What color negative films do you guys prefer?

[gregg]

Fuji is great all-around. I've had good luck with some Kodak films (400UC). I've moved mostly to B&W (Fuji Acros + Neopan 400/1600) but when I need to shoot color there are a few rolls of 160S in the freezer.

Could be my technique, but I haven't had much luck scanning Kodak films other than the 400UC...

 

[wlewisiii]

I don't even bother buying anything other than big green for color print film anymore. Reala is the ultimate, to my eyes, of what color film should be.

Kodak is, simply, fugly.

William

 

[dmr]

One other thing I will say on this topic is that I think the combination of ca. 1960s-1970s glass and 21st. century film is a sweet spot that's hard to beat. We have the absolute best (color) films ever now, as close to the ideal as far as speed, grain, color rendition, and such.

When I was first getting into photography, I would have KILLED for films like we have now. The fastest color you could get then was ASA 80 Kodacolor and ASA 64 Ektachrome. "High Speed" Ektachrome, ASA 160 (IIRC) came out in about 1971 but that was obviously more grainy and less saturated. Even the least-regarded of today's films (fugly?) blow the 70s vintage films out of the water, overall.

Yes, there are some films I miss. Kodachrome 25 and, unfortunately sooner than later Kodachrome 64. If I ever get a nice day for some autumn colors in the Loess Hills (crossing fingers for today) I know I'll wish I had a few more rolls of the Agfa 200, but I'll make do with Fuji I'm sure.

Oh well ...

 

[sienarot]

I'm a big fan of Fuji NPC/160C. I have a lot of NPS/160S stocked, but I haven't used any yet. I shot some Reala, but found I couldn't get it to scan right, so it has been seeing very limited use by me.

 

[Nokton48]

I still prefer Fuji Press 800 for inside shooting. It prints and scans well, is easily available through B&H, priced right ($1.75/36 approx) and looks good, not too grainy for an 800 IMHO.

Good stuff.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm a slide guy. I shoot velvia 100f if I need to really bring out colours in serious shooting, for fun colorful shooting I use ev100s because the colors are a bit weirder and sometimes fun.

For portraits its provia all the way. Whatever speed I need.

I've found negative film doesn't compare to slide - the latter is much much much sharper and more accurate.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Slide film is a color negative film?

What will they think of next; advances in film tech.

I like color Fuji films over Kodak's. I like Kodak's (and Ilford's) B&W film over Fuji's.

I like Agfa film over either Kodak or Fuji. But then again, the market doesn't quite reflect who's best, as much as The Market is a religion for some politicos.

 

[Rico]

Still like Kodak Gold 100 when I can find it, but now use Superia 100. For indoor, I use Superia or Press 800. I downgrade by half a stop.

 

[Jerevan]

Kodak Portra 160NC. I used it as my colour film on a trip to Tuscany a month ago. Beautiful tones in MF. Since then, I found a local deal for 40 rolls of the 135 variety. So I am set for a while now...

 

[pvdhaar]

The one film by Kodak that I miss is Ektar. Otherwise, I only use Kodak colour film when I'm in a pinch.. Favourites at the moment are Fuji Pro160C, NPH, and Xtra-400.

 

[Kim Coxon]

Fuji Reala or Agfa Ultra depending on the subject. The Reala for more muted, true to life colours. The Ultra for impact.

Kim

 

[pvdhaar]

Fuji Reala or Agfa Ultra depending on the subject. The Reala for more muted, true to life colours. The Ultra for impact.

Kim

You do mean Agfa Vista, don't you? Over here, Ultra is the Kodak consumer 400 emulsion..

 

[Kim Coxon]

No, Agfa did an Ultra. It is about the closest thing you can get to Velvia in print film.

Kim

You do mean Agfa Vista, don't you? Over here, Ultra is the Kodak consumer 400 emulsion..

 

[NickTrop]

Didn't vote.

Kodak print film 400 and under. Favorite overall Kodak Ultra Color Pro 400. Kodak Golds in 100 and 200 speeds.

