Kodak Ultra Color 100 (100UC)

Benny, this is not Kodak bashing (I actually use Royal Supra 200 as my main film and am quite happy with it). The posts simply state the facts as observed by Kodak's own datasheets:

 

UC100 has the same curves as Royal Supra 200 and High Definition 200 but with a PGI number of ONE less. UC400 has the same curves as Royal Supra 400 but with a PGI number of ONE more. So, Kodak is selling a slightly modified version of RS200 as UC100 with slightly better grain (that would be expected for a 100 vs 200 film) and UC400 is a slightly tweaked version of RS400 with slightly worse grain (huh?).

 

Another hint is that both the RS and UC datasheets claim that both films have an "eye-spectral sensitivity".

 

Now figure this out: In Europe they sell the same film as "Royal Supra Professional" and "High Definition", where the "professional" version of the film is LESS expensive (about 20%) than the "consumer" HD version (at least in the UK where I am).

 

Panos

I would expect Kodak to share technologies across their films. But I still stand behind my statement that it is hard to believe that Kodak would take a 200 speed film and sell it as a 100 speed film. Must not film speed satisfy a technical defintion according to an accepted international standard?

 

My experience with Kodak films is that you shoot them at their rated speeds. I always shoot UC400 at 400, and will do the same with UC100. I just can't believe that UC100 is nothing more than HD200 with a new package.

Did you not read the email I got from Kodak on this? He again said it was based off HD200 with some tweaking to boost saturation. So no they are not the exact same film, but may be closely related.

 

Im picking up a couple 35mm rolls with a 120 pro pak on Friday. I'll shoot the 35mm the same day in the city, and report back on Saturday with the results. If in the mean time anyone gets back some developing of this film, please post the results.

I looked at the curves available for both films and yes they look identical. So I called Kodak and talked to a product specialist on this. He said first off all their films are based on the same dye set. He looked at the curves themselves and mentioned there are minor difference between the 650nm-700nm range on the dye spec charts between 100UC and HD200. I asked him why they didn't base this off a 100 speed film like Supra 100 which has a finer grain. He wasn't sure why, so he said he was going to mention that to reps. He did say you have to do a practical use of the film to see the difference between them and that is where it will show. He even said the dye specs are close to 400UC as well. And the minor differences between 100UC and HD 200 he was mentioning about the tollerances between pro and consumer film as well. So its all up in the air at the moment. I guess all one can do it test the two films at rated speed, or maybe both at 100, and see what you get.

It would be foolish to expect Kodak to invent a new film everytime they wish to make a change. So, we must be satisfied with incremental improvements for the most part, as long as they are actual improvements of previously successful products. It remains to be seen whether 100UC will be regarded as a change for the better and whether it will be serious competition for Fuji Reala.

I just got back my rolls from the lab yesterday and I must say, it's definitely a 200ISO film. All of the highlights were blown out on my shots even when shooting at EI 100. 160VC has a much broader exposure latitude than this stuff. I won't be using this film for any serious work.

Thanks for the quick report Kevin. A bit harsh and quick for only one time usage though, no? Could you tell us a bit about this lab you used? Professional? Used previously by you and you've gotten good results from them in the past with their printing and with other films? How do the negs look under a loupe? Do those blown highlight areas in the prints also seem blown in the negs? I do not refute your claims just want to hear a bit more of the surrounding curcumstances to help us all get a better idea of your results and how they were gotten---especially being the first report I've seen from this film. More details please.

The lab was Omega Photo in Bellevue, WA. I take all of my film there for developing. I don't have them make prints of the images, I just put them straight to the scanner. I scanned the negs using an Epson 3200 with the contrast settings set for linear.<br>

Here's a link to two images shot on it:<br>

<a href="http://elaisted.com/vynta.jpg">http://elaisted.com/vynta.jpg</a><br>This was a straight scan, untouched in PS except for some resizing. The girl's skin is dark brown and her eye shadow was dark red.<br><br>

The settings I used on the camera were ei 100, 1/60th at f4.5 in TTL mode with a flash pointed at the ceiling to trigger a couple of Profoto strobes with umbrellas as slaves. This setup has worked very well for me in the past when shooting the same rig with other portrait films like 160VC, NC and Astia, so I didn't do anything special or different for this film.

Ok. So we know now not to use it for people shots. Ive heard the same for Portra 400UC as well. When Im getting my rolls in the city tomorrow, I'll take some pics of the surroundings. I'll try and look for color. If I get anything decent to post, I'll do so. I'll let you know the results Saturday. The only thing is my pics will be on Edge Generations paper, which in itself boosts contrast even more. So it would be interesting to see the results.

 

Have you used Portra 400UC for your shots and did they turn out the same as the pics you just did here?

