400 ISO Print film, Fuji? Kodak? Konica?

[dano1]

Hey all. I was just on the Popular Photography website and found this

comparison of 84 films:

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/7222003125937.pdf

 

Anyway, I had been using Fuji Superia Xtra when I needed to use

available indoor light. (either window light or tungsten, every now

and then flourescent). The thing is, as a low-budget hobbiest I often

don't go through enough film to change film for every occasion. So, I

might be in my mother's garden shooting the budding Lupine, but the

next day my nephews and nieces might be over so I'll take candid shots

of them. Then, before you know it I'm shooting landscapes at a state

park. I think you get my point.

 

So, I need one film that will be good (I know I can't get one that

will be great) in all areas, macro, landscapes, portraits, as well as

indoor lighting. I have settled upon a 400 ISO because I can almost

always shoot with available indoor light with 400 ISO if I use my

Minolta 50mm f/1.7.

 

So, the next obvious question is which 400 speed film to shoot with?

 

I have tried Fuji NPH, and can honestly say that stuff is a pain in

the dairy air to scan. The color base is almost pink and there is no

Vuescan profile for it, so I'm left finding areas that are supposed to

be a shade or grey. Of couse, what on earth do I do with Macro? When

I shoot a Rose in my father's garden, and scanned it a few days later.

I spent a fair amount of time trying to get the color right. I

targeted the leaves on the rose bush to a foliage color. Then I found

a pic that I had taken with my father's digicam, and it was then that

I realized I had used the wrong green as the target!

 

Anyway, that's another big plus in my book, the ease of scanning.

 

So, here are the 3 major contenders in my book:

 

1. Stick with Fuji Superia Xtra 400.

2. Go with Kodax Max for the added resolution, along with little added

contrast. (I don't really prefer a lot of contrast though)

3. Try out Konica Centuria 400 for a granualarity in the same league

as 50 and 100 ISO films, as well as a much higher sharpness, and the

abiltiy to work well in mixed light.

 

It may seem like option #3 is the way to go, but I have never used any

films other than Fuji and Kodak. I haven't really heard good things

about Kodak's color films though. One thing that I have heard and

believe to be true is the garbage in the shaddows. I have used one

roll of some stuff I bought when my mother used the last of my Fuji in

Eurorpe. The colors are excellent, I prefer the color to Fuji, but

that garbage in the shaddows kind of turns me off. Primarily, I have

used Kodak for BW, as most people on these forums do, and kept using

Fuji for color.

 

I guess I shouldn't feel this way, but I somehow just can't trust a

film that is made by such a small company, and that I know so little

about, other than it was recenty merged with Minolta.

 

Can someone reassure me on Konica? I guess one of my problems is that

I'm looking at stats, not pictures. I have a big problem going out

and testing films. That is of course, becuase I use so little film

that testing out several films would take me many weeks, and I might

wind up with a lot of mixed results in my photographs while doing it.

 

Is Konica Centuria 400 as good as the stats say it is? Should I just

stick with Fuji Superia Xtra 400? Should I give Kodak another go?

 

Thanks all,

 

Dan O'Connell

[phule]

Have you tried Kodak 400 UC?

 

If your camera doesn't leave the leader out on rewind, have you thought about buying a $5 leader retriever so you can change film mid-roll and not have to worry about picking one film forever? :)

 

Personally, I feel that the only thing the Max in Kodak Max stands for is Maximum Crap.

 

Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 is a nice consumer film and is great for general use. But I don't think your only option is to stick with one film.

 

Only my opinions, which may or may not mean much.

 

There's a fair amount of info on the UC line from Kodak here already. A couple searches should provide easy access to it.

[george2]

<i>I haven't really heard good things about Kodak's color films though. </i><p>

 

You must live in a very noisy neighbourhood :-)

[bill_tuthill]

I wouldn't pay much attention to Pop Photo's film chart,

which has been full of errors in years past. They push amateur film

for reasons unknown to me. Switching to pro film is the 3rd quickest

way to improve your pictures (tripod and better lens are #1 and #2).

Many photo.netters like Konica Impresa 50 and prefer Centuria 1600

to other 1600 films, but we have little experience with the 400.

I tested it but my Agfa minilab couldn't print it worth a darn.

Rumors are that it works OK on a Frontier, but I haven't tried it.

[psul_aul]

"I haven't really heard good things about Kodak color films"

 

Have you been reading this forum? Kodak UC 400 gets pretty constant praise here, as does good old Kodak Gold 100 if you are looking for a slow film.

 

The consistent thing that you may hear about Kodak films is that they don't print well on Fuji papers, especially Gold 100.

