Can you guess the film stock?

[skysh4rk]

Although many of us agonise over film choice, I'm wondering if we can really even detect any differences between these various film stocks or if the differences we see actually result from other factors (e.g., light, composition, etc.). Consequently, I've gathered a selection of recent images from a range of film stocks and listed the range of film stocks used for them. Any folks game for trying to match the photo with the corresponding film stock?

I've tried to keep it to portraits and all have been scanned by the same lab. Films can appear multiple times. Photographs mostly taken using my Bronica SQ-A and Minolta Autocord, but one photo from my old GA645 has slipped in.

To be honest, if I hadn't taken these photos myself, I'm not convinced I'd do very well in this little quiz...

The Films:

• Kodak Ektar 100
  
• Kodak Portra 160NC
• Kodak Portra 400
• Kodak Portra 400VC
• Kodak Portra 800
• Fuji Pro 160NS
• Fuji Pro 400H

The Images:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

 

[skysh4rk]

Continued:

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

 

[srichards]

No idea. I think 6,7 & possibly 11 are Ektar....

 

[steveo_mcg]

Nope, not a clue. I don't think I've ever shot any of those films but I doubt it would help even if I had!

 

[skysh4rk]

Nope, not a clue. I don't think I've ever shot any of those films but I doubt it would help even if I had!

Yeah, it's hard. Even if you were just to try to identify photos taken with the same film without even identifying the name of the film, it's still difficult.

Outside of ISO and B&W vs colour, I don't think I can see much reason to stress over film choice anymore; it seems other factors are far more important (e.g., light, scanning, etc.).

No idea. I think 6,7 & possibly 11 are Ektar....

I'll wait for others to have a chance, so I won't give too much away, but none of those you've mentioned is Ektar.

 

[srichards]

Arse!

Oh well. At least it means I can chuck in a roll of anything at all

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

I've only ever used the new Portras, so can't say too much about the VC/NC differences (though I could guess). My instincts tell me that the Ektar ones should have reddish skin tones and colours that pop, and that the Fuji ones will have a broadly cool colour pallet, with everything else being some kind of Portra, but it's not always that simple, and the way they behave in different lighting conditions can throw all that out the window a bit.

Here goes anyway, just for a laugh:

1. Ektar
2. Portra 400VC
3. Fuji 160
4. Ektar
5. Portra 160NC
6. Ektar
7. Portra 800
8. Portra 800
9. Portra 400VC
10. Ektar
11. Fuji 400
12. Portra 400VC
13. Portra 400
14. Fuji 160

Obviously some are from the same set so I could probably refine my guesses based on that, but I'm not that sophisticated!

Will be happy with anything more than 4/14 !!

 

[skysh4rk]

Here goes anyway, just for a laugh:

1. Ektar
2. Portra 400VC
3. Fuji 160
4. Ektar
5. Portra 160NC
6. Ektar
7. Portra 800
8. Portra 800
9. Portra 400VC
10. Ektar
11. Fuji 400
12. Portra 400VC
13. Portra 400
14. Fuji 160

Obviously some are from the same set so I could probably refine my guesses based on that, but I'm not that sophisticated!

Will be happy with anything more than 4/14 !!

Based on those answers, your result would be 2/14. You got Portra 400 and Portra 400VC mixed up a few times, which would have brought your score up a few points. They're very easily confused though.

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Based on those answers, your result would be 2/14. You got Portra 400 and Portra 400VC mixed up a few times, which would have brought your score up a few points. They're very easy to confused though.

Never mind...shows what I know!

 

[excalibur2]

Too difficult unless you are very experienced using those films, it would be easier comparing colorplus, Vista, Superia, Jessops etc etc and even then on quite a few subjects using the "sweet spot" on a film you can't tell the difference and would have to judge on something like the grain .....I've used Jessops on a night shot and don't think I'd get better results with another 35mm neg film, same for other subjects using colorplus, Vista etc.......All you can do is choose a film e.g. Superia 200 and then know it's always going to at minimum equal and usually\mostly be better than say colorplus, Vista etc.

