"Faster" colour negative film preferences

This is really interesting, all these opinions about the big jump in IQ between 800 and 400, because the way I see it, 400 is not better enough than 800 to bother owning/using both films, and the extra latitude of the 800 combined with its relatively fine grain and sharp and realistic appearance make it the perfect everyday film. I wouldn't use it if I were in control of everything, but in my case, that is almost never. I also love my fast shutter speeds and small apertures, and it helps with those. I do perceive that there is a big jump between 100/200 and 400, however. Yes, I like the 400, but based on experience (and actual C-41 processing and RA printing by hand), it's easier for me to just mainly buy one film. One reason I think 800 gets a bad rap is because lots of people "resort" to it when lighting is less than ideal, rather than use it liberally for a variety of lighting conditions, good or bad. Also, how many of these judgements are coming from people who simply take their stuff to a lab and let them do everything?

Back to my initial statement: There is not a bad film made by Fuji or Kodak. Just buy from a "pro" shop, where you know film is fresh and properly stored, and don't expect a moonrise over Hernandez from your handheld 35mm with Fuji Press.

Keith

Keith your comment << One reason I think 800 gets a bad rap is because lots of people "resort" to it when lighting is less than ideal, rather than use it liberally for a variety of lighting conditions, good or bad. >>

is very valid. I know that I sometimes fall into that trap too.

I have my work developed and scanned (carefully hand corrected etc) by a pro shooter who owns a Frontier lab. He introduced me to Fuji Press 800 a while ago and commented that it has been the local standard film for pros doing press and sport work - totally reliable enabling large prints with nominal grain only.

I shoot that often with my XPan to get more flexibility of apertures and regularly use it shooting Hasselblad 6x6 when I need the same for non landscape work ("serious" stuff I shoot with positive film and a tripod). It always performes well.

But I was somewhat shocked when I used 35mm Portra 800 and later used the same in 120 - as I said at the beginning I found a nasty blue cast and rather heavy grain. But I really like other Portras. Whereas I shoot 160NC and 400UC with excellent results; but recently shot 400NC and got "rough grain"........

I spoke to the lab owner about this yesterday and he made an interesting comment: "don't believe everything you see on the screen! Let's print it and you may get a nice surprise - don't really know why but it does happen!!"

The mysteries of film.

PS - all my scans are done by him and have been for 5 years now with excellent results - negative, positive and B&W in 35mm, 120 (6x6 to 6x12), XPan and 4x5. But when I want a "serious" scan for a large expensive print for framing, I do get a drum scan for obvious reasons.

Maybe what I am experiencing is that just like equipment, there are different horses for different courses! It pays to know your film options and how they will react in certain circumstances - just like your statement I quoted above.