Fast color film preferences?

[JohnL]

The little film I have used for the last few years (I'm mostly digital) has been ISO 100. I'm thinking of trying something faster, for indoor use without flash. Can be slide or negative, because I'll be scanning anyway, rather than making analogue prints. At least 400 ISO. Preferably 800 or more. I expect it to be grainy, and will only use it when I can accept that. What do you experts use?

 

[SolaresLarrave]

More often than not... ISO 400 is my idea of fast film (I shoot mostly slide film). Sometimes I push it one stop, but not as often, not all kinds (Ektachrome is fine, but Elitechrome turns out fuzzy and grainy). I have used Ektachrome 1600 with decent results, but have no experience scanning it yet.

In print... I used to dislike Superia 1600, but I've seen it well used and changed my mind about it. For B&W, Neopan is really nice and contrasty.

 

[furcafe]

In my experience, Fuji NPZ @ Press 800 are both very good C41 emulsions, w/low-grain for ISO 800 films & an ability to handle mixed lighting. For even less grain, I shoot them @ ISO 640. If you need more speed, Fuji Superia 1600 is actually OK, kind of like an ISO 800 film from 10 or 15 years ago.

 

[jtzordon]

In color I'm usually shooting Fuji Reala 100 or Fuji NPZ 800. I have much prefered NPZ 800 to the 1 stop slower NPC (?), though I'm giving the 400 another shot.

 

[Bertram2]

The little film I have used for the last few years (I'm mostly digital) has been ISO 100. I'm thinking of trying something faster, for indoor use without flash. Can be slide or negative, because I'll be scanning anyway, rather than making analogue prints. At least 400 ISO. Preferably 800 or more. I expect it to be grainy, and will only use it when I can accept that. What do you experts use?

800 and 1600 Fuji are very good, low grain, clours fon also indoor with electric ot mixed light. AT 400 it depends , Superia 400 for nature, Kodak for indoor and architecture.

My favourite film at the time is Superia 200 tho for the RF . Considerably sharper than 400. Superia 800 for the SLR plus slow zoom, works surprisingly good !

Example, Tamron 28-300 @ f6,3 and 250mm, print is better than the lab scan of course
http://www.usefilm.com/image/281239.html

Regards,
Bertram

 

[einolu]

In my gallery I have some shots taken with Superia 800. Its great film and even handles florecent lighting well (see the shot: "VODKA").

 

[Bertram2]

clours fon also indoor with electric ot mixed light.

Sorry for the typos !!

" Colours are fine also indoor with electric or mixed light!:

 

[dmr]

800 and 1600 Fuji are very good, low grain, clours fon also indoor with electric ot mixed light. AT 400 it depends , Superia 400 for nature, Kodak for indoor and architecture.

I would second the nomination for the various Fuji negative films. I've used the 1600, but it does have noticibly greater grain than does the 800.

In the 800 speed I definitely prefer the Fuji to Kodak, as Kodak seems to have a coarser grain and a rougher general appearance.

One thing I've found seems to work quite well for outdoor shots at night is shooting Fuji 400 and intentionally underexposing one stop, meaning shoot it as if it were 800 film. This gives less washed out highlights and darker solids.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I second Fuji 400 and Fuji Press 800. Very good in different lighting conditions. Fuji Xtra (aka Superia) 400 is rather grainy when underexposed, though, at least in my experience. I stay away from Kodak emulsions in these speeds, except Portra, but I like to stick to Fuji in color for high ISO.

Another good emulsion is Konica Supra Centuria, in 200, 400 and 800. Slightly grainier than Fuji, but far better than Kodak emulsions of the same class.

 

[Byuphoto]

Superia 400 and 800. I do a lot of candlelight weddings and have come to depend on Fuji 800 Superia and an f1.2 lens

 

[CleverName]

Still yet another vote for Fuji Press 800.

 

[JohnL]

Many thanks to you all!
Based on the above, I think I'll try Fuji Press 800 first, then maybe some of the others later.

 

[summaron]

I use Portra 800 all the time for night shooting in San Francisco California (most recently Halloween in the Castro in an otherwise gay bar that had been taken over by straight couples, the girls dressed as devils in red dresses or as shepherdesses in pink gingham). Portra 800 has terrific color accuracy even under sodium vapor (orange) street lights, with correct olive greens and ultramarine blues and other expensive Windsor and Newton colors. Kodachrome 200 I find excellent for shooting under flourescent lights--the best--and good for sodium vapors, but has a pronounced magenta cast in daylight. Fuji NPZ has a nice coherent direct look, and I liked its tight grain. I liked the little Fujipress 800 I used, it seemed more muted than NPZ, slightly sepia like.

 

[Doug]

Fuji NPZ800 shot at 500 is my standard for environmental portraits and other lower-light uses. I've been surprised by its rich colors and fine grain. The 1600 is quite a lot grainier.