"Faster" colour negative film preferences

Kodak's Portra 160NC has become my favourite negative film in 35mm and 120 formats.

 

But, I am wondering what 400 and 800 ASA films you prefer to use (especially in

120 / medium format) and if others share my view on relative attributes among

"faster" colour negative films.

 

1. I tried Portra 400NC recently and found it does not seem to scan as well as

Fuji Press 400 or even as well as the basic consumer Fujifilm Superia 400 I

often use in 35mm shooting (typically in a Canon 1vHS with flash at parties etc).

 

I have found on 2 separate occasions that the Kodak 400NC scans by a Fuji

Frontier come up quite grainy in PS. But looking at the negatives on a light

box, the grain seems "normal" to my eyes.

 

So, what do others prefer to use as 400 ASA negative film (120 format of

course)? How well does it scan for you?

 

2. Now I also have a problem with 800 ASA colour negative film. I have tried

Kodak Portra 800 and been VERY UNHAPPY with it 35mm due to what is to my eyes a

significant blue cast (outdoors with quite "normal" light). In some situations

the blue cast is HORRIBLE! Interestingly it scanned reasonably well (except for

the blue colour cast)- medium grain that I would expect.

 

So, then is Fuji Press 800 my only real option?

 

The unfortunate thing is that I hoped the faster Portra natural colour emulsions

would be consistent with 160NC at the higher speeds but my experience is that

they are not! :(

 

I really like its tonality and low to medium saturation and the way it still

manages to show rich colours with great depth while maintaining natural skin tones.

 

Thanks for your time and help.

I've been happy with Fuji's Pro 800Z. Skin tones are excellent and the colors are natural. And grain is minimal for such a fast film.

Every film available from the big two film companies is good film. Film today is better than it ever has been. Ironic, since so few people use it. Superia 800 (from press package) is my most commonly used film. I don't like Portra 800 or Pro 800Z, but I use them in medium format because they are all that's available. I like the Kodak better. Try what is available. You CANNOT judge a film unless you do your own RA printing, however. Also, if you are shooting to scan, I see no point whatsoever in shooting negs. Just shoot transparencies in that case.

 

Keith

I love 400NC-2. Did you try the new or the old version (edge coded 400NC)? There is a substantial difference in grain.

 

I have never found a 800 speed film which I thought produced good results. I have used the latest Portra 800 and while it is good in small prints it just falls apart at 8x12 IMO. I would stay with 400 speed C41 or use digital if you need something faster.

Thanks Robert and Keith for your help. I do agree that there are generally no BAD films around today.

 

But, what I realise is happening is that some film emulsions scan better than others and it seems that Fuji has the advantage here.

 

When I posted this question, I spoke to my lab owner who has been running a lab for pros and consumers for many years now. He mentioned that the structure of the emulsions have a big impact on scanning and that their experience is that in general Fuji has the lead.

 

But I really prefer the tonality of the Kodak films due to that "warmer" characteristic - each to his own I suppose. So I suppose the slower Kodak films scan better than the faster films!!??

 

Yes maybe I should shoot trannies all the time, but I prefer the latitude of negatives for general daylight shooting - trannies for morning and late afternoon. But I do some trials.

I've had no problems scanning the modern Kodak C-41 films since I started to use the latest version of GEM (in the ICE4 system of LS-5000 and 9000). Scan quality depends greatly on hardware and software and you just have to find the right equipment and software to scan your preferred films. I don't like the colors of Fuji negative films.

"I have never found a 800 speed film which I thought produced good results. I have used the latest Portra 800 and while it is good in small prints it just falls apart at 8x12 IMO."

 

I think your expectations might be pretty high. It's an 800 film. That's an 8x (linear) enlargement; just like looking through a standard loupe. Even Reala that big isn't tack sharp. It is my standard print format from 35mm negs: Full frame projected onto 11x14 paper gives you an 8x12, and regardless of image quality this is how I print them, because I am not hung up on image quality for two reasons. One: It's 35mm anyhow. If I actually wanted image quality above all else, I would use at least medium format, and 4x5 if possible. 35mm is about portability, quickness of use, and ultra fast lenses, and that's about it. The shooting style of 35mm lends itself to slop and imperfection, and I don't try to make it into something that it is not, but, rather, shoot with its inherent characteristics in mind. Two, it's an high-speed film. When I need it, I need it. Image quality is not a factor in the slightest. While I have once printed a series of three 12x18s from Pro 800Z 35mm for a show, I was fully aware that image quality would be "bad". It was not important however, and even added a bit to the pics, IMHO.

