urban_alchemist
Well-known
I shoot almost exclusively in color, and really like Fuji Superia for all-round film. Actually, for general purpose, I'd go so far as to say that Superia 200 is my favourite film, with beautiful grain, and a lovely warm feel.
For 400 film, I really like Fuji Pro400H - its a very low-contrast film, so great for the bright conditions I tend to shoot with, but like all Pro film, it is heavily skewed towards daylight. Expect heavy yellow colors in flourescent conditions.
For lower-speed film, there's nothing really between the 160s. Kodak and Fuji both give great results, but I tend to use Fuji 160S (again, low-contrast) and quite like the results. I actually prefer Kodak Portra NC, but find that it is getting increasingly difficult to get hold of here.
Anyway, enjoy coming to film! After years of digital, it was like breathing fresh air again for the first time...
For 400 film, I really like Fuji Pro400H - its a very low-contrast film, so great for the bright conditions I tend to shoot with, but like all Pro film, it is heavily skewed towards daylight. Expect heavy yellow colors in flourescent conditions.
For lower-speed film, there's nothing really between the 160s. Kodak and Fuji both give great results, but I tend to use Fuji 160S (again, low-contrast) and quite like the results. I actually prefer Kodak Portra NC, but find that it is getting increasingly difficult to get hold of here.
Anyway, enjoy coming to film! After years of digital, it was like breathing fresh air again for the first time...
Last edited:
Timmy P
Established
Honeslty, Fuji and Kodak consumer film @400ISO are horrific, let me tell you. They're terribly, terribly soft in my opinion. I find that Kodak 400BCN is much sharper. I'd be interested to try the Pro ISO400 films, to see if they are sharper than the consumer varients. I hope they would be.
I have tried the Pro ISO 400 films in medium format and they seem plently sharp. So I hope that too would apply to Pro 35mm 400 films.
I think, personally, unless you're using slide film, you're going to have to look to slower films for neg colour. I have used 160S etc, and I find it excellent and sharp. My friend has also recenetly used Realea, and it too seems excellent.
I use an Epson V700 to scan my negs by the way. Again, I reiterate that while consumer 400 films maybe he cheap, they are just crap. Sure, they've got the speed, but they're soft as. Try the pro stuff.
I've got some Superia 400 scans up on my Flickr, look at them compared to the Kodak 400Cn and even at reduced size you can see the Kodak is much sharper.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timjpower/sets/72157604141677114/
Good luck with your decision,
-Tim
I have tried the Pro ISO 400 films in medium format and they seem plently sharp. So I hope that too would apply to Pro 35mm 400 films.
I think, personally, unless you're using slide film, you're going to have to look to slower films for neg colour. I have used 160S etc, and I find it excellent and sharp. My friend has also recenetly used Realea, and it too seems excellent.
I use an Epson V700 to scan my negs by the way. Again, I reiterate that while consumer 400 films maybe he cheap, they are just crap. Sure, they've got the speed, but they're soft as. Try the pro stuff.
I've got some Superia 400 scans up on my Flickr, look at them compared to the Kodak 400Cn and even at reduced size you can see the Kodak is much sharper.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timjpower/sets/72157604141677114/
Good luck with your decision,
-Tim
gdi
Veteran
I have to agree about the Fuji - Superia 400 is the worst film I have used for scanning. My experience shows the Kodak 400uc to be far superior .
But the local supplies have dried up, so I have dropped down to Fuji 200 when I need some quick, the other Kodak consumer 400 film is pretty bad, IMO. I usually stick to slides....