type 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.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 at 03:58 GMT, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

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.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 at 13:45 GMT, Randall Ainsworth wrote:

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.

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 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.


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.

"Sam Carleton" wrote in message
...

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.

--
Michael Benveniste --
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


"Sam Carleton" wrote in message
...
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