film advice please

[unky tone]

Hi guys, I was wondering about the differences between film types. Normally I'm a huge fan of fuji reala 100 but now that my QL17 has just been CLA'd I was wanting to use a higher speed colour film. I don't have much experience at all with B&W film - I don't have any colour filters - I convert my colour negs into B&W in photoshop. 2 years ago I used (?)NPH 800 and I was very disappointed with the results. I guess I'm looking for the colour tones of Reala but better offf flash low light ability. Any thoughts?

thanks, Tony

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Kodak 400 UC.

Wayne

 

[bmattock]

Hi guys, I was wondering about the differences between film types. Normally I'm a huge fan of fuji reala 100 but now that my QL17 has just been CLA'd I was wanting to use a higher speed colour film. I don't have much experience at all with B&W film - I don't have any colour filters - I convert my colour negs into B&W in photoshop. 2 years ago I used (?)NPH 800 and I was very disappointed with the results. I guess I'm looking for the colour tones of Reala but better offf flash low light ability. Any thoughts?

thanks, Tony

Tony, film is always a trade off. Higher speed means more grain and wonkier colors in many cases, especially indoors. NPH 800 is pretty nice when properly exposed, and for people shots, I doubt you'll find much better. You aren't going to get that Reala kind of saturation and low grain when shooting high ISO.

Now, B&W is a different story - not affected by the 'color' of the so-called 'white lights' used indoors, and grain is often an advantage not a detriment, depending on the effect you're after.

At some point, you may want to give B&W a try - processing is easy to do at home, no darkroom required, and you can scan the negs instead of printing with an enlarger, etc. Filters are nice to have - but not always required or even desired. And you can go a whole lot faster with B&W film than with any color film.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The GIII QL17 has a very nice lens which is great for color; nice saturated colors, imo. I think you will do well with plain old Fuji Xtra, 100, 200, 400. Anything with more punch is probably going to be overkill.

 

[richard_l]

Kodak 400 UC or Fuji Superia 400.

 

[ch1]

Tony, film is always a trade off. Higher speed means more grain and wonkier colors in many cases, especially indoors. NPH 800 is pretty nice when properly exposed, and for people shots, I doubt you'll find much better. You aren't going to get that Reala kind of saturation and low grain when shooting high ISO.

Now, B&W is a different story - not affected by the 'color' of the so-called 'white lights' used indoors, and grain is often an advantage not a detriment, depending on the effect you're after.

At some point, you may want to give B&W a try - processing is easy to do at home, no darkroom required, and you can scan the negs instead of printing with an enlarger, etc. Filters are nice to have - but not always required or even desired. And you can go a whole lot faster with B&W film than with any color film.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Very nicely stated.

I concur, wholeheartedly!

The second time I've agreed with Bill in 2005 (and to think - they're remain about four and a half more weeks left this year!).

Will wonders never cease?

😀

George
copake_ham

 

[DougK]

I tried a roll of UC 400 recently and didn't like it very much, although I did get a few good shots from it (RF shots I couldn't shrink small enough to fit the gallery, you can see them here if you like).

EDIT: I guess I should probably elaborate why I didn't like the film. The sample photos I linked to were shot using my Bessa R and Color Skopar 35mm lens, then scanned on a Dual Scan IV.

First off, I really hate film grain in color photos, it's a preference/bias on my part and I admit it. I also found that I had real issues scanning the film (Dual Scan IV) and found it very difficult to get some of the negs to even scan at all, although the prints from the negs looked fine. The colors seemed somewhat inconsistent as well. I had a couple of instances where I took two shots of a subject with the same exposure settings seconds apart and the prints don't match each other. Weird, I can't explain it. I'm ruling out the lab as they have done uniformly excellent work with every other film I've given them.

That said, UC 400 did allow me to use handholdable shutter speeds where I'd normally have to haul out my tripod or pass up the shot altogether. I was very satisfied with the shots that worked and given adequate light levels the grain was not generally an issue. While I think fall colors demand shooting with a saturated film, I think the UC 400 is over the top for my tastes.

I'll stick with Elite Chrome 100 or 200 for 35mm color photography.

 

[DougK]

OK one more comment and then I promise I'll shut up. In my post above I'm strictly talking about 35mm color film. In medium format, where grain isn't nearly as much of an issue I really like Fuji NPH 400. Good color without being overly saturated.

In black-and-white, I'll shoot anything and I don't mind grain. I've had the best results from T-Max but I quite like Agfa APX and Ilford XP2 and HP5 as well.

 

[fredus]

NPH 800 rated at 640 is just top quality IMHO ...

Fred

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Hello Doug K

Hello Doug K

First off, I really hate film grain in color photos, it's a preference/bias on my part and I admit it.

There is no film grain in color negatives. What you see are "dye clouds", and most likely scanner noise.

QUOTE=dkirchge]
I also found that I had real issues scanning the film (Dual Scan IV) and found it very difficult to get some of the negs to even scan at all, although the prints from the negs looked fine

Might it be that you have underexposed the shadows? One should alwas meter the deepest shadows in order to escape from getting scanner noise.

BTW, Fuji NPZ is my favorite.

