Fuji color print films -- what are the differences?

[bjm]

Fuji has 2 new color print films 160S and 160C -- replacements/updates

of NPS and NPC providing finer grain, better scanning, and ? How do

these 2 new films compare to Fuji Reala in terms of color, contrast

and grain? Fuji tech info say that 160S and 160C is finer grained than

the slower 100 speed Reala (granularity of 3 vs. 4)? I will further

note that the new 160s and 160C are significantly more expensive than

Reala (50% or more) and the remaining stock of NPS and NPC? I am

primarily interested in 120 roll film, but are there any differecnes

between 35mm and 120 sizes in these films?

 

Does anyone have experience with these new films? Has anyone compared

them? What do you all think? Many thanks.

[neal_wydra1]

Dear B,

 

You need to run to the newsstand and purchase the latest Photo Techniques. They have a 4 page review.

[bjm]

Hmmm. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that I'll be able to get to a news stand that actually carries Photo Techniques anytime soon. Can anyone summarize what it says?

[phule]

You can order the current issue (without a subscription) right from their website: http://www.phototechmag.com/current.htm

[r.t. dowling]

I'm not sure how much faith I have in Fuji's RMS numbers. If I'm not mistaken, NPS and Reala both have a rating of RMS 4, but I've found NPS to be noticably grainer than Reala.

 

If 160S and 160C are indeed less grainy than Reala, that would make them the finest-grained color negative films currently on the market.

[fast_primes]

Just to add a historical perspective, what were the RMS ratings of Kodak's long discontinued Ektar 25 and Konica's recently discontinued Impresa 50?

[r.t. dowling]

Impresa was rated at RMS 4.

 

Ferrania Solaris 100 and Agfa Portrait 160 are both rated at RMS 3.5.

[25asa]

Ektar was also 4, though everyone knows its the finest grained film ever made, so that number has to be off.

[bill_tuthill]

Ektar 25 is the highest resolution film ever made, not necessarily

the least grainy. I have some long-frozen rolls that I can compare

with 160C and 160S.

 

Agfa Portrait 160 is rated RMS 3.5 due to low contrast, but once you

increase contrast to normal levels post-scan, it seems higher than

that.

 

Nice to know about the Photo Techniques article. I'd better run my

160S and 160C tests before reading it so as to avoid pre-bias.

[25asa]

Bill- Ektar had a PGI of less then 25. No Kodak film since has gotten close, yet they do have fine grained films.

 

Post the results of your test when you finish. I'd like to compare them as well. I also have rolls of Ektar 25, but I'd rather save them. I don't see Pro 160 in the stores here yet. The small grain size of Pro 160 makes me wonder if it is close to Ektars grain size.

[r.t. dowling]

Scott and Bill, when you say it's the finest grained film ever made, and the highest resolution film ever made... perhaps you should be more specific and say "color print film ever made" -- I'm fairly certain that there are color transparency and B&W negative films that have finer grain and higher resolution than Ektar 25 had.

[25asa]

You're correct- I should have been more specific. Stand corrected.

[jonas_palm1]

Come on - this is an international forum and there are lots of places on this earth where a

particular magazine isn't easily accessible. I've _never_ seen that magazine anywhere in

Europe!

If you have information, share, and if you don't want to that's OK too, but pointing people

in useless directions just isn't helpful.

 

The film has finally become an orderable item, and I'll order a batch of 135 and 120 film,

but it will take me a while to get by all appearances. I've been waiting since last Photokina,

so if someone would kindly provide some info, it would be appreciated, if only to alleviate

the frustration.

 

jgp

[bill_tuthill]

Kodak TechPan and Agfa Copex (repackaged as Gigabitfilm) had

higher resolution than Ektar 25, but no slide film ever did.

Kodachrome 25 was slightly sharper as measured by MTF but really

stank for high-contrast resolution. Using imprecise conversion

factors, Provia 100F and especially now Astia 100F are less grainy

than Ektar 25 but much less sharp. Using the same imprecise factors,

160S and 160C ought to be less grainy than all slide films ever made

except Astia 100F.

 

Of course there is a lot of slop in reporting RMS numbers etc.

Grain is measured only for gray, whereas in real life, blue sky grain

is the most visible except for people living in all-gray all-the-time areas like Syracuse NY. Rochester isn't quite as bad!

[fast_primes]

There's one variable that must be taken up in a discussion of absolute relative grain and that is <i>WET</i> versus <i>DRY</i> mounting! Given that optical enlarging (which is akin to dry mounting) of color prints is fast fading (except for such color maestros as CTEIN and B&W work), chances are ever stronger that digital scanning will comprise the first step. I've been hanging out on the yahoo WETMOUNTING@yahoogroups.com list. and they have some startling evidence/pictures revealing that WET mounting (the use of fluid to couple film to a drum or flatbed scanner) substantially (or even vastly) reduces grain and improves contrast all by itself (in the group pictures and files section)! The point is that there might be relative differences in the improvements wrought by wet-mounting between the different films. I personaly don't know!<br><br>

I've heard it stated that wet mounting alone, accounts for up to 85% of the qualitative benefit of drum scans. Obviously the whole dry/wet issue would be best taken up under a separate thread, but I thought it should be mentioned. Still, the evidence I've seen suggest that wet mounting an ASA 400 film, might very well be superior in grain to a dry mounted 100 ASA film (slide or negative).

[elliot_n]

I too would be interested in a summary of the review from the US magazine.

 

These new Fuji films have just come to market here in the UK.

 

I've been shooting a long-term project on NPC (and still have about 40 rolls of it to shoot).

I'm curious as to whether I should be trying to source the discontinued NPC to complete

the project, or whether 160C will give me similar results.

 

Anyone here used it? Or read that review?

 

Thanks

 

Elliot

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

There are three new films in Japan: PRO160NC, PRO160NS, and PRO160NH.

 

http://fujifilm.jp/personal/film/color/professional/

 

(You can click the links next to the "PDF" to download the Japanese data sheets. You don't need to be able to read Japanese to see the charts and find the RMS and resolution numbers.)

 

If I have this right, PRO160NS and PRO160NH were released in 2004 and PRO160NC was released this year. PRO160NC is the highest contrast of the three and requires no exposure compensation up to four seconds.

 

PRO160NS and PRO160NH are portrait films, with NS having slightly lower contrast for use with strobes. I shot a roll of PRO160NH this March, but was not knocked out. I have a couple of rolls of PRO160NC here waiting for a free day with no work and decent weather, a combination that hasn't been seen here in several months, it seems...

[anders_br_the]

R.T. Dowling; the highest resolving film you could get would be a B&W negative. Then a colour negative which will be less sharp than the B&W since in B&W you get the actual exposed silver grains, while in colour negative you get the dye cloud around the actual exposed silver grain as "colour grain". Colour reversal would be the least sharp as the indirect the film will carry two grain patterns due to first developer and colour developer.

 

So I'm pretty sure you're mistaken :-)