I'm an aussie expat, after australia got kicked out I'm not really following any bandwagon, but its really cool how the entire country stops for every single german game!

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i like the superia 400 for portraits when it comes to chrome, but i much prefer 400h rated at ASA200.

  15. #15
    Member ArtyChoke's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Apr 2009
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by doigal View Post
    No its terrible for portraits, in fact its only really there for rich deep landscapes and sucks for everything else. For people I would try kodak portra or maybe even ektar...!
    I have been reading that Ektar is noit ideal for portraits, can't remember quite why though. It seems like an interesting film, it's like it's trying to simulate a digital sensor.

    Which Portra do you suggest?

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Nov 2008
    Location
    River Murray
    Posts
    727
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've shot some Ektar but only in 135, and not a lot for portraits. I find Ektar a little harder to scan, but it is a warmer film, and it is supposed to be great for portraits, especially rated at ASA50.

  17. #17
    Member fastr1red's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Each film has its pros and cons.
    I use pro film for what it's designed for and the cheaper consumer films for pretty much snap shots.
    So any commercial work or comps it's always pro films, they offer much better colour constinstancy so gives you much more confidence knowing what sort of colours to expect.
    Escpecially great are the pro portait films, like chalk and cheese.
    Currently using;
    Nikon D7000
    Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRII, 85/1.4G, 70-300VR
    Sigmas 50/1.4EX, 17-50/2.8, 50-500 Bigma
    Tokina 11-16/2.8

    Lotsa other bits.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •