Kodak Supra discontinued. Now what?

According to kodak.com all speeds of Supra have been discontined. It

looks like Porta will be the only professional film left in a few

more years. You like a film and then it's gone with no direct

replacement. Does this make you want to go digital?

News like this is what Fuji dreams of....

 

 

Rate some NPH 400 at ISO 320 and enjoy life. If Kodak does not want your business, Fuji is there to help out!

Kodak Portra 400 UC seems to be the professional film replacement for it. Alot of people here have tried it and liked it alot.

 

Scott Eaton says it prints well on almost any machine...that's saying alot about the film. It's enough for me to run out and get some...alas, work is a bitch and I just haven't had the chance.

"Does this make you want to go digital?"<br><br>

I think it's the reverse. Because alot of pros are going digital Kodak is circling the film wagons. Kodak stock fell 10% yesterday.

The funny thing is that Kodak is a leader in digital photography. They sell a 14

megapixel professional digital camera with a Nikon mount. I can understand why a

professional would want to eliminate film cost. It seems that Kodak wants to sell

digital cameras and lots of film too. I would love to know thier strategy for the next

five years.

B&H is still selling imported Supra, and in fact Supra 200 just recently appeared on their website! Ted Marcus thinks HD400 is an

acceptable substitute for Supra 400, and my tests show improved

purple rendition, although I like Portra 400UC much better.

Hey Bill, do you have any full res test scans we can take a look at?

Bill- Why do you like porta 400UC much better than 400HD?

Thanks

<p>Kodak recommends you replace Supra 100 with Portra 160VC. I don't think that's a good replacement - I like 160VC, but fine grain was one of Supra's strengths, and 160VC's grain isn't anywhere near as fine; I might as well just use 400UC, since it's as fine-grained and probably close to the same sharpness and gives me an extra stop and a third. I guess Kodak had to pick either 160NC or 160VC as the suggested replacement, as they're now the slowest daylight-balanced professional colour negative films in the catalog. I do like their suggested replacement for Supra 400 (Portra 400UC), though it seems there's a bit of a price difference there. I rarely shoot faster than 400 so I don't care much about replacing Supra 800 with Portra 800.</p>

 

<p>I'll go digital eventually, but it doesn't make any sense for me right now - primarily too expensive. Even if I could sell my existing body and film scanner for what I paid for them, I'd still have to fork over a pile of money for a DSLR that's fairly comparable to my film body.</p>

David, I never liked Supra 400 much. It was

too high-contrast and difficult to recover shadow detail, so I used

Supra 800 @ 640 despite the grain, until new NPH and Portra 400UC

came out. None of the three Supras did well with purples (100 was

worst) but fortunately HD400 and 400UC fix this.

Here are reasons I prefer 400UC to HD400:

<UL>

<LI>400UC is much less grainy, especially skin tones and grays

<LI>400UC has about a stop more shadow speed

<LI>although too dense to scan at +6, 400UC did not leak dye into adjacent frame

<LI>400UC preserves blue skies even when extremely overexposed

<LI>400UC has slightly lower midtone contrast, good for portraits

<LI>there is a medium format version of 400UC

<LI>I have the feeling 400UC will be around as-is in June 2004

</OL>

Thang, I'll post a hi-res scan snippet in a Portra 400UC thread (not here) as time permits.

Why would I go digital?. Just because Kodak discontinued one of their films?.

 

I liked Kodak Supra 100 very much, and I was very upset when I learned that they had discontinued such a great film, but there are still many other options available, have you tried Fuji Reala and Fuji NPS?.

 

There ain't no reason to go digital, there are great film available, and greater films are coming out soon too.

As much as I like Portra UC 400 over Supra because of the new film's much better control, I can see how Supra lovers in some respects might be a bit dissapointed. Main thing being UC 400 is more mellow than Supra, although not to a great extent.

 

VC sucks - nuff said.

 

There's always Vista 200/400 if you need more contrast than UC 400, although they don't fit the pro criteria.

If you like Supra, why not buy it mail-order from Europe?

Kodak Supra is no longer, long live Royal Supra!

 

It is now called Kodak Royal Supra and comes in 200, 400, and 800. It's an improved version of the old Kodak Supra. So, don't worry. Check out the Kodak website for more news.

Royal Supra is not available in the American market. That's what bugs these people. :-) You can see the specs by going to www.kodak.com/go/professional and changing the country to something in Europe, Asia or Africa.