High ISO/speed colour film results

L

Lilserenity

Well-known
Local time
9:58 AM
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,031
A month or so ago I asked about high ISO/speed colour films, both slide and negative film.

Well I have started getting some results back. I did in the end try out Superia 800 Xtra and 1600. In short, the Superia 1600 was better than I expected but no match to modern DSLR ISO 1600 (but I knew that anyway) but could in the right conditions produce a useful 8x10 at very best but some very decent 6x4s and 7x5s could be printed.

The Superia 800Xtra however (which I would guess is a Fuji Pro 800H consumer film) turned out absolutely great - seriously surprised actually.

An example:
http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3682064721&size=large
Leica M2, Voigtlander Ultron 35mm.

I will post more but this colour neg film surprised me greatly, it seems reasonably sharp and well balanced.
 
Thanks :)

Attached are two more samples from the Superia 800 Xtra. Again all on the M2 + CV Ultron 35mm.

The originals are available on my Flickr as ever :cool:
 

Attachments

  • 3684861353_cfc0cedb44.jpg
    3684861353_cfc0cedb44.jpg
    189.6 KB · Views: 0
  • 3685762218_ec77b0cbd2.jpg
    3685762218_ec77b0cbd2.jpg
    147.2 KB · Views: 0
Lilserenity said:
A month or so ago I asked about high ISO/speed colour films, both slide and negative film.

Well I have started getting some results back. I did in the end try out Superia 800 Xtra and 1600. In short, the Superia 1600 was better than I expected but no match to modern DSLR ISO 1600 (but I knew that anyway) but could in the right conditions produce a useful 8x10 at very best but some very decent 6x4s and 7x5s could be printed.

The Superia 800Xtra however (which I would guess is a Fuji Pro 800H consumer film) turned out absolutely great - seriously surprised actually.

An example:
http://bighugelabs.com/onblack.php?id=3682064721&size=large
Leica M2, Voigtlander Ultron 35mm.

I will post more but this colour neg film surprised me greatly, it seems reasonably sharp and well balanced.
Click to expand...

But just think, when my daughter finally gets the urge to start photographing again, I can get her some Superia 800 rather than a $1000 dslr body!
 
Thardy said:
But just think, when my daughter finally gets the urge to start photographing again, I can get her some Superia 800 rather than a $1000 dslr body!
Click to expand...

That is indeed a good point as some people have a tendency to think I am jabbing their ribs with such comments.

From what I have seen, Superia 800/Pro 800Z (not 800H sorry! my mistake earlier) and this probably applies to Portra 800 as well is that it performs very very well, much better than I thought it would. It also means that I am more than happy to use ISO 800 colour in my cameras knowing I will get great results -- not good -- but great. Ok they may not be clean as a digital whistle but then I don't want that anyway, I want a little grain to have something for my eyes to bite into.

As for Superia 1600, yes it gets good results (see the below, I think the focussing is fine, it was more the slow shutter speed and indeed the fact at ISO 1600 you're knocking on the limits for high speed colour on film) -- the results were much better than expected. I expected a miasma of lurid and indigestible colour negative grain that looked more like digital noise. Not so.

That said though there is a big question 1600 is only one stop more than 800 and I would be more inclined to gain that by having an f/1.4 lens and shooting with 800 than 1600 still. I need to do some more testing.

My bottom line is that colour neg at ISO 800 in 35mm isn't the disaster I thought it would be, it's very very good and more than usable. Try it, I'm sure you'll be surprised. ISO 1600 colour neg likewise is a surprise. I expected 36 frames of complete grainy garbage and what I got back were some very decent shots with controlled grain, they're not amazing but for some 6x4s and 5x7s it's just fine. Much better than any digital compact I have used but that is probably more down to me actually having a lens on my Leica compared to most junk that seems to appear on compact digitals.

Sure the Nikon D300, D700, even the D90 and D5000s of this world have cleaner high ISO performance and for colour at ISO 3200 or 6400, it's no contest. However, it is very possible to do interior colour work at ISO 800 and 1600 in colour it seems with 35mm film and particularly with ISO 800 get some excellent results.

Here's a portrait'ish shot with Superia 1600 and my M2 + Canon Serenar 50mm at f/1.8 (nb: the slightly 'blurred' look may be down to ISO 1600 colour neg resolving ability or the fact I had 3 pints of cider by the time I shot this at probably 1/15th sec... hehe :D)

(Link to 1280px wide scan of ISO 1600 shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/3682782260/sizes/o/)
 

Attachments

  • 3682782260_aae55ba017.jpg
    3682782260_aae55ba017.jpg
    124.6 KB · Views: 0
Lady With Toothy Eyes, would I be right to conclude that, in your experience and at this time, ASA 800 is the practical limit for colour negative film? If yes, I shall ask my 45-year-old Baby Sister, who is to send me film from Malaysia, to skip the 1600. Can't get nothin' faster than Kodacolor 400 in India.
 
