Comparison of Kodak 100UC and 400UC

[User_1577653]

Can anyone who's tried both of these comment on how 100UC compares

with 400UC, specifically in terms of grain? I seem to recall reading

somewhere the opinion that the 100 speed version did not provide

enough of an improvement in grain and color to warrant it's use

compared the the faster 400 speed. I also read many of the older

posts on this forum, including the tests and conclusions reached by

Scott Pickering, and others. But I haven't heard much recently, so I

was wondering what other people's exerience has been, or for that

matter if people are even using this film.

 

I should add that the number of variables involved in generating a

final print are so numerous that I tend to take with a grain of salt

the usual comments about how this or that film tends to blow

highlights, block up certain colors, have a certain color cast, etc.

That's why I was specifically looking for people who can make a

direct comparison between 100UC/400UC, regardless of their processing

methods.

 

"Stop asking questions and just go try it!" (...I know someone would

say it, so I thought I would beat you to the punch! *S*)

 

Jeff

[User_1577653]

Oops, I just realized there are some good comments in this recent thread

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BxwT

 

 

Sorry!

[roger_smith4]

I don't see much in that threat about 100UC vs 400UC and would be interested in comments on this. I'd also be interested in 100UC vs Reala as I have only been using Reala and 400UC.

[r.t. dowling]

I don't really care for 100UC. It's not a BAD film by any means, but if I'm going to use an ISO 100 film, I much prefer either Fuji Reala or one of the Kodak or Fuji slide films. Reala has better skin tones than 100UC and is slightly sharper. And any of the modern ISO 100 slide films are much sharper and have much finer grain.

 

When it comes to ISO 400, though, 400UC is almost impossible to beat.

[bill_tuthill]

I'll have to try 100UC again, because Anthony Oresteen sure got good

results from it. Ctein tested it for the Sep/Oct 2004 issue of

Photo Techniques magazine, and liked it. I tried 100UC only once,

finding blue sky rendition weak, and overall it seemed grainier than

400UC. One year ago I posted yellow patch grain comparisons <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008MjU">in

this thread</A>.

[ilkka_nissila]

I also have now used both 100UC and 400UC for about 5 rolls each (having moved to the US) and basically the 100 stuff is much less grainy than the 400. The colors are really nice on both. I have a strong preference to the 100UC.

 

I think the colours and behaviour of 100uc are similar to Royal Supra 200 which I used while I lived in Europe where they don't have the 100UC, but maybe the 100UC has stronger colors. The RS200 was my favourite color negative film. I exposed it at iso 100 (as Kodak suggested it should be exposed if concerned with grain), and the difference between the 200 and 400 stuff was there also very significant in scans. I would not use the 400 unless necessary, as the grain is quite visible in 8x12 prints even after NeatImage. I much prefer the results of the 100 and 200 films. I realize that many people on this forum don't share my view but maybe they don't look at large enough enlargements or scans.

[ilkka_nissila]

Notice that many of the people who have a preference for 400UC use it in medium format where the difference in grain is less significant, and they have slower lenses so they prefer the faster films. But judging from 35 mm results, there is no question that the 100UC is the better film from the point of view of image quality.

[john_shriver]

It may also be that many labs lacked channel profiles for 100UC and 400UC at first, and 100UC didn't print well without that data. I certainly found that prints from Kodak High Definition 400 were second rate for many months after it came out, it was only the last roll I used for unimportant work that came out well printed.

 

So, take some old 100UC negatives that previously dissapointed, and have them printed again.

[ilkka_nissila]

I exposed my 100UC at EI 64 so maybe that's why I liked it .. color negs slightly underexposed will show a lot of grain in scans.

[bill_tuthill]

Ctein evaluated speed thus: "Ultra Color 100 is much faster than it

ought to be. It certainly wasn't 2/3 stop slower than Portra 160;

as far as I could tell it was identical in speed." I'm curious

whether 100UC sharpness improves at EI 160 or 200.

 

I'd like to see some grain comparisons, Les and Ilkka. Could just be

that 400UC Vuescans better than 100UC, but my Macbeth chart scans at

2400 dpi show 100UC to be 16% grainer than 400UC as measured by PNG compression. Ctein implies that 400UC has grainier skin tones when

printed, but this is certainly not the case in my scans. I can repeat

my test using an Agfa d-Lab.2 scanner (400UC half already done).

