graeme_mitchell Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Just taking a tally. I don't think this questions been asked in a bit, and with a few new emulsions out I'm curious. What's your fav color neg film to have loaded, and rated at what? Me, well we know I'm partial to NHGII @640, but since it's not made anymore...I actually don't really have a favorite currently. NPS and NPH are what I use most often, and albeit great films, neither get me that excited - too bland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent1 Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 I have very limited experience since starting to pay attention to this stuff again (last time I did, Kodacolor was still a good choice), but of the film I've used recently, I've like Fuji Reala 100 better than Kodak Portra 400; to my eye, the final prints seemed more saturated and vibrant (though that might also be different printing -- I had them done at different labs). I might have to check if Reala is available in 120 at higher speeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 wasn't this just asked like a three weeks ago? anyway, I like NPS (or whatever the low speed NPH is) but i have very little experience with color film... I also like Polaroid 600 in some artsy aplications (NOT transfers specificly), but that's a different matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Kodak Portra 400 UC (UltraColor) is not only my favorite CN film - it's my ONLY CN film. For slower speeds I shoot slides. Grain that almost beats the 160 films, rich color, clean neutrals. It's pretty amazing stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 I agree about UC 400. Once you figure out it's few quirks it's one of the best color films on the market, including slide or print. Only the 100 speed slide films beat UC 400 in terms of sharpness, and only Reala 100 can beat it easily in terms of grain. NPH is not far behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Graeme, <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005k9e">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005k9e</a><p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005jQU">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005jQU</a><p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005lVG">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005lVG</a> <p> These were asked on 8/12, 13, and 16 of this year. I'm sure you can find more threads here:<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=1822&category=Color%20negative">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=1822&category=Color%20negative</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_mitchell Posted August 30, 2003 Author Share Posted August 30, 2003 Rob, Thanks for the URLS. I appreciate it. I'll look over them. GM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_pellom__long_live_ Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Ditto what Andy says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_drew4 Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Dittoes to what Scott E. sez about Portra 400UC! I just tried a pro-pack and did a road trip I-94 to Seattle and did several touristy sites. the Kodak 400UC really performed well in my Minox ML - even with available light for the Seattle Underground Tour! The harbor and pier shots came out great and the Pike Place market was a hoot! I've been searching for a good, all-around, fast color print film and Kodak Portra 400 UC is my best choice! It will replace Supra400, and several other Kodak, Agfa, Fuji types that litter my freezer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anand_n._vishwamitran Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 Portra 160NC for flash photography, Reala for everything else, UC if I need the speed. Unlike Scott, I find Portra 160NC to be definitely sharper than 400UC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canon_eos_rules Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 My new fav is Portra 400UC! You can't beat it's sharpness, color, detail, & skintones, PLUS it has virtually no grain! I also like Kodak HD400 & Fuji Superia Xtra 400 but (like almost everyone else) hate Kodak MAX anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_interlicchio1 Posted August 31, 2003 Share Posted August 31, 2003 For low light - NPZ. It performs amazingly for 800 speed film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oofoto Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Just don't go using npz800 for landscape/scenery, it's incredibly dull ( in my experience). Favourite is Reala 100 easily. Such beautiful colour. 400UC gave me outstanding colour in Greece and sure will use it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sue_deva Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 I have to ditto everything positive that's been said about Portra 400UC. It's virtually grain-free and produces amazing saturation for its speed. Also, because you have so much color saturation to begin with, you can produce some really stylish prints and have a little more latitude to play with color in Photoshop. (Becuase there is 'so much to begin with' it still looks natural when you take away a little color, whereas if you're trying to *add* saturation to, say, NC in order to get to the level of saturation that UC gives you in the first place, it's usually a little harder.) I shoot in a lot of low-light situations and I wouldn't be able to survive without this stuff these days. A while ago I shot one subject with a roll of 160 NC and a roll of 400 UC and the UC images had a lot more punch and required much less manipulation to get to the final stage (i.e. not make them look washed-out because they were shot at night with indirect light.) The only problem I have noticed is that there is sometimes a little too much red in the skin tones. Uh... yeah. Go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_dibiase3 Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 I am not sure that comparing films of different ISO values is valid when discussing image quality. One would assume that the 100 speed film will produce a better image, unless motion is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 But some films are not available in different speeds, so you need to compare what is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anand_n._vishwamitran Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 For those who complain about 160NC's lack of punch, the problem could be where 160NC is used. What I have found is that 160NC is an indoor film. Using it outdoors is an invitation for bland results. Indoors with flash, 160NC is the sharpest film Ive used, and it scans like a dream with great color saturation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art_adams Posted September 3, 2003 Share Posted September 3, 2003 I'm hooked on Kodak 400UC for the moment. Rated at 320, it yields excellent flesh tones and nicely saturated primaries and secondaries. It's very fine-grained as well. I haven't shot anything else in months. 400UC's flesh tones are surprisingly good. Just be careful with reflections from nearby objects on skin, particularly green or yellow reflections. If the image drifts too far away from flesh tone and into a primary or secondary color this film will grab it and RUN. I tried pull processing 400UC 1 stop for a lower contrast negative... I gained some detail but the image shifted slightly yellow and flesh tones weren't as nice. I've shot 400UC mainly in 645 format; I've no experience shooting the 35mm version. My blowups to 11x14 from 645 show very little grain, and I really have to look for it. Previously I primarily used NPH and NPS. Both are very nice stocks but I like the tight grain and extra speed I get from 400UC. And you can't beat it for punchy colors in a color negative film that still handles flesh tones well. I've used 160NC and 160VC. They're okay. I was happier with NPH and NPS. VC was nice for shooting against green backgrounds, like grass and plants. The greens really popped. I tested some NPZ at 800 and I wasn't impressed. It was muddy and very bland. I'll try it again at 640 sometime when I'm desperate for the speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now