 

Have you tried Superia Press 800? This film makes totally grainless 6x9s, and 8x12s start to show the grain, but are still sharp, considering it's an 800 film. Sharper than Portra or Pro 800Z, anyhow, which have a more "professional-looking" mushier type of grain and don't seem as contrasty. These pro films sacrifice sharpness to get the soft grain, while Superia does not.

 

Keith

If you are able to use a 70mm perf film you may wish to try the Agfa X400. That one scans very well. It is clear based and you may find the contrast a little higher then the orange masked films but I have been very happy with it though I often go with the X100. These are "Aerial Films" but they also do very well on the ground with my Hasselblads. In fact I used some of the X100 on a friends wedding one time. Direct from film a full frame 40x40 is nothing for the film.

 

Another route would be to use 400 and push process. I can not say exactly for the Kodak films anylonger but the Agfa C41 films ideal grain processing temp is 4:05 which is about a 1/3 to 1/2 push already.

 

Kevin

FYI - I have not tried to scan Fuji Pro 800Z. I print it myself in a darkroom. But I will have a scanner on the way for Christmas - a nice Nikon Coolscan 9000.

I've recently swithced to Portra 800, which I rate at 640. And my buddy that prints them, gives me beautiful 11x14 prints. Great colors, fine grain, etc, It's important to find a printer that really knows what they're doing. The slight overexposure also helps.

 

Russ<div></div>

If you are getting a blue cast scanning Portra 800, then something is wrong with the scanning process. I scan Portra 800 on my Nikon 9000, and print via mpix or adoramapix using their ICC profiles. I've never seen a blue cast. The color balance is correct. Portra 800 is a wonderful film. All of the Portra films scan well. I suggest the scanning part is the weak link in your photographic chain.

Nobody mentioned Fuji Pro 400H, formerly NPH. Your Frontier lab

obviously screwed up the 400NC scan, Simon. But unless you want to

patronize a different lab, 400H is the next closest remaining film

to 160NC, after 400NC.

I must second Fuji Pro 400H, excelent film, 800Z is also nice, but has loads of grain (as expected). On 35mm I mostly use Kodak Elitecolor 400, colorfull and sharp

I third 400H and highly recommend 800Z/NPZ shot 1/2 stop over. I think grain is reasonable for 800 speed.

I will admit to considerable bias having participated in the design of Portra 800. IMHO, if you need a high speed film, choose the fastest of the "800 films available in 120 format. That film is Portra 800. It is faster than other "800" films. It is a tiny bit grainier, but it is also sharper.

Keith wrote: <i>"If I actually wanted image quality above all else, I would use at least medium format, and 4x5 if possible. "

</i>

<p>

Oh, that's just great.

I would be happy to put my 35mm 400UC shots taken of jazz singers in a tent with a 180mm f/2.8 against anything you can shoot with your 4x5 in that same situation. And no, sloppiness can not be blamed on the camera or the format, only the photographer.

<p><i>

about portability, quickness of use, and ultra fast lenses, and that's about it.

</i><p>

And medium and large formats are good for shooting immobile, still subjects, and that's about it. Why one would even talk about using fast film with MF cameras is beyond my comprehension.

<p><i>

The shooting style of 35mm lends itself to slop and imperfection,

</i>

<p>

It sure doesn't make me sloppy.

<p><i>

and I don't try to make it into something that it is not, but, rather, shoot with its inherent characteristics in mind"

</i><p>

And what are its "inherent characteristics"? Last time I checked the film materials were essentially identical (apart from base etc.), only that the larger film is more costly per shot, less practical to shoot in a fast changing situation, and is extremely impractical in low light and when a narrow angle of view is needed. Sure if your subject never moves it is great. But why would you want fast film in such a situation?

<p>

I can get excellent 8x12 inch prints from iso 400 C-41 film (35mm format), consistently, but not with 800 speed. I don't want a film which limits the potential of every shot - I would always regret wasting time and money on a material which just doesn't work satisfactorily. I would much rather just not get a shot at all, thank you very much. The difference in quality between 400 and 800 speed films is in my opinion greater than that between iso 100 and 400. And that is where I draw the line, my line.

Didn't mean to sound so disrespectful about MF and fast film. I know many portrait photographers do it with excellent results in black and white. For color - I don't like what results from that combination (e.g. 800 speed color film with 645 or 6x6 cameras). I prefer slower films with faster lenses on 35mm format.

