High Resolution Colour Negative Film

[Aperture]

Hi there,
I as well fell victim to the ridiculously low price of the R+35skopar, and right now find myself burning film as never before.....you know what I'm talking about.
The thing is I'm not too happy with the sharpness I got from the Fuji Superia 400 film I've been using. What do you guys recommend for a high resolution 200/400 colour negative film? (or should I switch to slides?)
Gotta go shoot! 🙂

 

[Pherdinand]

Somewhat useless answer:
Iso200 is not worth the one stop difference from 100. You could try Fuji NPC 160... i like its colours and it's sharp enuff for me🙂
If you change your mind about the iso200/400 idea, be sure to get some Fuji Reala 100. It is the sharpest colour neg i've seen. Great colours too, for general shooting.

A very sharp 400-speed film is...Kodak Tri-X 400 😀 but it's black and white.

Sorry, i never shoot slides, don't like them. But most people who tries slides out, get addicted to them.

 

[Tim]

I used to use Superia, tried Reala 100 and have never gone back. It's now the only colour print film that I use. It's sharpness and richness are pretty much in a class of their own.

However, Reala I mainly use for mucking around testing new lenses or cameras or techniques. For anything serious (for me) I use Fuji Velvia transparency film. As Pherdinand says, once you've tried it you don't go back. The quality is just stunning, it just leaps off the light table at you.

Downside of all this from your starting point of 200/400 film is that it's all slower - Velvia is either 50 or 100 ASA. Fuji do make Provia transparency film in 100 and 400, my better half uses the Provia 400 for wildlife shots and it is pretty damn good too.

Anyway, the best way for you to see is to get a roll of Reala and/or Velvia and try it. Enough people here shoot with them so that if you go to the gallery and search on those terms you'll get a few examples. But......no scan can really show the quality of the original print or transparency. Trying it will cost you a few dollars and may make you a convert.....

Above all, remember to have fun and not get _too_ caught up in the pursuit of perfection!

😀

cheers....

tim

 

[Tim]

Oh, by the way - welcome to Rangefinder ownership and RFF. It's all downhill from here.....

😉

tim

 

[dilu]

If you want to use NEGATIVE, I'd like to recommand Fugi NPH.
It's ISO 400 film but it is well known for its sharp grain.

For ISO 100 negative film,
Fugi Reala has very sharp grain, too.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Modern films are pretty good when it comes to sharpness, even 400 speed ones. Have you used 400 Fuji before and gotten good results? If so what has changed? Have you tried using a tripod and a cable release? A rangefinder slightly out of spec may cause a miss focus, have you checked that? Do the negatives look sharp but the prints do not? All I am saying is that there are any number of things that can cause/contribute to unsharpness. OTH if you try other films and still get unsharp results then you have some other places to start looking.

Bob

 

[wlewisiii]

I'd have to echo Bob's comments - when I've been using color negative of late it has all been Fuji Supermarket, er, Superia 400 and I can't say I've seen any issue. OTOH, I mostly shoot C41 BW film of late (my scanner is dead.) so take my experiance with a grain 🙂 of silver salt.

William

 

[rover]

I am a big fan of Kodak Porta 160VC. I use the cheap stuff a lot, but when it counts this is my go to film. It has great sharpness, colors, scans best that I have found. I can't think of anything bad to say about it. If you need more speed you will find the 400VC very good too.

 

[jpmccormac]

First off, I'd skip ISO 200 film. There are so many good ISO 400 emulsions now that 200 is a waste. I really like Kodak Portra 400 UC. It's supposed to be a "Professional" emulsion but you can buy the stuff at Wal-Mart now for less than $10.00 (I think) for a three pack. Just make sure you have a good processor that understands the film. It makes all the difference.

 

[Wiechel]

First off, I'd skip ISO 200 film. There are so many good ISO 400 emulsions now that 200 is a waste. I really like Kodak Portra 400 UC. It's supposed to be a "Professional" emulsion but you can buy the stuff at Wal-Mart now for less than $10.00 (I think) for a three pack. Just make sure you have a good processor that understands the film. It makes all the difference.

Yep. 400UC really rocks my world nearly everytime.

Check out these two galleries of mine for some Portra 400UC occasions that I was really satisfied with: http://wiechel.se/orso/ and http://wiechel.se/kiruna/.

Also, Portra 160 VC is a very nice film, see here: http://wiechel.se/host/

 

[sockeyed]

I think that if I had my way, I'd shoot NPH.

I shot 400UC on my recent trip to Vietnam and was pleased with the results. You can see samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/sets/41850/
UC is pleasantly less-saturated than its name suggests. It is important, however, to get your prints done on Kodak paper to bring out the colours at their best.

I've shot quite a bit of NPH recently, however, and found the colours very rich and natural (not over-saturated), and the pictures seem to have a lot of depth to them. I think that it works best in bright sunlight, maintaining detail in shadow and in highlights. Samples here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sockeyed/sets/144555/

Both films I prefer to shoot at 320.

For 100 ASA, it's Reala, Reala or Reala.