Fuji for higher speed and indoor in florescent or tungsten lights. 4th color layer does help with the cast.

Kodak medium and lower speed print films, Fuji for their 800 and 1600 speed color films and shooting indoor mixed or ambient light in color. That said, Kodak's higher speed offerings are fine as are Fuji's lower speed stuff.

Just not as good as their reciprocal... as always "IMO/YMMV". And, speaking of print film only here.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

No, Agfa did an Ultra. It is about the closest thing you can get to Velvia in print film.

Kim

Used to be the closest. It has not been widely available for years now. Some people say that Kodak Elite Color 400 (a.k.a. 400UC) is almost as good, but I haven't tried it.

Kodak Vista is still available in some places. The 200 is nice, 400 is very grainy unless exposed at ISO 300 or slower. I have a Vista ISO 800 in the fridge, but i'm afraid to use it because of the grain... Probably will use it as ISO 400, since Fuji has so much better ISO 800 films.

I mostly use Fuji Superia because it has such a great value. It's so good that I cannot justify using pro films other than perhaps an occasional roll of Reala 100, which is a kind of "semi-pro" film in any case. So it's Superia ISO 100 or 200 for outdoors in the summer, 400 or 800 for indoors and in the winter for outdoors. I haven't tried the Superia 1600, but perhaps I should, since in the winter ISO 1000 would be quite useful around here. At box speed it's probably too grainy though.

 

[mdelevie]

I'm all over the map, and had trouble picking a choice for the poll. For landscapes and scenery, I'm a big fan of Velvia, and still have a stockpile of RVP 50 in the freezer. For people and general shooting, I really like UC400. Guess I like vivid colors.

When shooting by "available dark" I prefer Fuji's Pro800Z, and desperately wish they would sell their excellent Superia 1600 color emulsion in 120 / 220 sizes. (In the rare case that I'm shooting 35mm film in low light, as versus digital, I use Superia 1600)

Mark

 

[Olsen]

Negative colorfilm is surpased by digital sensors today, but the only one that get close (well...) is Kodak Portra 160 VC - in my view. Note: NC is for flash light portraits and look too dull outdoors. The Portra VC on a Leica- or Zeiss-lense equipped camera gives beautiful colors, high contrast and 'good' resolution. The lenses resolves better than the film.

Higher ISO on negative film is today old fashioned grainy, - to say the least, and surpassed by giant steps by Canon 5D, 1Ds II/III etc. etc.

B/W is another matter.

 

[Kim Coxon]

I managed to get a box of 100 rolls from the last batch direct from Agfa when they were clearing stocks. It is dated Aug this year and is being well stored so it should last me for a couple of years at least.

Kim

Used to be the closest. It has not been widely available for years now. Some people say that Kodak Elite Color 400 (a.k.a. 400UC) is almost as good, but I haven't tried it.

 

[kipkeston]

Negative colorfilm is surpased by digital sensors today, but the only one that get close (well...) is Kodak Portra 160 VC - in my view. Note: NC is for flash light portraits and look too dull outdoors. The Portra VC on a Leica- or Zeiss-lense equipped camera gives beautiful colors, high contrast and 'good' resolution. The lenses resolves better than the film.

Higher ISO on negative film is today old fashioned grainy, - to say the least, and surpassed by giant steps by Canon 5D, 1Ds II/III etc. etc.

B/W is another matter.

That's interesting. I was wondering about digital sensors and color negs lately. It has seemed to me that b&w negs and color slides are in no way comparable to digital sensors. However color negs and digital sensors always seemed similar to me. Out of curiosity, what characteristics of portra 160vc get close to digital sensors?

 

[NickTrop]

No, Agfa did an Ultra. It is about the closest thing you can get to Velvia in print film.

Kim

I have whatever's left of a 100' roll in the fridge. Prefer Kodak UC pro. Better contrast, imo. Colors pop more. The Agfa film is very good though.