 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / June 2004type of film for senior portraits
Folks, I have never shoot senior portraits before, but I plain to change that here in the very near future. The question is what film should I shoot, Portra 160VC or Ektachrom E100GX? I know what you are think: "Slide film for senior portraits? Are you Nuts? Do you not know the cost of getting prints made from slides?" Well there is more to the store... I do shoot portraits, family portraits that is. For family portraits I shoot Kodak Portra 400VC normally, but I am also shooting with a Hasselblad. Now I am sure you are thinking: "Sam, don't be a fool, simply shoot seniors the way you do families" Well, like I said, there is more to the store. I have invested in a 35mm film scanner to scan in the senior portraits and fix up any flaws that might need to be fixed. Orginially I was assuming that I would simply shoot Portra 160VC and be done with it. Then it dawned on me that normally slide film is sharper and has better color, since I was going to be scanning in the images any way, why not shoot slides? The advantage is that I can look at the slide to see what the image SHOULD look like on the screen, the draw backs being more expensive film/processing and less exposure latitude. Can anyone think of any other pros/cons to shooting film vs slides? Considering the work flow I am going to implement, what would you recommend? Sam I wouldn't even consider chromes. The Kodak film is designed to accurately record skin tones. I did studio portraiture for many years using RBs and Hasselblads. Wouldn't even consider shooting chrome for that even in this digital age. > I wouldn't even consider chromes. The Kodak film is designed to > accurately record skin tones. I did studio portraiture for many years > using RBs and Hasselblads. Wouldn't even consider shooting chrome for > that even in this digital age. Randall, Thank you for your comments. I do believe we established your approach to photography when I asked about doing the church shoot, which is still in the works. I am looking for opinions from folks that are open mined and willing to considering different approaches to things. Sam -- http://www.miltonstreet.com > Thank you for your comments. I do believe we established your approach > to photography when I asked about doing the church shoot, which is still > in the works. I am looking for opinions from folks that are open mined > and willing to considering different approaches to things. There's a difference between being open-minded and knowing what works. You supposedly are a professional (or at least think you are) but you are asking amateur questions. >> Thank you for your comments. I do believe we established your approach >> to photography when I asked about doing the church shoot, which is still [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You supposedly are a professional (or at least think you are) but you > are asking amateur questions. Randall, What you don't seem to grasp is that what worked yesterday does not always work today. Here is a great example: Ten years ago it is my understanding that rather then getting 4x5 or 5x5 proofs back, family portrait photographers would get slides made so they could project the images to the size of wall art. Today labs no longer offer this service of making slides from your negatives, the new way of doing things is to scan in the negatives and project them with one of the computer monitor projectors. Five years ago I would have NEVER even considered using chrome for Senior portraits, too expensive to get prints made. On the other hand commercial photographers have preferred chrome from the beginning for all the reasons we both know. What has changed today is that I now have a device to get a very high quality version of that slide into my computer and I can get the image in the computer put onto paper. The tools and the tricks today are different then yesterday. Not all the rules and not all the tricks, though. I believe I have come up with a new (at least to me) technique to shooting senior portraits. I am looking for opinions for folks that will entertain looking at old problems new ways. People give an honest, open minded opinion on my ideas. Hell, Randell, you could have at least said: "If you want to go digital that bad, why not simply by a $1000 digital camera rather then a $1100 film scanner and be done with it?" But you obviously like doing things the way you have for the last 16+ years and are no longer thinking outside the box. I have no problem with this; I just don't need your input because it is predicable and in every portrait photography book published in the last 20+ years. Sam Some things just don't change. I no longer shoot film...went digital about a year ago. And if I were back in business it would be all digital. But basic photographic principles don't change. The images I create with the 10D look pretty much like what I did with the Hasselblad. It's like playing music. I prefer a Stratocaster but if you give me a Paul it will sound pretty much like me. Camera or guitar...it's just a tool. There's no magic in the box. > I believe I have come up with a new (at least to me) technique to > shooting senior portraits. I am looking for opinions for folks that > will entertain looking at old problems new ways. People give an > honest, open minded opinion on my ideas. My opinion is that you are going to be very, very busy (assuming a reasonable quantity of sittings) what with shooting, processing, scanning, retouching, printing and packaging. Order taking would be in there too. There is a reason that most such is subbed to pro labs. -- dadiOH _____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.0... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico ____________________________ > > I wouldn't even consider chromes. The Kodak film is designed to > > accurately record skin tones. I did studio portraiture for many years [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in the works. I am looking for opinions from folks that are open mined > and willing to considering different approaches to things. this isn't a question of open mind, its looking for the 'best' approach to achieve a product. slide film handicaps you far more than gives you advantages. What you shoot is what you get is a great learning method, there is little second chance, there is no lab guy helping you or screwing you. neg film, almost 5 stops exposure bracket and still print without much obvious damage to quality, (this was demo'd by a lab, they did shots in half stop increments from 2.5 under to 2.5 over, only in the two extremes could you sense an exposure problem. that covers a lot of sins. > Then it dawned on me that normally slide film is sharper and has > better color, since I was going to be scanning in the images any > way, why not shoot slides? The advantage is that I can look at > the slide to see what the image SHOULD look like on the screen, > the draw backs being more expensive film/processing and less > exposure latitude. A couple of opening comments. For portraits, sharper doesn't equate to better. Likewise, slide film typically has greater density range and stronger color saturation, but neither necessarily makes a better portrait. The purpose of a senior portrait is to create an image of a vibrant, (typically) young adult, showing varying degrees of serenity, happiness and confidence. Whether you're talking about high school seniors or college seniors, that's not always what you're going to see in the finder. Once you start your digital workflow, you have some more variables to try to control. What your slide film gave you in density range, your scanner may well take away. While comparing what you see on your monitor to a slide is useful, it's not a substitute for profiling your monitor. Nor does it ensure that your final hard output will match what's on the monitor. I half agree with Randall on this one. The right way to make these determinations for yourself is to burn some throwaway images and figure out what's going to work for you, your equipment, software and workflow. Without that base, you're doing a disservice to your client. With my 35mm gear, I prefer print film for portraits. I'll typically use Fuji NPS, but if I expect to see a lot of darker skin tones and colorful dress I'll use NPC. If I was to switch labs, scanners, printers, or even lens brand, I might well prefer a different film.  SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. > I half agree with Randall on this one. Careful...I'm just a senile old SOB that doesn't know squat. :-) Sam: You shouldn't have any problems. I've used both slide and negative film, and every camera down to subminiature. As long as your final results don't show too many wrinkles, everyone will be pleased. Al Doyle > Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Sam > Folks, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that normally slide film is sharper and has better color, since I was > going to be scanning in the images any way, why not shoot slides? That is simply false for E-6 films. E-6 films and C41 films use essentially the same sort of construction and dyes, so the sharrpness of C41 and E-6 films is generally similar. Only KODACHROME slide film is sharper than C41 films, because its construction is different (thinner) and uses completely different dyes and processing. > The > advantage is that I can look at the slide to see what the image SHOULD [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sam C41 negative color. Anything else is asinine. outdated? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.