superia 400

[nobbylon]

Has anyone else had problems with this film? i've tried everything scanning this film and given up with the color and grain. i'm using an epson 4990 and silverfast ai.

 

[Pepe]

sweet jesus what happened ?

 

[mackigator]

I buy this film (Superia 400) sometimes at my local deep discounter. If it wasn't practically free I wouldn't bother at all because of the grain, its main weakness. Also somewhat muted colors for me, but that may have more to do with film freshness in my case. Try some Fuji Pro 400H (negative) or 400X (slide) for comparison. Both great, scan just fine. Of course, they cost more.

My experiences:

Superia 400: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=95742421%40N00&q=superia+400&m=text
400h: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=95742421%40N00&q=400h&m=text
400x: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=95742421%40N00&q=400x&m=text

 

[nobbylon]

grain is really noisy and colours are always flat as if underexposed by a couple of stops. Heres a thought? if lab had developed as a 100 or 200 superia, would that alter things a lot? this has happened a few times though! superia 100 and 200 are my favorite scanning films.

 

[alexz]

Xmm, sounds wierd to me - I use that film routinely for several years, no problems whatsoever. Actually I found it the most versatile among general purpose negative films, easy processing and scans beautifully by my Nikon LS-40 without any special precutions.

 

[tjh]

I buy Superia 400 at B&H photo. It seems to scan well on Fuji Frontier machines. There is a little more grain from developing at my local drug store compared with a pro lab but color is excellent. It's my 400 color film of choice when a Fuji Frontier is the scanner. I agree that the film is very versatile!

 

[nobbylon]

thx guys, I took a look at mackigators photos and have to say that if mine where like that i'd be happy, great photos, wondering if its the scanning software so will experiment tommorow with epson software.

 

[wray]

Here's one done on my Epson 4490 with the Epson software (usm turned off):

Here's one from my Nikon Coolscan V (Nikon scan software):

 

[mackigator]

You know, my post above sounds unduly critical of this film. It is versatile, and it scans fine for me too. But its main attribute for me is value, since 400h and 400x are just as versatile with smaller grain and better color.

I have found myself occasionally wishing I'd shot these last two films in place of Superia 400 - I throw a roll of Superia in thinking, "Ah, I'll just play around a bit," and I get it back only to realize there is something to the logic of shooting your best. The picture moment only comes once. If only I could get my wallet to understand that!

 

[nobbylon]

Wray, WOW! now thats how I would like mine to scan so going to try it tommorow, thx for the usm off tip.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

grain is really noisy and colours are always flat as if underexposed by a couple of stops. Heres a thought? if lab had developed as a 100 or 200 superia, would that alter things a lot? this has happened a few times though! superia 100 and 200 are my favorite scanning films.

Expose the Superia 400 as ISO 300 and you will get a lot smaller grain. It will not affect the colors very much, however.

By the way, if you think than Superia 400 has a lot of grain, you probably have never tried Agfa Vista 400... It has more grain than the Superia 800! I have not tried Kodak Ultra Max 400, since for some reason it is much more expensive here than Superia 400. Many people say that it is a fine film though.

 

[Ewoud]

Rating superia 400 as ISO 320, helps me loads aswell..

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Rating superia 400 as ISO 320, helps me loads aswell..

Of course the same goes for most color negative films and especially for films which are rated faster than ISO 100 by the manufacturer. I once shot a couple of rolls of Vista 200 with a camera that had its light meter calibrated +2 f-stops off. That meant I exposed the film as ISO 50 and the results were great, very small grain but no overexposure or burnt highlights visible in the prints.

I was not so happy though once I shot a roll slide film with the same camera, although even then I got fairly lucky, since many of the shots were strongly backlighted and the about 3.5 f-stop total exposure compensation (1.5 deliberate + 2 from the meter) was just about correct for them...

 

[kully]

I also recommend shooting at 250 to 200, scans come out lovely.

One thing I've noticed with this and NPH400 is I'll get weird purple lips and emphasis of veins in pale skins when it is cloudy. Anyone else seen this?