Best medium speed color film for scanning

[davelrods]

I am a digital user from the start but film from way back when I was a kid in the 50's. I'm going to give film a try again now and need to know what film to start with. I need something in the 100 to 200 ISO range that will give me the finest grain and best contrast and good solid vivid colors. What film should I try first and what universal lab work at good prices can I use. I will not print from the film will scan directly to the computer and work from there.

 

[dmr]

I've had good luck with plain off-the-shelf Fuji C41 films of various speeds and types. No issue at all scanning. Just pay attention to detail! 🙂

 

[MaxElmar]

I also have good luck with Fuji Color 100. Scans nicely, but getting good color with a simple film scanner takes a little work with C41.

Good color is easier with E6 like Fuji Provia 100F

 

[Bassism]

You might look into Kodak's new Ektar 100. I'm about to start experimenting with some colour film myself, and from what I've seen, that will be my first stop. Kodak claims that it's the finest grained colour negative film, and I've been quite impressed with the scans I've seen.

 

[Ronald M]

Pro portrait films scan the best, Fuji 160S, Kodak Portra. They are the last generation and made for scanning as that is how prints are made today.

 

[daveywaugh]

I think the new Portra 400's scan beautifully. I am constantly impressed! I personally go for the VC - even for portraits.

 

[uhligfd]

Kodak Ektar at 100 ISO or Kodak 400 UC at 400. Your choice.

There is really no 200 Iso film around; and the 400UC is just about a fine in grain (none) as the Ektar, so it all depends on your top shutter speed to get those lovely f/2.8 or wider aperture shots, even when the sun is shining ...

 

[mh2000]

I'm not a color shooter, but whenever I shoot Kodak Gold 200 it has a nice pop... and it's cheap! 🙂

For faster film, Kodak High Definition is brilliant! IMO

 

[dmr]

One thing about scanning, once I finished the climb up the learning curve of negative scanning, I haven't found a well-exposed frame yet, color or B&W, slide or negative, that I couldn't get a decent scan of. Some people swear that slides are more difficult and some swear that negatives are more difficult. My experience (since 2005) has been that the trick is attention to detail and not what film or some sooper-dooper-pooper-scooper add-on software.

 

[JRG]

One thing about scanning, once I finished the climb up the learning curve of negative scanning, I haven't found a well-exposed frame yet, color or B&W, slide or negative, that I couldn't get a decent scan of. Some people swear that slides are more difficult and some swear that negatives are more difficult. My experience (since 2005) has been that the trick is attention to detail and not what film or some sooper-dooper-pooper-scooper add-on software.

Amen! I'm still struggling with that curve myself, but I've progressed far enough to see that a lot of the opinions expressed on this subject are only that: Someone's opinion, often based on inadequate experience and/or insufficient practice.

There's a simple recipe: Attention to detail, and practice, practice, practice.

 

[dmr]

There's a simple recipe: Attention to detail, and practice, practice, practice.

Yes yes yes!

One other thing that I think is frequently dismissed by those who gripe about getting crummy scans is that you need to begin with a well-exposed and more or less color-correct slide or negative to begin with. Like the old saying, you can't polish a {fecal bolus}! GIGO! You just can't get a good scan from a weak or overly dense original no matter what you do.

Now, not to bring this up yet again, but it still kinda irks me, what I consider the biggest mis-information I got when I started scanning, got crummy results, and asked for advice. It seemed like the universal answer to every scanning problem was a chorus of "Get Vuescan!"

My scans are too dark - Get Vuescan!

The colors are off - Get Vuescan!

My car won't start - Get Vuescan!

Well, I downloaded the demo of Vuescan and I found it solved nothing, plus it was another very steep learning curve to climb, not to mention an added expense.

Once I got the hang of things, I started getting excellent results with the stock K-M software with both slides and negatives. I've done some stunning 12x18 prints from scans I've done.

 

[Assaf]

My two cents are to look for a good minilab around and let them sacn for you.
My minilab has a scanner which is way better than the usual home negative scanners (Epson etc.), the staff knows how to ballance the colors much better than me, and it saves me a lot of time for very little money.

Regarding the original question - Fuji Superia 200 has good saturated colors, but sometimes they tend to be too funky. Kodak Gold 100 and 200 have less vivid colors but are nice in their own way. Kodak Portra 160 VC or NC are both great (VC for vivid colors, NC for good skin tones), However, they cost a fortune in 35mm, so I use them only for 120mm

Good luck

 

[dmr]

My two cents are to look for a good minilab around and let them sacn for you.
My minilab has a scanner which is way better than the usual home negative scanners (Epson etc.), the staff knows how to ballance the colors much better than me, and it saves me a lot of time for very little money.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. 🙂

I have yet to see a minilab, either a consumer grade one or one run by a real camera shop, that consistently gives you good large high-res scans that rival that which comes from a dedicated negative scanner.

The Walgreens/Wally World lab scans typically are 1-2 megs in size, 8 bit depth. The big thing about these types of minilab scans is that they are consistently inconsistent, from lab to lab and from day to day. Sometimes the scans are perfect, other times they are totally vile.

Those I've gotten from Rockbrook Camera (sole surviving real camera shop in the area, three locations, one near you) which uses a Frontier 350 are maybe 4-5 megs, 8 bit depth, and I'm sure single pass only. They make a very "ok" 8x10 but forget anything larger.

I almost always have lab scans made from negatives, but for a presentation quality print I'll always re-scan at max res (3200 dpi), 16 bit depth, and 2-4 passes. The output file right out of the scanner will end up being 75-80 megabytes. I'm unaware of any mini-lab that's willing to do that resolution at 16 bit depth with multiple passes.

Yes, pro labs will have a drum scanner which will blow away the K-M or Nikon negative scanner, but high-res scans on those run several dollars per scan!