Best modern color neg film

<p>I'm currently shooting digital but came from the Kodachrome 25/64 school (yes, I have several tripods). I want to excercise my old film Nikons but don't want to shoot slides now. What is the best (low grain, sharpness, color) modern, low ASA (200 tops) color negative film? I never shot much color neg in the first place so I have absolutely no idea what to buy. </p>

<p>Any suggestions greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>'Best' of course depends on what you're shooting, but if you liked Kodachrome you should try Kodak Ektar or Fuji Reala (both 100).</p>

<p>Kodak 160NC or VC. C-41 process b&w films rated at 200-250 from Kodak and Ilford are also worth exploring.</p>

<p>unless you live in a large city, or are willing to mail-order film. ou are more or less committed to use what is available.<br>

that will mean at the mimimum 200 speed film. 100 speed color negative is made but the mass marketers aim sales at those with P^S cameras and 200 is about the slowest you will see.<br>

Almost never real B&W or 100 speed film and almost never slide film.<br>

Use what is easily available first. See if you like it.</p>

<p>You don't say what you are shooting. For portraits, Portra 160 NC is hard to beat. For landscapes, Ektar 100 would be my choice. Since you want a low speed film, I'm assuming you are not shooting sports.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ron. Not shooting sports, no. Mostly landscapes. It sounds like Kodak pro Ektar is the way to go.</p>

<p> I have to agree Kodak Ektar 100.</p>

<p>Ektar and Reala are both fantastic. They're for shooting thing, not people. For portrait, try the Kodak 160NC, and for a faster film the 400VC. If you want something that's easy to find in stores and inexpensive, the Fuji Superia line is great stuff.</p>

<p>For Landscapes, you really should be shooting slide film. Besides better colors and resolution, slide scans sharper and with MUCH less grain. However, I can understand if the added dynamic range of negative is important to you.<br>

Good negative stock for landscapes is Kodak Ektar 100, Fuji Reala 100, and Fuji Superia 100. Some love the Ektar, some hate it. It has a very distinctive look, and can be difficult to scan without color casts. It is very blue sensitive, and easily picks up a cold blue cast to shots.<br>

Do a Flickr image search on each film type above, to see what they look like.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com">www.flickr.com</a></p>

 

<p>To get the best out of color negative film, you either have to send it out to a good pro lab to scan, or learn how to scan it yourself. If you just give it to a drugstore to process and print, then you will probably be disappointed and just go back to digital. The easiest way to enjoy your film cameras if you don't want to scan yourself or give to a pro lab, is to pick up a slide projector for a few bucks, shoot slide film, and project!</p>

<p>I've always been a big fan of Fuji Reala. Very fine grain, very sharp, excellent saturation but with moderate contrast. Works equally well with portraits as it does with landscapes.</p>

<p>Good advice, Benny - I never intended to give it to a drugstore. We do have a couple labs here (NC) that will process and scan it properly. And I do usually shoot slides when the film cameras need a workout but this time I thought I'd give modern print film a try, just for the hell of it.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the help - I'll pick up some Ektar 100 and some Reala and try them both.</p>

<p>I personally don't like the results I get from Ektar. Notice that I qualified this statement by referring to "my results". After scanning with SilverFast on my Nikon 9000, I'm finding out that I very much like Portra 160VC. Very realistic colors, which is my aim. If you are going to try out some films, then you might as well include a roll of 160VC in your test. Modern color negative film is quite amazing....so much better than the older stuff. Have fun!</p>

<p>I would give Ektar at try.</p>

<p>I too haven't gotten good results from Ektar. They should call it 100WC for its Wonky Colors. Sometimes the palette works but it's unpredictable when. Worse, I've experienced blocked up reds with Ektar. See attached crop for an example.</p>

<p>It's Portra 160NC for me, by Kodak, and PRO 160S by Fuji. The saturated versions are 160VC and PRO 160C, respectively, though if you're scanning the negatives then I think you'll find it's easier to add color than it is to remove it.</p><div></div>

<p>Ektar for me has been unpredictable as well. When it is good, it is very good, when it is bad, well..... I would go with the Portra lineup. Have not tried any of the Fuji films in a while though.</p>

<p>Eh, whats best? Kodak Portras are pretty good, Fuji Pro is very close if not the same for the most part of it. If it is not for people in controled lights try Fuji Superia Realia100, it is probably the finest on grain part.</p>

<p>Another vote for the unpredictability of Ektar. The blues seem to go all over the place from shot to shot for me, depending on exposure. Portra 160 is always consistent and accurate for me.</p>

<p>jZ</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just buy many types of film/what you can afford ans then decide for yourself. Try cross processsing slide film and see what happens you may like what you see. I have not gotten my reals and ektar developed yet but I do like wonky/unpredictable colors since I shoot film for it's artistic endeavors.</p>

<p>Sorry guys, I just don't understand comments about "...the unpredictability of Ektar..."</p>

<p>If you scan your negatives (or even have 'em scanned at a lab) the colors are totally under your control. You should pay attention to the ability of a film stock to preserve highlights and shadow detail, the grain structure, and the resolution. Everything else (i.e. color and contrast) is a matter of taste.</p>

<p>The colors are only as "wonky" as the guy making the decisions about the colors.</p><div></div>

<p>At the risk of being considered a nag, here's another example of controlling color and contrast with Ektar.</p>

<p>(I got a server error posting the last message, and the attachment didn't attach. So...)</p>

 

<p>Here's two more Ektar from the same roll & day as the crop above (click for larger). White-balanced by Vuescan. The color works for me in both of these, I like the vaguely vintage ambience Ektar's imparted, but I haven't been able to replicate the results on other occasions. Shooting Ektar is like being a kid Christmas, in that you don't know what you're going to get. Sometimes you get a pair of socks :-(</p>

<p><a title="20090717-EKTAR-0003 by manual crank, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualcrank/4225145964/" title="20090717-EKTAR-0003 by manual crank, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4225145964_af9f5c764c.jpg" alt="20090717-EKTAR-0003" width="500" height="326" /> </a></p>

<p><a title="20090717-EKTAR-0002b by manual crank, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualcrank/4225145830/" title="20090717-EKTAR-0002b by manual crank, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2784/4225145830_cc1c8127b0.jpg" alt="20090717-EKTAR-0002b" width="500" height="326" /> </a></p>

 

<p>Yet another server error posting the picture. Trying again...</p>

<p>Greg, you've just changed the hue. It's still a blocked up color saturated area that does not cohere well with the rest of the image, or with the way the trailer actually looked in the grass. In the full-size scan it looks bad, like someone painted over the negative with opaque paint. Selective desaturation in PS did not recover detail. 160NC (for example) would have rendered the trailer with greater subtlety and accuracy. I should add, though, that the color accuracy of negative film is not an issue with me. Color harmony, yes.</p>