[User_1577653]

Wow, some great responses so far - glad I asked! Of course, I'm just going to have to get some 100UC and try it out for myself. The reason I brought it up in the first place is that I have been doing a fair amount of wildlife shooting lately with 400UC and have been wondering if I couldn't do better (grain-wise) with the 100UC - at least for those times when I the light will allow it. For me it comes down specifically to how the two compare when scanned on a CanoscanFS4000, because that's the scanner I have. Scanning at home is somewhat of a pain compared to simply having a lab make prints directly, but with a little care I should be able to make a fairly well-controlled test. What I'm thinking of is something like you did, Bill, with the MacBeth color chart and all. I don't actually have the official chart, but with a little care I'm sure I can come up with some meaningful tests. When (and if! *S*) I get around to all this, I'll report my findings back here.

[25asa]

I've used Reala quite a few times and like it. But reading current responses on 100UC makes me think of giving the film a second chance. We now use a digital printer at work, so this may give more interesting results. That last test I did that you read was done on an analog printer, so whatever the film is like will go direct to paper with no scan step. I did find it grainy in blue sky when blown up, but I find many films have blue sky grain problem. I still found contrast high, but maybe now with digital it may produce better results.

[albert lui]

I compared NPH (a 400 speed film) to UC100, with shots of a CAPA color chart. Both films were scanned with an FS4000 and Filmget (set to Auto Gain). I certainly don't have Bill T's expertise on film, but here is what I found: Although I like UC100's color rendition very much (especially the pastels), for color accuracy and neutral grays NPH is preferable. Both films blocked up on the red flower image. These observations should be taken with a grain of salt, as someone with a Nikon or Minolta scanner may get different results. Unfortunately, I discarded the scans, so I can't post them.

[User_1577653]

Les, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks. That image and your comments are consistent with what I would have expected for the difference between 100/400.

 

<BTW Jeff, shooting it and seeing the results could be more fun then analyzing it ;-)

 

Well after your post maybe I'll just forget the testing. Hmmm... actually taking pictures rather than doing tests... what a novel idea! :)

 

Albert, thanks for the comments. I've tried one roll of NPH, and if I recall correctly my results were pretty much the same as yours in terms of color rendition (as expected - I think the properties of NPH versus the high saturation films are pretty well known). What I really liked about the NPH was the more natural skin-tone rendition. 400UC does a *good* job I would say with skintones, and I think is more than acceptable for what I'm shooting these days - mostly wildlife with occasional snapshots of family thrown in. But if I knew I was going to be shooting just people, I might choose the NPH over the 400UC.

[bill_tuthill]

Yeah Jeff, NPH doesn't go as wild with red complexions as 400UC can.

Steve Dunn posted an inkjet-printable Macbeth chart <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AIyW">in

this thread</A>, if you want to test grain on your scanner.

<P>Les,

I mistyped (and just corrected) my grain comment about Natura 1600.

In your scans it measured and looked less grainy than Press 800.

Thanks for the 100UC samples; it'll take time to evaluate them.

[reuben_c]

<blockquote><i>Ctein evaluated speed thus: "Ultra Color 100 is much faster than it ought to be. It certainly wasn't 2/3 stop slower than Portra 160; as far as I could tell it was identical in speed." I'm curious whether 100UC sharpness improves at EI 160 or 200.</i></blockquote>

<p>

In Europe (at least the part of Europe where I looked at Kodak's regional website a few months ago), they sell what appears to be the same film as 100UC, but as a <i>200</I> speed film. In that market, they sell 200 and 400 for the UC counterparts, but no 100.

<p>

Couple that with reports I've seen that say that the 100 Ultra Color behaves better when exposed at 200 (less blocked-up highlights, etc.), and, it having PGI that is more like a 200 than the older (discontinued) 100 (Supra/Royal Gold/Ektar), and it makes me wonder how I should expose the test rolls they sent me.

<p>

I guess I'll bracket, and see what I can see.

<p>

In either case, I miss the "old" emulsions -- the ones we were stuck with before they were replaced with the "new, improved" emulsions. <i>What</I> do I miss about them?

<p>

Well, the finer grain and higher resolution, that's what.

[albert lui]

Hi Jeff,

 

I agree with you on UC400 and portraits. Interestingly, Superia 800 didn't block up on the red flower image (p/o of CAPA color chart). Unfortunately, it was noticeably grainier than NPH. Thanks.