 

[PMN]

To be somewhat controversial here, to be perfectly honest I don't think the UK Film Lab scans do well at all in preserving the character of the individual film. Flicking through images on their Facebook page (and these here) it seems they process images to all look very similar regardless of the film.

I'm sure you'll strongly disagree, RJ, but I can only comment on what I see!

 

[excalibur2]

To be somewhat controversial here, to be perfectly honest I don't think the UK Film Lab scans do well at all in preserving the character of the individual film. Flicking through images on their Facebook page (and these here) it seems they process images to all look very similar regardless of the film.

I'm sure you'll strongly disagree, RJ, but I can only comment on what I see!

H'mm looks like Asda might be a good choice as the machine is set by the engineers and it seems all the operators do (if anything) is adjust for colour cast...Ill have to ask, when scanning, do they program the film make\type in. Anyway some films still show a difference..e.g. accentuated reds for Fuji film.

 

[Steve]

Interesting experiment. Thanks for sharing these.

To me it confirms that I spend too long thinking about different film types. Good lighting and technique are more important as evidenced here.

 

[s162216]

H'mm looks like Asda might be a good choice as the machine is set by the engineers and it seems all the operators do (if anything) is adjust for colour cast...Ill have to ask, when scanning, do they program the film make\type in. Anyway some films still show a difference..e.g. accentuated reds for Fuji film.

The minilab actually identifies the film from the DXn barcode, and from that it knows which default processing options to apply in order to give the films characteristics (the film or minilab manufacturer will supply this data for each minilab type to ensure the results are similar). Colour casts, brightness, contrast etc are then automatically corrected, and/or can be manually adjusted if needed. Asda likely just leave it on auto.

Looking at some of UK film labs scans though, I do agree that whilst they are high quality they do process each to look very similar regardless of the film type.

 

[skysh4rk]

To be somewhat controversial here, to be perfectly honest I don't think the UK Film Lab scans do well at all in preserving the character of the individual film. Flicking through images on their Facebook page (and these here) it seems they process images to all look very similar regardless of the film.

I'm sure you'll strongly disagree, RJ, but I can only comment on what I see!

Well, I think that a lot of images will look similar, but not necessarily because they're disregarding the characteristics of the film or because they're doing something crazy to the scans. How much of a difference would we really expect amongst these films, which are basically engineered for rendering great skin tones and natural colours with the exception of Ektar (which is image 14 by the way)?

Regarding the similarity of images on their site/facebook, I imagine that many of these will have been shot in similar light (often flat or backlit lighting situations), which probably is the most important factor with regard to the look of any images.

That all said, scanning does involve a large element of interpretation and it probably makes sense for a pro lab to edit their images very consistently.

 

[PMN]

Well, I think that a lot of images will look similar, but not necessarily because they're disregarding the characteristics of the film or because they're doing something crazy to the scans. How much of a difference would we really expect amongst these films, which are basically engineered for rendering great skin tones and natural colours with the exception of Ektar (which is image 14 by the way)?

Regarding the similarity of images on their site/facebook, I imagine that many of these will have been shot in similar light (often flat or backlit lighting situations), which probably is the most important factor with regard to the look of any images.

That all said, scanning does involve a large element of interpretation and it probably makes sense for a pro lab to edit their images very consistently.

I can't quite agree, of course it makes sense to be consistent but I'd expect a little more difference than I actually see. Don't get me wrong, the small versions posted here look good, they just look kinda the same to me...

 

[excalibur2]

Interesting experiment. Thanks for sharing these.

To me it confirms that I spend too long thinking about different film types. Good lighting and technique are more important as evidenced here.

Same when comparing lenses e.g. 135mm of the same quality it could just be down to one lens giving a better OOF background or one lens better at distance than close up etc...there can be differences and like film you have to find what film\lens is best at what. I'd be surprised if a pro used Kodak colorplus for a model in a studio, but as you say good lighting and technique used by a pro photographer even using colorplus should always give better results than a bad amateur with slapdash approach..... using a pro film.

