fine grain color negative film

[msheppler]

I've recently started shooting and scanning Portra 160 NC for my landscapes and really like this film. Coming from shooting slides, (Astia), I am wondering if anyone could recommend a fine grain color negative film that has a neutral color palette.

 

[tic]

Try Kodak Ektar, it has extremly fine grain and great colors.

 

[msheppler]

I tried Ektar. Perhaps I needed less exposure because the colors seemed too saturated. Thanks for your suggestion.

 

[Kristopher]

I don't think you will find anything like Astia in the negative's world...

Why do you want to fix it if it's ain't brocke?

K

 

[not_in_good_order]

Fujifilm Superia Reala 100 has fine grain and realistic colors, but I've found it to be a bit tricky to scan and I think it was just discontinued. Portra 400NC has the most realistic color of any negative film I've ever used, but grain can show up in large expanses of solid color because of its speed. It scans wonderfully.

 

[msheppler]

Kristopher,

I love Astia! I'm getting really beautiful results with it and my leica glass, (late model 50mm summicron and 90mm asph), I'm just experimenting to see what I can do with negative film. I'm curious about how the colors will render.

 

[Tim Gray]

What's wrong with 160NC? Too grainy or not natural enough color? Ektar will have finer grain, but is more saturated. I think Portra 160NC is probably the finest grain, yet natural color neg film that Kodak has.

 

[kzphoto]

I've been a staunch supporter of Ektar since it's creation. I've shot about 50-100 rolls of 35 & 120 mixed. Scans well, but there's an odd blue cast I have to deal with when scanning negs on an Epson 4990. Having said that, I tried a few rolls of Fujis 400H and 160C. The 400 H has a beautiful color rendition without too much saturation. Same goes for the 160, however the colors are a touch more muted. There are a few examples of the 400H on my Flickr page. (see sig)

 

[msheppler]

Tim,

Nothing's wrong with 160NC. I just started shooting with it and was quite surprised at the color and the resolution and how well it scanned. I was just
soliciting some suggestions for other color films that match its characteristics.

 

[not_in_good_order]

Tim,

Nothing's wrong with 160NC. I just started shooting with it and was quite surprised at the color and the resolution and how well it scanned. I was just
soliciting some suggestions for other color films that match its characteristics.

If you are looking for something similar to Portra 160NC, then Fuji 160S would fit the bill (click the image for a higher resolution view):

 

[Tim Gray]

Got you. Well as far as Kodak film goes, Ektar is finer grained but more saturated. If you want something in between the saturation of Ektar and 160NC, try 160VC. All of the Portras (160, 400, 800, NC/VC) will have better dynamic range and probably better skin tones than Ektar. The 160VC will also have more contrast, a bit grainier, and sharper. This chart at Kodak plots some of the differences of all the Portra films.

 

[degruyl]

I find reala to be more saturated than astia.

I would also go with Fuji 160S if forced to do color negative film. 400H looks bad when I scan it... but we have had that discussion elsewhere. I think it was determined that it was operator error.

Why change if you like the Portra? It is a really nice film.

(Why change if you like astia: that stuff scans like magic).

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can control the saturaton of Ektar through exposure: less exposure means less saturation. Think of it as a negative film with the exposure latitude of a slide film. There's quite a bit about this in the following review:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/reviews kodak ektar 100.html

This is my standard colour film nowadays, though I have to admit that most of my colour is digital.

EDIT: I screwed up. It should have read less exposure means less saturation (as it now does). I can only plead 'photo-dyslexia' from shooting mostly slide for 40+ years instead of neg...

Cheers,

R.