400UC looked different to me than 100UC. I usually feel like I can overexpose 400UC and get some detail without losing too much in the highlights. I've used 400UC for people work but only sparingly because blemishes seem to look a little more obvious. I like 160VC the most but 400UC is very different than 100UC, it's almost like they're two completely different films.<br>

Here's a couple of links to shots using 400UC:<br><br>

<a href="http://elaisted.com/tomiko/0153010-R1-077-37.jpg">http://elaisted.com/tomiko/0153010-R1-077-37.jpg</a><br>

Overexposed 1 stop indoors.<br>

<a href="http://elaisted.com/maria-1/c/color-beach-portrait-clouds.jpg">http://elaisted.com/maria-1/c/color-beach-portrait-clouds.jpg</a><br>

Shot normal, no under or overexposure.

Kevin,

 

I am unable to see any images at your links,

 

Nonetheless, it is surprising that highlights would be seriously blown with only one stop of overexposure, as color print films usually have tremendous lattitude for overexposure. I am looking forward to further tests of this film by others as well as myself.

 

Rob

Got my first roll back tonight. 35mm, Fuji Frontier. I don't like it.

It's a conventional Kodak print film, and 400UC had much more

snap. Reminds me of a cross between Gold 100 and regular

Portra NC.<div></div>

I picked up a couple 35mm rolls of this stuff. After reading comments on this so far, I held off on getting it in 120 till I see my own results. It looked like the weather was going to rain today, so I didnt bother to shoot in the city when getting the film. I'll have to do this another day. I very much doubt people will use this for people photography film due to its nature. This was not meant to be a Reala copy. I'll post my results when I get them. If anyone else uses this film, feel free to fill in.

Scott,

 

Looking forward to seeing your results and reading your impressions.

 

Best wishes,

 

David

I just spotted this post on another photo.net thread that contains some info and actual

scans of 100UC. It looks pretty good, even under bright sun and flash. I hope that the

hyperlinks will appear. If not, here is the original thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/

q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007YSp

 

"Les Sarile , feb 29, 2004; 04:21 a.m.

 

Just shot and processed my roll from the PMA show and have these as samples . . .

Kodak 100UC A daylight

Kodak 100UC B flash

Kodak 100UC C low light

Not what I expected from a "UC" type film as it certainly looks true to life color. I really like

Reala and Agfa Ultra100 but not with flash and low light conditions. Scanning this range of

different exposure shots usually means a different exposure setting with my Canoscan

FS2720 but this roll of 36 didn't need any. So far so good."

I couldnt get your link to work. It says its not there.

Scott, try that URL

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007YSp">

photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007YSp</A>

without a space (Les posted Portra 160VC samples below 100UC).

Dino, was your picture of Annie and Eileen scanned from a print?

Yes Ive seen these scans before. First off the color correction in them is off. Anyways those ones the color seem rather drab for a UC film. Look at the green in the trees for example.

 

If the weather holds, Im going to try and shoot one of my rolls tomorrow. Then I can develop them myself on Monday at work, and later post the results. It should be interesting because the Edge Generations paper we use is high contrast.

Bill, yes. I could scan it from the neg, however, and report back.

What you posted is great, Dino-- it shows us how 100UC looks printed

on a Frontier. I'll be testing it soon with Vuescan.

Bill, I also scanned the negative tonight at home, but it's

extremely flat and has no contrast. I think maybe my Frontier lab

does that and then plays around with the final prints. The

negative looked like a washed-out 800 speed film or

something...

Would it be logical to conclude that the grain

between 100UC and Ektar 25 are similar given the following?

 

Kodak had two PGI ratings assigned to film, one old and one new.

With the old system, Portra 160NC had a PGI of 30 and Ektar/RG25

had a PGI of 25. That's a jnd (just noticeable difference) of 2.5.

 

The Portra 160NC emulsion remained the same (I do not recall

a big change in grain when the PGI system shifted), but under

the new system, 160NC has a PGI of 36. 100UC has a PGI of 31.

That's also a jnd of 2.5.

Whoops! My mistake. When the PGI system shifted, so did JND

from 2 to 4. The new PGI rating system is 2x more accurate. That means the JND of 100UC from 160NC is just

1.25.

 

Under the new PGI system, Ektar/RG25 would be around PGI 26. Supra 100

would be around PGI 30-31. It would be safer to assume 100UC is

closer to Supra 100.

Huh? How do you get jnd-2.5 from a difference of 5 (in both cases)?

Anyhow, Kodak PGI numbers are at best a very, very rough guide.

Bill,

for the old PGI scale, a difference of 2 points indicated

a "just noticeable difference".

 

For the new PGI scale, a difference of 4 points indicated

a "just noticeable difference". So every 4 points equals

one step of JND.

 

That's why it would be inaccurate to list Supra 100's PGI

of 27 from the old scale with Kodak's film PGI from the new scale.

The PGI for each film does not translate perfectly from the old

system because it was more vague (every 2 versus every 4 points

to indicate one JND). So if you want to list Supra 100's PGI,

you must translate it to the new scale (around 30-31 PGI).