[dano1]

Well, my new Maxxum 5 does have a "leave leader out on rewind" custom function. I just got the camera last week.

 

One thing I'm not sure of. If I rewind the film midroll, leave the leader out, and put it back in agian, will the autowinding/advancing take care of any variation such that I don't have to waste and exposure or two to "be on the safe side"?

 

The only other cameras I have used are manual cameras (the SRT-101 and the XG-M), none of which of course had an auto winding capablity (without an additional autowinder of course). So alot of this stuff is new to me. I have only used one roll of film with the new Maxxum 5, mainly because I let my father take it to Europe, and so I can't say for sure if the exposures will line up properly. Will they?

 

By living in a "noisy neigborhood" I assume you are talking about all the noise I got in the shaddows on my negative scans. It looks pretty darn ugly to me.

 

I did go and look at some photos that were taken with Konica Centuria 400 at PhotoSIG, and they looked great, well the ones that were scanned properly of course. I really liked the color a whole lot better than Fuji, or even Kodak. Everything was well saturated.

 

I also took a look at Konica Impressa 50. That looks to be a fantastic film. They claim that it has the finest grain and highest sharpness of any color negative film. The colors were great too. Now, if I could just change midroll without wasting exposures, I'd be in luck!

 

Thanks Guys,

 

Dan O.

[bill_tuthill]

Here's a thread on <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0058X9">

mid-roll film change</A> with your camera. I have one too, it's easy.

[rowland_mowrey]

Agfa, Fuji, Kodak, and Konica all make very good films. (Note alphabetical order, no preference).

 

I have used all of these and more, since about 1959. They have all improved dramatically since then and continue to evolve.

 

The problem is, with advice, that a lot of people here seem to have an axe to grind about one manufacturer or another. So, it is rather difficult to say with authority which one to use. Too many agendas.

 

I would reat your referenced report, and then I would try out several that looked interesting to me. I would then use the one that pleased me and my 'cutsomers' or 'viewers' or 'family'. Read there whatever audience you usually have for your work.

 

And, I would enjoy rather than agonize over the question. In most cases, the person behind the camera is more important than what is in the camera. I have seen prizewinners come from the wrong film by just using the right angle, exposure and perspective.

 

Enjoy your hobby or work at photography.

 

Ron Mowrey

[phule]

<< One thing I'm not sure of. If I rewind the film midroll, leave the leader out, and put it back in agian, will the autowinding/advancing take care of any variation such that I don't have to waste and exposure or two to "be on the safe side"? >>

 

That would be something that you'd probably find in the cameras manual.

 

Even if it doesn't line up exactly (which is unlikely but I won't speculate any further) I don't see why "wasting" one frame to be safe is a problem. If you're shooting (for example) Fuji Superia X-Tra, which is 7.5 cents per frame then you're (in my opinion) making a mountain out of a mole hill. Even if the film is more expensive, one frame distributed over the cost of the film and the cost of processing is so tiny as to not be worth worrying about.

 

If you're worried about the cost of one frame wasted, perhaps film photography is not the right hobby for you?

[r.t. dowling]

Fuji Superia XTRA 400 scans quite well for me (using a Canon FS4000 and the included FilmGet software). I love Fuji NPH and the lower contrast is definitely a good thing, but it does seem like it's more difficult to get it to "look right" when I scan it.

 

If you decide to try a Kodak ISO 400 film, the ones you want to try are High Definition 400, Supra 400 (a.k.a. Royal Supra 400), Portra 400NC, and 400UC (which is marketed as Portra 400UC in some places and UltraColor 400UC in other places). AVOID the other Kodak films such as Max, Max Versatility, Max Versatility Plus, etc.

[john_shriver]

Kodak HD400 scans very nicely, very thin mask, pale yellow-orange. The three-packs are modestly priced, the single rolls are outrageous. Relatively high contrast, high color saturation, reasonably fine grain, sharp.

 

When I was using it, some minilabs could print it well, others didn't have the film terms for it, and got odd results (strange skin tones). Hopefully more have updated their software (film channels) by now. Should print best on Kodak paper, but the Qualex lab was one of the places that sent back strange prints...

 

While Kodak Porta 400NC is a lovely low-contrast film, it's not the choice if you're on a buget, hard to get for less than $5 per 36 exposures.

 

I don't know what your "garbage in the shadows" was with Kodak film. If it was Max 400, and you underexposed at all, it was grain. (Multi-colored grapefruits in the shadows.) If there were odd color casts, consider having it printed somewhere that uses Kodak paper.

[dano1]

Thanks all. I don't think the problem that alot of people have with printing a Konica film will be a problem for me because I don't get any prints. Instead, after spending way too much money trying to get a lab to give me the results I wanted, I've decided that it's either impossible or extreemely expensive. I've even tried out my local lab a few times, one that does nothing but sell camera gear and process film, and have gotten some results that were definatley lacking.

 

Anyway, I use a Minolta Scan Dual as my scanner, but I hope to someday upgrade to a Dual III or a Dual IV. There shouldn't be any problems developing at a Kodak lab, should there?

 

One of the big factors that I forgot to mention is cost, though it should have been obvious when I stated that I was a low-budget hobbiest. Spending $5.99 for a 36 exposure roll of Kodak Portra 400UC is just too much. I can buy Konica Centuria on the other hand for $1.29 a 24 exp, which brings the cost from 17 cents down to 5 cents per exposure. After 1,000 exposures, that's a difference of $120.

 

To say that there is too litte knowledge of Konica Centuria isn't enough for me. I have read great things about it online from people who have dared to use it. I have also seen some great photos taken with it. I will try out one roll and see how I like it. Also, if I ever get a really bright day, or I don't mind lugging a tripod around, I might try out Konica Impressa 50 as well.

 

I'm glad that due to advances in winding technology it should be alot easier for me to change film midroll. I only wish that were true with my Yahshica A TLR. :-P

 

Thanks for all the replies all,

 

Dan O.

[scott_eaton]

<I>I wouldn't pay much attention to Pop Photo's film chart, which has been full of errors in years past.</i><P>HeHe. Tip the pizza delivery guy a few extra bucks and I'm sure he can deliver better advice on print films than Pop Photo.<P>For cheap 400 speed print films that scan well try Kodak HD/Supra 400, Fuji Superia 400/200, and Agfa's Vista line. If you try B&H you should be able to get these consumer films for realy cheap. Especially Vista 400/200, which I detest for printing, but awknowledge it's a good film to work with most scanners.<P>None of these films will touch UC 400 though, and I find all Konica materials excluding impresa to be grainy.

[dano1]

"...and I find all Konica materials excluding impresa to be grainy."

 

That's quite a statement considering that Konica claims that Impressa is the finest grained color negative film! I have heard many good things about Impressa, what are you comparing the grain to?

 

 

Dan O.

[rowland_mowrey]

Perhaps Scott Eaton will say just about anything too.

 

In the last post I saw of his, he was on a rant complaining about EK products. His complaints have been so extensive that I finally suggested that he either return the products to EK for his money back, or sue them for false advertising. Same thing goes here. If impressa does not meet Konika's ads, then sue them Scott! If you need their address I'll give it to you. Nice little place in Hachioji outside Tokyo. You ought to visit it sometime.

 

I would believe the magazine article regardless of Scott's feelings in the matter. I have read their reviews for over 50 years and found them quite reliable. Too many of us here on PN seem to have that axe to grind, as I said. PP is impartial enough for us to rely on them. They have the breadth of experience behind their tests, and they have the experience with all of the latest films. They know how to run the tests and make the comparisons.

 

Ron Mowrey

[mlynch]

Dan:

 

I know you said print film, but I own the same scanner and have the best luck with Provia 400F or Sensia 400, when I have the need to use a 400 speed film. As I'm sure you have found, on the Scan Dual II, slides are a lot easier to handle.

 

I've found that Porta 400NC does best on the SDII if I have to use print film. I'm using Vuescan and the recipe for this film in the program seems to work very well.

 

Best of luck

[mlynch]

Dan:

 

My apologies to EK. Actually I found that PORTRA 400NC scans well in my Minolta scanner. Porta 400NC is very hard to come by ...

[john_mccormack]

I'll chime in late here with another vote for Kodak HD400. My processor prints it on a Fuji Frontier and does a nice job.

Here are some flatbed scans of 4x6" prints taken recently with HD400:

 

http://www.pbase.com/jpmccormac/inbox

 

Sorry, Bill Tuthill, but I couldn't use a tripod for these shots :)

 

I also like Portra 400 UC but the price is a bit high for us lowly amateurs on fixed incomes.

[john_photo]

Impressa is the finest grain print film out there. I dont know whether its as fine grained as Velvia but it sure looks like it as far as I can ascertain from a loupe ( no big blowups yet ). Its also a very very sharp film without the drawbacks of films like superia 100.

 

If you can find someone to print this material then you are in luck because its truly a great emulsion imho. Worth a try at the very least.

[scott_eaton]

<I>I would believe the magazine article regardless of Scott's feelings in the matter. I have read their reviews for over 50 years and found them quite reliable.</i><P>No offense, but you have some obvious problems and need to graduate from consumer film user to professional if you want to hang with the big guys. It's clear you're one of those with a really big mouth, lots of darkroom time, but can't distinguish between professional materials and amatuer ones - we get lots of those here. You also can't visibly determine the difference in gamut range between Fuji and Kodak papers, which is something the teenage girls behind the counter at my local pro shop can do. I can flag replenishment rates on RA-4 just by looking at the Dmax, and you offer lip service for Kodak claiming you've used some magical testing procedure to match paper/film dye sets that proves counter to what every professional lab owner I work with has been has been bitching about. If we listen to you, and your defense of the amatuers at Pop Photo, consumer print technology will be set back 20 years.<P>Pop Photo is a hack magazine that caters to amatuers, amatuer films sales, and amatuer standards. For years these clowns refused to believe that many of their so called 'wonder films' purchased off the back wall at the local truck stop next to the condom rack and smut mag bin weren't available in 120 format - for a reason - pros would never use them anyways because they *suck*. Trust me, I sent many letters to editor as to why they considered Kodak Ektar 125 and Gold 400 to be a 'superb wedding film' just as good as the professional ones, when it was obvious they didn't know what professional films were. Just like you, they can't tell high contrast print films from low contrast ones. Sad....<P>Next, if you'll check Photo.Net's archives, you'll see I was the first to start pushing Konica Impresa and was likely shooting this material and selling prints off it before you were ever aware of it. In my post here I cleary stated that <b>besides Impresa, Konica print films are grainy compared to the competition</b>, so are you visually impaired in terms of reading posts, or just going to stalk me in threads, misquote me, and defend a magazine that has consistently pushed amatuer film products over professional ones for 20years? I believe Bill T will back me up on my claims of Konica films being weak compared to Kodak UC 400, Supra 400, and Vista 400. Sure, Impresa scans well, but it has a realistic EI of 30 vs 50. <P>I'll next wait for your rant than Konica 100 is better than Reala, Mitsubishi paper has superior gamut range and stability to Fuji FA-5 or Crystal Archive, and Provia 100 has inferior grain next to Konica slide films. I'll also suggest you get some photographic material uploaded so we can see the results of your so called superior experience and testing procedures.<P>Sorry for the rant guys.

[george2]

I believe that most of us will be sorry if Ron Mowrey decides to leave this forum. He is one of the most knowledgeable among us all and he has been kind enough and patient enough to share his experience and scientific knowledge with politeness and good manners.

 

And Ron knows what he is talking about, unlike some other abrasive jealous "heroes" who managed to scare other experts from photo.net in the past.

 

I hope he is not offended by those who regard him as a rival, maybe as a threat, because he is the one who recognises the emperors new clothes.

 

Patience, Ron! We hope you stay.

[r.t. dowling]

I'm not an expert, not by a longshot, but I lost all trust/respect for Pop Photo when they said that Kodak Max Versatility Plus Zoom Whatever 800 had fine grain, natural colors and outstanding sharpness.

 

It seems like all they do is reprint the advertising propaganda from the manufacturers who make these films, re-wording some of it so it reads more like a review than an advertisement.

[rowland_mowrey]

George and others;

 

Many thanks. I just try to help. I appreciate your comments and e-mails.

 

Scott;

 

I never said I was a great photographer, but I am pretty good and have gotten quite a few spectacular photos. I usually don't share them, but here is one for you. It was probably taken while you were in diapers or maybe before that.

 

Title: Coming Home Copyright R. G. Mowrey

 

Film and Process: Ektachrome E4, field processed

 

Date and Location: 1961, East China Sea at about 30,000 ft

 

Camera: Original Nikon F, 50 mm lens.

 

Please excuse the image quality. The canopy gets kinda dirty sometimes. Field processing didn't help.

 

This was taken before Top Gun. The preceeding photos in this series included a roll over the other guys and I took one upside down a la Top Gun staring straight down into the cockpit. It was B&W 4x5. I was using both the Nikon and a Speed Graphic at the time.

 

One of the pictures in the sequence made the front page of the newspapers. So.. Think what you will Scott. I have been in professional photography for over 50 years and had some pretty exciting and scary assignments. I learned from some notable professionals in NASA, the USAF, EK, and Nat Geog.

 

My regards and respect for all of you out there.

 

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

[rowland_mowrey]

And, as you can see, I'm still learning how to use my new HP4870 scanner. I asked for a 4x6 image from 35 mm, and that is the way it displayed on my monitor when I checked it out before uploading.

 

Sorry guys, but I hope you enjoy it anyway.

 

Ron Mowrey

[jim_gifford]

Voodoos?