 

[Digisatman]

I've more chance of winning the Lottery than getting this right LOL

 

[skysh4rk]

I can't quite agree, of course it makes sense to be consistent but I'd expect a little more difference than I actually see. Don't get me wrong, the small versions posted here look good, they just look kinda the same to me...

I agree that we would ordinarily expect to see more differences between films. That said, our expectations are likely based on previous scans we've seen or marketing materials, which themselves are open to interpretation and biases of their own.

At any rate, this is far from a scientific test, so it'd be unwise to draw any firm conclusions from these images, but it's something to consider going forward.

Could it be that the scanning is making them look similar? Yes. Could it be that the films really aren't that different? Possibly too. Could it be the light? It could.

 

[AJQS]

3 is definitely Fuji 160, 13 I'd say Fuji 400. 4,6 & 7 I vote Ektar, Portra 800 for 5 and 12, the rest are Portra, but couldn't tell you which one. Had they been 35mm negs this would have been much easier!

 

[skysh4rk]

3 is definitely Fuji 160, 13 I'd say Fuji 400. 4,6 & 7 I vote Ektar, Portra 800 for 5 and 12, the rest are Portra, but couldn't tell you which one. Had they been 35mm negs this would have been much easier!

You're right that 3 is Fuji 160NS, but there's only one Ektar (14) and the Portra 800 images are 6 and 11.

I agree that it would probably be easier in 135, as you can't see any grain in medium format at these image sizes to help differentiate the films.

 

[s162216]

The way in which to absolutely test the difference between film characteristics is simple. A basic uncorrected optical RA-4 print needs to be made from each negative type (obviously photographing the same scene) as that will definitely show the differences. Remember that a scan is really only a simulation of how a neg would look printed optically.

To share the differences here, simply scan the above prints on a IT8 (print) calibrated scanner so to minimise any colour differences induced by the scanning process.

I don't have a flatbed (or an IT8 print target) to scan the prints, or indeed photographs of the same scene with different films so is anyone else mad enough to volunteer?

 

[skysh4rk]

For those interested, the films are:

1. Kodak Portra 160NC

2. Kodak Portra 400

3. Fuji Pro 160NS

4. Fuji Pro 400H

5. Kodak Portra 400

6. Kodak Portra 800 (Last bits of light as the sun set)

7. Fuji Pro 400H

8. Kodak Portra 400

 

[skysh4rk]

9. Kodak Portra 400VC (Very overcast)

10. Kodak Portra 400VC

11. Kodak Portra 800 (Probably overexposed significantly)

12. Kodak Portra 160NC (Attempted fill flash)

13. Kodak Portra 400VC (Bounced flash, possibly underexposed a hair)

14. Kodak Ektar 100

 

[skysh4rk]

The way in which to absolutely test the difference between film characteristics is simple. A basic uncorrected optical RA-4 print needs to be made from each negative type (obviously photographing the same scene) as that will definitely show the differences. Remember that a scan is really only a simulation of how a neg would look printed optically.

To share the differences here, simply scan the above prints on a IT8 (print) calibrated scanner so to minimise any colour differences induced by the scanning process.

I don't have a flatbed (or an IT8 print target) to scan the prints, or indeed photographs of the same scene with different films so is anyone else mad enough to volunteer?

This would be interesting, but I don't have a calibrated scanner and UKFL have all of my colour negatives at the moment.

 

[s162216]

This would be interesting, but I don't have a calibrated scanner and UKFL have all of my colour negatives at the moment.

You can get IT8 print targets for about £10 from Wolf Faust in Germany, and it's relatively simple to calibrate for scanning prints. Getting the optical prints done from the negs may be a little more difficult though as the only place that I know still does them is Palm Labs and obviously we just want basic, uncorrected prints in order to compare.

 

[DNH]

I didn't get one of them right I really like the colours in the top picture.