100 and 400 ISO film with least grain

[steve_munoz]

Which 100 and 400 ISO 35mm negative color film is the best when it

comes to grain. Im asking because I scan at 4000x6000, and I want to

do some pretty big prints. Any help would be appreciated.

[bruce_rubenstein___nyc]

Probably Fuji Reala for 100 and Kodak UC400.

[h._shafi]

I second the Reala recommendation for 100, although I also like Gold 100 for optical prints up to 8x10. Haven't pushed those emulsions beyond that print size for 35mm, but my recommendations are based on an enlarger grain focusing magnifier that I use while printing that clearly shows differences in grain. Kodak 400UC and Fuji NPH for ISO 400.

 

Good luck.

[ilkka_nissila]

Reala and 100UC have fine grain, IMHO no iso 400 film has, but 400UC is probably the best of them.

[alan_chan4]

I have scanned Reala & Superia 400 with my grandold Minolta Scan Elite, and both are equally grainy after some heavy postprocessing. :-(

[gerald1]

A couple of years ago, over the new year holidays, I ran our of film and the only thing I could find in a convenience store open was Gold 100. It turned out some of my best pictures in terms of color and resolution. It scanned very well at full 4000 dpi resolution on the Nikon 4000 with virtually no tweaking. It is no longer available.

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"I scan at 4000x6000, and I want to do some pretty big prints."

 

Is there a reason for insisting on negative film? In terms of grain, I find that both Astia 100F and Velvia 100F look far better scanned at 4000 dpi than any negative film I've ever tried. Velvia is noticeably sharper and the colors have more punch, but the contrast is over the top, making exposure seriously critical.

 

Another approach is to hit your scans with NeatImage _before_ any sharpening.

[Michael R Freeman]

"... the only thing I could find in a convenience store open was Gold 100 ... It is no longer available."

 

You likely won't find it at the convenience store, but Gold 100 is still readily available. The marketing geniuses at Kodak now package it as "Bright Sun 100".

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e2328/e2328.shtml

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=27701&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

[steve_munoz]

Cost of processing is what keeps me from slides. I currently use reala and 400uc, looking to add npz 800 iso to my bag. How does that scan?

[roger_smith4]

NPZ scans fine (I have yet to find a negative film that challenges dedicated scanner hardware) but be careful not to underexpose or it will look awful. Expose for the shadows- seriously, I learned the hard way. Unfortunately doing so kills most of its speed advantage...

[bobmichaels]

Steve: always remember back in the old days, the enlarger / wet darkrrom days, the analog days that the camera optics and enlarger optics (now scanner) and use of a tripod seeemed to make more difference that variations between any of the good 35mm films of the same speed.

 

And remember that there was/still is a size limit where a large print from a 35mm neg seemed to start "falling apart" regardless of the optics or film used.

 

It seems all of those factors remain true today.

 

I would suggest that either a tripod or prime lenses somewhere around a middle aperture would make more difference than film selection given the same iso. Likewise even most of the poorer rated iso 100 films will do better than the best 400 ones. (yes they both have their place) Still any old cheap Medium Format camera with just about any film still blows away the best 35mm optics with the finest grain film. (but they both have their uses of course).

 

Just my $.02

[robert lee]

Try the new Fuji 160S (the NPS160 replacement) when it's available. Datasheet says it has finer grain than even Reala.

 

Also, give the negative more exposure than indicated, e.g., try 400UC at IS200. Aparent grain reduces significantly.

[steve_munoz]

I was also looking to try Ilford Pan F Plus 50 ISO for some black/white photography. But I only want to try this if the grain is significantly less that Reala. Anyone know if it is?

[scott levine]

Kodak Portra 160NC rated for 100 gives fantastic results. Contrast,color and sharpness

are

all first rate and it's built for scanning.

[bill_tuthill]

According to datasheets using approximate RMS conversion formulae,

Fuji Pro 160S and 160C will be less grainy than any Velvia,

but slightly grainier than Astia 100F.

[pvp]

Grain? What is this "grain" you speak of?

 

Steve, if you're serious about wanting/needing "big" prints, it may be time to bite the equipment bullet and step up to MF or LF.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yeah, medium and large formats are nice but money is often a consideration. A drum scanner and LF outfit do cost money and you need a Jeep to carry them around. But yeah, the prints are beautiful.

 

Many of us need the flexibility of small-format systems. To go from 114 degrees angle of view to 3 degrees by changing lenses is, while not necessary, certainly handy!

[pvp]

Ilkka, don't take any of this as an attack, but let's examine your claims...<P><HR width=50%><BR>

<I>Yeah, medium and large formats are nice but money is often a consideration.</I><P>

Right you are, and I'm pleased to report that since I started using 4x5 film, the cost of my affliction has plummeted. That's right, 4x5 costs LESS than 35mm, once you have your equipment. It seems that the slow-paced nature of LF photography inevitably results in less film used, and because you'll spend so much more effort on each shot there is a much better ratio of keepers to wastebasket. Used equipment in top-notch condition isn't at all out of reach; I have just over $1,000 invested in a field camera plus 3 lenses.<P>

 

<I>A drum scanner and LF outfit do cost money... </I><P>

I kinda covered my entry costs for a 4x5 outfit above, and believe me you can spend much less. As for a drum scanner, well yes they are nice, but the quality of flatbeds that can scan 4x5 (and even 8x10) continues to improve. You can get a flatbed that will produce excellent 300+MB scans from 4x5 for much less than a 4000 dpi 35mm scanner.<P>

 

<I>...and you need a Jeep to carry them around.</I><P>

Yeah, well I need a Jeep to get into the places I like to photograph anyway! I don't know many 35mm nature photographers who don't use a vehicle to get to their subject. :o)<P>

OK, what about weight? My Tachihara 4x5 (no lens) weighs 1,800g, while my Canon T90 - with a 50mm f/1.4 lens -- weighs only 1,320g. Winner: 35mm.<P>

Now lets get real. We're gonna need more than just that 50mm lens out in the field, so let's add a couple more. I've got a 20mm f/2.8 that weighs 345g, and a 300mm that tips the scales at 2,860g. Now my 35mm outfit, with 3 lenses, weighs 4,745g, a shade less than 10.5 pounds. Meanwhile, by three lenses for the 4x5 (90mm, 150mm and 245mm) weigh 415g, 240g and 660g, respectively. Five film holders (10 exposures, more than I manage most days) weigh a total of 860g. The 4x5 outfit with three lenses, and a day's worth of film, weighs a total of 3,975g (8.76 pounds.)<P>

The winner, by a pound and three-quarters: Large format!<P>

<I>Many of us need the flexibility of small-format systems. To go from 114 degrees angle of view to 3 degrees by changing lenses is, while not necessary, certainly handy!</I><P>

The "need" for all that flexibility is greatest if you're one of the poor souls who try to earn a living in journalistic photography. For the rest of us, it's more like "want." I still have my 35mm equipment, and can go from 180 degrees to 2.5 degrees just by changing lenses. But not one of those lenses covers 4x5 film, so when I want the best images, I have to choose square inches over millimeters. (Remember, too, with 4x5 film you can crop if you need to get in tighter. That's not recommended with 35mm)<P>

<I>But yeah, the prints are beautiful.</I><P>

You said it all. Cheers!