Superia X-Tra 800 - Much noise

[Prosaic]

I´m getting a lot of noise with Superia 800 scans, much more than with Portra 800. I wonder if this is related to my workflow or the film?

Any advice?

 

[charjohncarter]

Kodak developed some C-41 films as did Fuji just so they would scan better. Maybe you have one that was and one that wasn't.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Are you scanning the film yourself or have the lab scan it? The scans from a lab machine might be streamlined to do a fast job and automate everything. It might also crank up the sharpening too.

 

[Monte920]

I don't have Portra 800 to compare. But Xtra 800 definitely is much grainer than Xtra 400. My solutions: 1. Decrease the sharpening. 2. Noiseware processing on the scanned files. 3. Try not to raise the highlight when possible.

 

[zgeeRF]

I pushed Superia extra 400 to 800 and developed at home with a Unicolor kit and did not get unpleasant grain. A pleasant surprise! Here is an example from that roll:

and a link to the large size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/3017730912/sizes/o/

 

[Prosaic]

Thanks everyone. I tried different scanner settings and it appears the noise is in the film. I can safely say that Portra 800 is far smoother than Superia 800. (Well, it´s twice the price too...)

Now with superfine Ektar 100 and the Portra line it seems Fuji is falling behind Kodak in color negative films... I cant speak for bw or chrome.

 

[infrequent]

@prosaic - maybe give the pro film 800Z a go? i don't know much abt kodak films but given what you say abt the price, portra isn't your run of the mill film. all superia is rebranded fuji press.

 

[Prosaic]

@prosaic - maybe give the pro film 800Z a go? i don't know much abt kodak films but given what you say abt the price, portra isn't your run of the mill film. all superia is rebranded fuji press.

I have used expired 800Z before that had a bad color shift and excessive noise, but I guess fresh film is different. Will see, thanks.

 

[wray]

I've tried both the Superia 800 and 1600 and for some reason the 800 was grainier. Perhaps Charjohncarter is correct and the 800 hasn't been made to scan as well. Here's a 1600 image.

 

[Doug]

I often use Superia Extra 200, though not the 400 or 800. But 400H and 800Z are favorites. The 800Z is surprisingly low in grain, but of course grainier than the 400. These are more expensive but very fine films.

One suggestion in general for color neg films: They are not very tolerant of underexposure, which tends to increase apparent grain as the dye-clouds are farther apart, and poor color and contrast in darker areas. They're far more tolerant of overexposure, almost impossible to totally block-up the highlights in the negs even if they appear so in lab scans or prints; the data is there!

So you might find it useful to be generous with exposure, even set the meter to a bit lower ISO... do some tests to see what looks best to you.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

One suggestion in general for color neg films: They are not very tolerant of underexposure, which tends to increase apparent grain as the dye-clouds are farther apart, and poor color and contrast in darker areas. They're far more tolerant of overexposure, almost impossible to totally block-up the highlights in the negs even if they appear so in lab scans or prints; the data is there!

So you might find it useful to be generous with exposure, even set the meter to a bit lower ISO... do some tests to see what looks best to you.

I've found this to be true. I shoot a fair bit of Fuji Superia 400 and it does far better with a bit of overexposure as opposed to underexposure.

 

[willie_901]

I find the Superia X 800 to be noisy as well. I switched to Porta 400 VC this summer and it scanned better than the Xtra 400. I happy to hear the report that Porta 800 scans well. I'm a Porta customer from now on.