Simon, can you check whether your Portra 400NC was of the "400NC-2" type (edge coded such)? They still sell some of the older type. If you had the older type, it could explain why you had trouble with scanning.

If you can get by with 400 speed color negative film, the Kodak 400UC is fantastic. Great colors, very fine grain and very nice flesh tones.

 

Russ

Russ, 400UC is no longer available in medium format.

400NC and 400NC-2 scan wonderfully on my Coolscan IV. Of course, for 120 you will be looking at a Coolscan 8000 or 9000 if you want to do that at home.

 

You may be encountering a grain aliasing problem with the Fuji scans of the 400NC in 120. Scanners will do that film films having just the wrong grain frequency for their optical setup.

 

My hunch is that the get the benefit (grain wise) of 120 film, you may need better scans than a Frontier will give you.

If you like 160NC then you should like 400NC. In fact, you should barely see any difference. Any variations in color casts or graininess is more likely a variation in the scanning than in the filim itself. Maybe the person doing your scanning isn't tweaking the settings properly. Fuji Press is a very contraty film like a consumer film and it's hard to believe it would come out looking better than 400NC if all settings are correct. That's the problem with negative film. Unlike transparencies, there is no fixed objective reference to just it by. You are always at the mercy of the subjective judgments of whoever is doing the scanning or printing whether it's yourself or someone else.

Thanks everyone. You've given me a lot to consider.

 

While I have used Fuji Press 800 with very good results in the past, I suppose that my real disappointment was with the Portra 800 and 400NC. So given the comments made I had better discuss the scanning technique my lab uses - Fuji Frontier. Typically their work is very good and prints always come up very well.

You ENTIRELY miss my point. My point is that you are expecting too much from a piece of 35mm film. I am not saying that you would use sheet film in a situation where 35mm is ideal. I am saying not to worry so much about image quality, since its not the main issue in the first place if you are using 35.

 

"And medium and large formats are good for shooting immobile, still subjects, and that's about it. Why one would even talk about using fast film with MF cameras is beyond my comprehension."

 

Each format has a forte, and I am not arguing that larger formats beat the ease of use of 35. I am simply arguing that EVERY format entails some sort of compromise, and you can't expect one to do it all. I should mention that my most common set up for shooting in low light is a Mamiya 645 with the 80mm 1.9 and Portra 800, often pushed three or more stops. I VERY rarely shoot anything slower than HP5 in my medium format cameras. Tri-X 320 is my most commonly used black and white sheet film. Why the heck do they make a 320 film in sheets? Someone must use it. I still use the higher speeds in larger formats because I like the latitude, maleability, texture, and the larger formats allow you to get away with quite a bit even when using fast films.

 

The shooting style of 35mm lends itself to slop and imperfection,

 

"It sure doesn't make me sloppy."

 

I'm sure it doesn't. Just ask you. But seriously, I'm trying to make the point that 35mm is about other priorities besides raw IQ.

 

"And what are its "inherent characteristics"? Last time I checked the film materials were essentially identical (apart from base etc.), only that the larger film is more costly per shot, less practical to shoot in a fast changing situation, and is extremely impractical in low light and when a narrow angle of view is needed."

 

I wrote this "inherent characteristics" statement referring to the FORMAT, not to the film.

 

"Sure if your subject never moves it is great. But why would you want fast film in such a situation?"

 

Because it is versatile, and I know a lot about it.

 

"I can get excellent 8x12 inch prints from iso 400 C-41 film (35mm format), consistently, but not with 800 speed. I don't want a film which limits the potential of every shot - I would always regret wasting time and money on a material which just doesn't work satisfactorily. I would much rather just not get a shot at all, thank you very much. The difference in quality between 400 and 800 speed films is in my opinion greater than that between iso 100 and 400. And that is where I draw the line, my line."

 

OK.

 

Relax. I am just saying that you are asking for a lot from your equipment. It's not odd that an 800 film doesn't look as good as a slower film.

 

Keith

I recently tried both Portra 800 and Fuji 800Z in medium format, both looked very good. I didn't try them enough to make a meaningful comparison, but I might use them again. You take a big hit compared to 400 though.

 

For 400, I've been happy with the newish Fuji 400H, but haven't used it too much. I mostly shoot film in medium format anyway, but 400H should look quite good in smaller formats.