Thanks for the report, Lil.

I myself like Superia 1600, just taking care of not underexposing it. If you shoot it at 1200 or slower, and scan carefully, results can be good.

555308972_wuc2n-XL.jpg


Then there is NPZ800, which I like, too, at box speed:

506627520_qRMzx-XL-1.jpg


Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
The first roll of 35mm Kodacolor 400 I ever shot, back in the seventies, was simply horrible! Very grainy. The colors were wrong. I guess that was process C-22 as C-41 had yet to arrive.
 
Al Kaplan said:
The first roll of 35mm Kodacolor 400 I ever shot, back in the seventies, was simply horrible! Very grainy. The colors were wrong. I guess that was process C-22 as C-41 had yet to arrive.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah, I remember that stuff: "Hey, what went wrong?" I asked the lab when I got my prints back.

(Haven't we had this conversation before here?)

Anyway...yes, Fuji Pro 800 is a great film, along with Portra 800, although for the moment I might give Fuji Pro the slight nod for mixed-lighting situations, although I haven't shot enough of the "new" Portra 800 to give much of a final judgement. Like sepiareverb, I usually rate it at EI640, although it's not bad at box-speed.


- Barrett
 
Great results, Vicky! I recently picked up some Fuji Press DX 800Z to use in my XA. I haven't finished the roll yet. and wonder whether it's the same as Superia 800 Xtra you're using. The results you're getting from the latter are stunning (and I've got the same M+lens combo as you). Got to try it now. My favorite color film for some time has been Portra 400NC, but this could give it a run for its money.
 
I shall soon have the ASA 800 experience, of which I have so far only read. Al has bought four rolls of Kodak Ultramax for me and promises to post them in a day or two.

Of the two ASA 400 Fujicolor films I have used, I found 400 H markedly better than Xtra.
 
Hi All,

Roland those results are fantastic!

I shot my Superia 1600 at 1250 or thereabouts, and it's provided good results, I'll definitely try some more soon.

As for the 800, I shot mine a box speed too, excellent stuff. I will try some Fuji 800Z but whether I see much of a difference who knows, it'll probably be more consistent whereas the Superia may 'waver' a bit on the colour balance.

Being the lady with toothy eyes, I would try the 800 first, get a feel for that and then give the 1600 a go if that wasn't enough. :)

Vicky
 
I had better than expected results with Superia 1600, but it's not cheap! It's a lower saturation and contrast film than Superia 800 (I think both H and Z), which for the available light work is perfect since it gives smooth renditions of colors.

Here are some shots of superia 1600 (I think). I didn't meter. I think this is on 50 nokton f/1.5 at 1/30? These are low res scans.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__aaRPabfgLk/ScXXkrxquSI/AAAAAAAAAjk/ExK5ahIrcdc/s1600-h/38930026.jpg

Here's 800Z in 120, 75mm f/3.5 at 1/10?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__aaRPabfgLk/ScXB_YpXhHI/AAAAAAAAAjM/BxnQhvOg_yg/s1600-h/38960007.jpg
 
Here's an example of the Fuji 1600 done with the GIII. (Determining how this was done will be an exercise for the student.) :)
 

Attachments

  • 707016-R1-009-3.jpg
    707016-R1-009-3.jpg
    56.8 KB · Views: 0
I like the fujipress 800, i shot a roll 12exp superia 1600 with my 90mm elmar and got a few passable shots , but they were of the family dog. In general though i find that even the cheap asa400 superia extra handles uneven/mixed light situations well ,i like the fuji range of color films for that reason.
 
Al Kaplan said:
The first roll of 35mm Kodacolor 400 I ever shot, back in the seventies, was simply horrible! Very grainy. The colors were wrong. I guess that was process C-22 as C-41 had yet to arrive.
Click to expand...

Hi Al, I think Kodacolor 400 was already C-41. There's an old Pop Photo here from 1977 or 78 which heralded the arrival of what they dubbed as the "colour Tri-X". C41 has largely replaced C22 at that time...:)

I guess it would be the pre-Tgrain, fat-grained emulsion structure which did it. Low colour saturation, fuzzy and grainy all over. It was the first ISO 400 film I ever tried, around 1981, as a school boy. Using it in a half-frame Canon Demi didn't help the grain situation....
 
Mukul, you never told me about a 45 year old sister! Perfect! And it would be so romantic for me 'n her to go film shopping together every week for you, and perhaps take turns waiting in line at the post office! Even open a little shop to sell bidis nestled amongst the art galleries across the street from city hall. Is she single?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom