Kodak Portra 400 UC better than Fuji NPH 400 ?

[havenornirvana]

I`m using Contax T3.My everyday film was Fuji Reala(100).Reala is

really good film but my camera is a P&S camera so i think 100 film is

abit too dark.Recently I tried NPH 400 but this film is not sharp at

all when i compare to reala.I read some reviews about Kodak Portra

UC400

.Many user thinks UC400 very good film.But is it better than NPH 400?

Is it shaper than NPH 400?Or is there any better than this two, 400

film?

thanks

Irfi

[eigtball]

Not sure what you mean by sharp? Is it a soft focus, or are the colours muted? Are you looking for colour saturation, or are you looking for grain?

 

Cheers,

[havenornirvana]

I mean NPH 400 gives me soft focus photos.

[the_macman]

Weird.

Pull Reala a little if your camera allows you to do so.

[jim_gifford]

Try the Kodak 400UC film, you'll like it.

 

Some people find the results from NPH are a little flat, a little blah, just generally lacking in pop and sizzle. Certainly compared to Reala, which has a whole lot of punch, a roll of NPH is a quiet and subtle experience.

 

I should note that I like NPH a lot, but I liked Kodak Supra 400 even more, and nowadays when it's time to restock 400 speed color neg I go for the Kodak 400UC.

 

No, it is not cheap. But I do not know any 400 film that is both very good and very inexpensive.

 

Be well,

[bill_tuthill]

Maybe. According to the datasheets, UC400 might be sharper than NPH.

MTF for NPH falls below 50% at about 55 cyles/mm (all colors graphed

together, or maybe just gray?) while MTF for UC400 falls below 50%

at 90 cycles/mm for green, 65 cycles/mm for green, and 35 cycles/mm

for red. Moreover, UC400 graphs sharper near 100% response. How are

you judging sharpness? Certainly UC400 Vuescans better than NPH, if

or until Ed does an NPH profile. But NPH prints great on a Frontier.

[scott_eaton]

UC 400 is the sharper and better scanning of the two films, but not by some dramatic degree. Older NPH might appear softer than UC 400 in optical prints.

 

NPH and UC 400 are closer to each other in terms of appearent sharpness than they are to Reala.

[steve_levine]

Try to find a lab that knows what they are doing.

[eric merrill]

I rarely shoot color, but I'm happy with the NPH I've shot. If you're getting soft focus, I'd blame the P&S before I'd blame the film.

 

<p>

Here's a recent shot with NPH. Click for a larger version:

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.merrillphotography.com/color/corn_cob.html"><img src="http://www.merrillphotography.com/canid/pics/jbm_corn2_small.jpg" border='0'></a>

 

 

<p>

--<br>

Eric<br>

<a href="http://www.merrillphotography.com/">Sioux Falls Portrait Photographer</a><br>

[david_bedell]

"I mean NPH 400 gives me soft focus photos."

 

That's bizarre. NPH is an awesome film.

 

Steve is right: If you're judging from prints, your lab could very well just suck.

 

If you were shooting in challenging conditions (low shutter speeds or/and some situation

where focus might have been off) that could also be the culprit.

 

Get Frontier prints or scan some of the negatives yourself to see what you've really got...

[madwand]

<i>No, it is not cheap. But I do not know any 400 film that is both very good and very inexpensive.</i><p>

 

These are at least somewhat subjective terms -- "very good" and "very inexpensive". However, it does bring to mind HD 400 as a possible exception. Kodak makes some claims about its quality.<p>

 

<i>"KODAK High Definition 400 Film is the world's finest grain 400-speed color print film. It provides a unique balance of fine grain, sharpness, color reproduction, and contrast to yield results with excellent clarity and enlargement capability. This multi-purpose film is designed for exposure with daylight or electronic flash. You can also obtain pleasing results under most existing-light sources without filters."</i><p>

 

<i>"Brings state-of-the-art KODAK ADVANTIX Film technology to 35 mm, for superior grain in the 400-speed class"</i><p>

 

Now, I'm not sure how SOTA Kodak Advantix technology is supposed to be, and what it means for 35mm. This contrasts somewhat with the HD 200 notes, which are as follows:<p>

 

<i>"Brings state-of-the-art technology of KODAK PROFESSIONAL ROYAL SUPRA Films, to a 35 mm mass market consumer film."</i><p>

 

I hate to say it, but I have yet to try HD 400. I have however tried and quite liked HD 200, which is why I've brought this up -- I have some hope for HD 400. (Which I can dash for myself, thanks in advance.)

[chris haake]

Mr. Wand, I quite like HD400. It's a very good film...reminds me a LOT of UC400, though not as fine-grained and skin tones aren't quite as good (at least with Caucasians), and saturation control seems to be at least a little better with UC400. Keep in mind, though, that I haven't done any strictly scientific tests with these two fims, so this is not a technical analysis. HD200 is also a very, very good film, which reminds me that I have to order some....

[bill_tuthill]

"[HD 400] is the world's finest grain 400-speed color print film."

Kodak's professional division should sue the consumer division for

this lie. Unless HD400 got ruined on its trip from Rochester to the

west coast, my measurements (PNG compression of 2400 dpi Vuescans)

indicate it is 15% grainier than UC400. The difference in skin-tone

grainyness is easily visible in 4x6 prints. Maybe due to dye-cloud

sharpness, HD200 is 17% grainier than UC400. Perhaps someone could

repeat my tests with a better scanner.

[havenornirvana]

One of i got from NPH.<div></div>

[madwand]

<i>""[HD 400] is the world's finest grain 400-speed color print film." Kodak's professional division should sue the consumer division for this lie."</i><p>

 

It's consistent with Kodak's own PGI numbers, whatever they mean, and however they're determined.<p>

 

<i>"Perhaps someone could repeat my tests with a better scanner."</i><p>

 

The PNG methodology, although quite plausible, doesn't carry a weight of certainty. Perhaps someone can enlighten us as to how digitial camera noise measurements / graphs are made, and whether they can be used for such purposes with film.<p>

 

Moreover, I'd add that it's very unlikely that anyone here or at Kodak will claim that HD 400 is actually superiour to 400 UC, merely that it's a cheaper and a potentially viable alternative that you can pick up at drugstores.

[david_bedell]

"One of i got from NPH."

 

What were your exposure settings for this shot?

 

Was the camera handheld?

[joe_manthey1]

"[HD 400] is the world's finest grain 400-speed color print film." Kodak's professional division should sue the consumer division for this lie. Unless HD400 got ruined on its trip from Rochester to the west coast, my measurements (PNG compression of 2400 dpi Vuescans) indicate it is 15% grainier than UC400. The difference in skin-tone grainyness is easily visible in 4x6 prints. Maybe due to dye-cloud sharpness, HD200 is 17% grainier than UC400. Perhaps someone could repeat my tests with a better scanner."

 

Bill,

 

Your observations are completely inconsistent with objective measurements made on these films at time of manufacture. In order to make generalizations like this, experiments need to be better controlled. For example, the pre-exposure history of the samples should be approximately the same, and they have to be processed at the same time. An alternative is to say that "my single sample of XXX is grainier than my single sample of YYY as measured by my scanning equipment". That's completely different than saying XXX is grainier than YYY. I can say this because your generalization is wrong. I know you're trying very hard to provide forum readers with useful information, but unfortunately it's not always correct. This is not a flame. I respect your intentions.

 

As an aside, I've worked with granularity measurements for twenty years and have no idea what "15% grainier" means because it's not a linear scale. What's the relationship of that amount to a JND, i.e., is it significant or just noise (no pun intended)?

[bill_tuthill]

Last October I posted 2400 dpi flesh-tone scans in thread <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Io7">

HD400 or Portra400</A> showing how much grainier dark and light skin

tones are in HD400. I bought a 3-pack of fresh HD400 (just arrived

in the camera store) and all showed grainy skin tones in 4x6 prints,

so it's not just that UC400 scans better. By 15% I mean that PNG

compression is 15% larger, because grain at 2400 dpi shows up as

cloud-dye detail, whereas smooth color-patches compress better.

Why are we discussing HD400 in this thread anyway?

[havenornirvana]

Exposure was 0 and camera was handheld.

Here it is another(with flas).

Irfi<div></div>

[david_bedell]

First, nice color in the photos. ;-)

 

"Exposure was 0 and camera was handheld. Here it is another(with flas)."

 

When you say "Exposure was 0", do you mean exposure compensation was zero? In other words, you were shooting in a fully automatic mode?

 

The reason I ask is because if the camera was making all the exposure decisions, it might have done something like going into a slow-sync flash mode that would lead to slower shutter speeds, which means camera shake and softness since you were handheld.

 

Are you sure the flash wasn't used in the first picture you posted, too? It looks like it might have been.

[chi_confucious]

Kodak 400UC is sharper than NPH 400. Recently I noticed I ran out of Porta but still had some NPH 400 left. I do 2900 dpi Nikon scans. On close inspection, the NPH didn't look quite as tact sharp as Portra. I've been sold on UC since I tried it for the first time early last year. I used to be a die hard NPH fan but have switched nearly 100%.

[havenornirvana]

After some roll i see kodak Portra 400uc sharper than nph.

[James G. Dainis]

Looking at your picnic photo above, the blacks are black, the reds are red, the greens are green and the flesh tones are right on. The photo looks like it was taken on an overcast, low lit, low contrast day. The sharpness that is lacking in the background may be a result of low depth of field from using a large aperture due to the low light. Try shooting on a brightly lit day to see the difference.