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Frank Granovski]

Try Konica VX400. Good colours/good latitude, and inexpensive.

 

[Toby]

I've always found that the lab makes the biggest difference to colour film. When I bought my bessa I went out immediately and shot a roll of colour neg and took it to a 1hr lab I'd never used before. The results were so grainy and mushy I almost took the camera back. Now I'm very choosy about where I get any film developed. Almost any Fuji or Kodak colour film is good used appropriately, Fuji NPH being my favourite neg, Provia 100F for tranny -but finding a good lab is more important than film choice IMHO

 

[Nikon Bob]

Any of the colour films mentioned so far should be good. If you can give the faster stuff a little over exposure that may help in the grain department. I have not had a problem scanning Kodak negs on my Min. 5400. I have used Fuji consummer 800 and like it. the sample photo was take with Fuji 800. It is not too grainy, I think, and the lighting was a horrible mix of types.

Bob

 

[DougK]

First off, I really hate film grain in color photos, it's a preference/bias on my part and I admit it.

There is no film grain in color negatives. What you see are "dye clouds", and most likely scanner noise.

QUOTE=dkirchge]
I also found that I had real issues scanning the film (Dual Scan IV) and found it very difficult to get some of the negs to even scan at all, although the prints from the negs looked fine

Might it be that you have underexposed the shadows? One should alwas meter the deepest shadows in order to escape from getting scanner noise.

BTW, Fuji NPZ is my favorite.

Ukko Heikkinen

You're correct on the "grain" of color negative film, I hope my meaning was clear since grain describes what it looks like. It's possible that I underexposed a couple of the shots, but when in doubt with negative film I tend to err on the side of overexposure so I don't think I missed it that badly. The negatives of the ones that didn't scan looked just as good as the ones that did, the negative density seemed fine to me. In fact, they were back-to-back shots of the exact same subject with the same exposure settings, one scanned and one didn't. Very strange; I'll have to go back when I have more time and rescan just to see what might have happened and eliminate operator error (me) as the cause.

I still don't like the film all that much.

 

[aad]

"Back in the Day" I used B&W print or color slide-and I may end up back there. Black and white, and slides, scan a whole lot better than any of the color print negatives on my Epson.

 

[unky tone]

Thanks guys. I just picked up some kodak supra 400. (is this the same as 400UC). I have used fuji superia in the past (cheap) and it seemed ok.

 

[Frank Granovski]

Don't know but I've always liked the qualities of Kodak films. Too often I got "the greens" with the Fuji stuff.

 

[Doug]

Thanks guys. I just picked up some kodak supra 400. (is this the same as 400UC). I have used fuji superia in the past (cheap) and it seemed ok.

Hi -- I believe these are two different ISO 400 films. Supra is a consumer-line, less-expensive film. The 400UC is either the same or derives closely from the previous professional line film Portra 400UC, rather expensive stuff. It's said by some to be the best 400 speed film now made.

My local pro lab uses Agfa machinery, and the lab manager has told me it's their opinion that it puts out better prints and scans with professional Fuji films than with professional Kodak films. Partly on their recommendation, and partly because Fuji is significantly less expensive, I've been using Fuji NPS 160, NPH 400, and NPZ 800, and I'm happy with the results.

The Kodak Supra 400 is a good film, a handy speed, and one I might well take on vacation.

 

[richard_l]

The Supra 400 I have is labeled "professional." I'm not sure if Kodak is still producing it. Both Supra and UC are very similar to Royal Gold 400 (a discontinued consumer film) as far as I can tell. Anyhow, when scanning I seem to get better color from UC negatives than with any other film, but usually I can't tell the difference between Kodak and Fuji prints.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Hi guys, I was wondering about the differences between film types. Normally I'm a huge fan of fuji reala 100 but now that my QL17 has just been CLA'd I was wanting to use a higher speed colour film. I don't have much experience at all with B&W film - I don't have any colour filters - I convert my colour negs into B&W in photoshop. 2 years ago I used (?)NPH 800 and I was very disappointed with the results. I guess I'm looking for the colour tones of Reala but better offf flash low light ability. Any thoughts?

thanks, Tony

I don't know much about colour films but for B/W I want only to add one thing: you don't really have to look only to film but rather to the film/developer/exposition combination.

For example, saying that Tri-X is "grainy" (a common stereotype) is a bit vague. Tri-X tend to be grainier than other films of similar speed but is completely different - say - a Tri-X rated 800 iso and developped in D-76 Stock (very grainy) and a Tri-X rated 200 iso and developped in Acufine or HC-110 1+100 (not quite so bad).

I personally use Agfa APX100 rated 80 iso in Rodinal most of the time, Tri-X rated 320 in Rodinal 1+100 or HC-110 if a need a bit more speed and Tri-X at 800 with "Adams' double bath of HC-110 trick" (put HC-110 in Google and you will find it) or T-Max 3200 rated 1600 in HC-110 for extreme cases. For landscapes I also like Fuji SS100 (I can hear the mmmmhs from missbelievers...). If I am to go out to a trip and I don't really know what situation will I meet I use sometimes FP4 because it can be exposed between 25 and 1200 iso with very good results.

Giella lea Fapmu