Recomendation for 400 ASA color negative film (for scanning)

[rardinger]

Would love to here opinions on a 400 ASA color negative film.

I will be scanning the negatives for prining.

I usually use Reala (nominally 100 ASA) for color work and am very happy with it. I will be on a trip in the near future and photography is not the only aspect so I want to take a small kit along of ust an Xpan and the 45/90 lenses.

Bother is the F/4 top aperture. I would usually add a second camera with a faster lens for low light and/or a tripod. Tripod is out for this trip and I would like to stay with a single camera. A 400 speed film would make the F/4 a bit nicer.

I am not fond of overly intense colors and would like the grain to be as similar to Reala as possible. Any thoughts? The wedding films from Kodak come to mind, Not sure how saturated the Kodak UC is. I will test things out before I go but wanted a starting point, especially if there are ones I might just want to avoid.

Thanks, Robert

 

[dmr]

I've had good luck with the Fuji Superia 400. It scans very well, at least I think so. I definitely prefer it to Kodak.

It is saturated, it does have "Fuji Colors", and so does UC.

The one I don't really like is the Walgreens/Agfa 400 in low light, although I do like their 200 for daytime shots. The W/A 400 is noticibly more grainy than Fuji and the colors in low/available light just don't look right. I'm far more happy with Fuji films for low and available light.

 

[wlewisiii]

If you like Reala, then your best bet is Fuji Superia 400 or, perhaps for the extra stop, 800. The Kodak I find is too saturated for my tastes, but the Superia is like Reala - lots of punch but without an explosion, as it were.

Overall, I only buy Kodak black and white anymore. Fuji's color stock is just so much better.

William

 

[hth]

Anyone tried Konica 400?

/Håkan

 

[rardinger]

Thanks to all who replied (given the sites problems I was happy to see any replies). I have used Superia in the past (not as much as Reala) and liked it. The Kodak emulsions "read" well (from their literature) and of course one always wonders about the possibility of something newer and better. Years ago I have done the trial of many different color films before a big photo trip but it is time consuming. I now usually use a DSLR for most "regular" color work and usually use B&W for the RF cameras (Xpan included) but for this trip I basically just have a "notion" to use the Xpan and color, somthing I don't usually do, especially handheld given no tripod. I am leaning towards Superia for this trip. Thanks again.

Robert

 

[sockeyed]

Another vote for Superia. Try the Superia 800 rated at 500 or 640: low grain, fast, vibrant but realistic colours.

I shot the UC400 for a while, but I find I don't like the colour balance as much as the Fuji films. I also found that it rendered skin tones, particularly Asian ones (I shot it in Vietnam), yellowish.

 

[rool]

I shoot Superia rated at 320, scan it and I am quite happy with that. The fact that it is cheap helps also.

 

[amateriat]

As much as I am a fan of Kodak Portra 160NC (my personal gold standard for moderate-speed color neg), for more speed I somewhat prefer Fuji Press 400 and 800, both for their grain structure and low-light/mixed-lighting performance. It also scans easily (from my experience), with minimal post-scan PS tweaking.

(Late entry: Honorable Mention goes to Kodak's UC 400. I had two experiences shooting with it last year, one great, one awful, the latter likely due to an untimely malfunction of the lab's processor (one of those "better you than me" moments). Fine grain, generally nice color, less over-the-top than I feared it would be, which was a good thing, because in the first instance, I had damn little time to grab the stuff before rushing to catch a flight from LaGuardia to Tampa.)

Tip: if you're going on a trip, I would seriously take a sample roll of your chosen film and shoot an exposure test for film-speed rating. As I metioned in another thread, nailing a given emulsion batch's EI beforehand can take a load off your mind in terms of getting the best out of the film you have on hand, as well as getting a better understanding of how that film will work in mixed/tricky/just-plain-wacky light conditions.


- Barrett

 

[plummerl]

I have had great success with Kodak's Ultra Color 400, scanning on a Canon FS4000US.

larry

 

[rovnguy]

The Fuji Press 400 & 800 films are pretty good, but try Fuji NPH 400. I think you'll like the reduced grain and great skin tones. My experience with Kodak's 400 UC is that is is OK except for skin tones. I think though, that you would be well served by sticking with Reala. There is always room for a small tripod.

 

[Doug]

I second the NPH, though 400UC is also an outstandingly good film, mostly because of lower cost but also because my lab's manager says his machinery gives better results with Fuji than Kodak films. Talk to your chosen lab about the film choice too...

 

[kaiyen]

My absolute favorite 400 speed film is Kodak 400UC. Colors are saturated but not at all out of control and grain is phenomenal. It's worth trying, at the least.

allan

 

[sf]

I shot some NPH, scanned it on my Multi Pro - truly wonderful film for scanning.

This is with NPH : http://www.shutterflower.com/portraiture gallery/pages/christina-7RFF2.htm

I don't really like how portra scans - it is very delicate for some reason, though I suppose that is its purpose for skin tones, but the scanner has a hard time grabbing all of that delicate tonality. NPH does a much better job.

 

[RayPA]

I don't shoot a LOT of color, but I have to throw in a vote for Kodak 400UC. It's fabulous. I like Superia, too, but different from UC. I shot some with Kodak 400 HD, but not enough to get a feel for it. Initial impression was: "...ehhh" UC! UC! UC!


🙂



.

 

[jcline]

I've shot some npz and nph in medium format and love it! Fuji is calling it Pro 800z and Pro 400h I think now. I've also shot some Kodak 400 HD and I really like it for anything but skintones. Could easilly be my bathroom sink development though. I've heard so much good stuff about Superia 400 that there are now some rolls waiting in the fridge for me. Hopefully they're a lot like nph.

 

[Bertram2]

Would love to here opinions on a 400 ASA color negative film.

I will be scanning the negatives for prining.

I Robert

Tho I use 100, 200 and 800 Superia, for 400 I prefer Kodak , tome it seem to work better in bright sinlight and scans better too. My personal impression.

bertram

 

[rardinger]

Thanks again for the information. I always try out a new film, I was just not wanting to try out 5 or 6 if I can help it. I actually do the developing at home (Jobo, Fresh Tental chemistry) as it is the easiest way for me to be sure the Xpan negatives are handled correctly (I do have a local source that can develop them and not cut them but it is sorta fun to do it at home). I'll be off to Rome and besides not wanting to try to take a tripod as carryon (traveling light) I doubt I could really use it at many of the usual spots. I am a bit leary of anything faster than 400 as I suspect I will be travelling through a few xray scanners. I am thinking of Superia and a trial of Kodak UC, picking one before I leave. Again I appreciate the help.

Robert