Fast speed film with HIGH color saturation

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by alaghi, Jun 25, 2003.

  1. I looking for color negative film with normal contrast and high
    color saturation. I do not need super fine grain, because I will not
    make large prints, only 15x21cm prints.<br>
    I tryed kodak supra 400 (i like very much), fuji NPH (I look for
    more color saturation, contrast is good), fuji superia 400 and kodak
    gold ultra(color change little bit, but usable).<br>
    I like very much AGFA Ultra, bur it is 100 asa. Do you know about
    a fast film that looks like agfa ultra in colors?<br>
    Do you know other films with these characteristics?<br>
    <br>
    Thanks a lot!
     
  2. The new Kodak Portra 400UC (not NC or VC) is the film for you.

    I dislike it, but most folk around here think it's fantastic.

    It will give you normal contrast and pumped up colours.
     
  3. Hi Gustavo,

    Try the Fuji NPZ800. Fast, great color, not too bad grain. The "standard" sports film.

    Will
     
  4. Portra 800, it's more saturated than Portra 400 VC and is a stop faster.
     
  5. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    Do you need something faster than 400? You might try Fuji Superia 800, which has amazingly good color and image quality. I rate it at 640 to get finer grain for scanning, but you said you don't need fine grain (although it has amazingly fine grain-- it's an amazing film). If you're complaining that Supra 400 has been discontinued, you might try Royal Supra 400, which may be nearly the same thing (Kodak doesn't provide a meaningful answer to this question).

    Elliot-- why do you dislike Portra 400UC? Everyone who has written about this film says it's the greatest thing since quilted toilet paper.
     
  6. I'll second William's recommendation for NPZ--excellent stuff,
    and pushes very nicely, too.
     
  7. 'Elliot-- why do you dislike Portra 400UC?'

    For the same reason many people dislike Velvia - an artificial colour palette, and bad
    skin tones
     
  8. I just shot some Kodak HD400. Had it developed at the local Walgreens, (Fuji Frontier machine) and liked it alot. Very saturated, I have since learned its just Royal Gold repackaged.
    I used it for outdoor, kids soccer, lots of colors and they all looked great.
     
  9. ted_marcus|1

    ted_marcus|1 Ted R. Marcus

    I just shot some Kodak HD400. Had it developed at the local Walgreens, (Fuji Frontier machine) and liked it alot.
    HD400 has somehow been optimized to make very nice minilab prints, probably better than any other consumer film I've seen. The intended snapshooter market couldn't do better. But HD400 shares with its (probable) ancestor Supra 400 the tendency to show "dandruff" grain in underexposed shadows. You won't see this in minilab prints because those areas get "clipped" enough to completely hide the grain. But any halfway-decent scanner will uncover enough shadow detail to make the grain very visible. The answer to this problem is to make sure you give the film enough exposure to expose the shadows adequately (good advice for any color negative film). Other than that, HD400 has very fine grain and very nicely staurated color.
     
  10. bad skin tones [from Portra 400UC]
    I've only shot one roll of it, with some pictures under overcast skies and some indoors with flash, and printed via some sort of Noritsu digital minilab on Kodak Royal paper, and the skin tones were fine. They look good on my film scanner, too. Many other people seem to like the skin tones, too, and Scott Eaton says this film even prints well on Fuji Frontiers, which can't be said of the other Portra films.
    If you say the skin tones were bad on the roll(s) you shot, I don't doubt it, but I'd be interested in knowing more about the setting/lighting and printing.
     
  11. 'If you say the skin tones were bad on the roll(s) you shot, I don't doubt it, but I'd be
    interested in knowing more about the setting/lighting and printing'

    I was shooting in overcast light with a diffused Lumedyne flash balanced to the
    daylight. The shot was an environmental portrait of 2 people in a garden (lots of
    green grass and colourful flowers). I was shooting on 645 with 2 backs (one with
    400VC, the other 400UC).

    I hand-printed the results on Kodak Endura Supra (Gloss). I prefered the results on
    400VC. To my eyes, the colours of 400UC were unnatural (of course, to an extent, I
    expected this), and the skin-tones had an unplesant red/magenta hue. In my
    attempts to correct the skin-tones, I ended up introducing a cyan/green cast to the
    rest of the image.

    400UC is finer-grained than VC, and this may make all the difference if you are
    shooting 35mm and wish to enlarge beyond 8"x10".

    But for day-to-day use in medium format I'll be sticking to 400VC.

    (Not sure about Frontiers, but 400VC prints well on Noritsu machines.)
     

Share This Page