NC vs. VC vs. Ektar

[aaron_muderick]

<p>If I plan on scanning my film and working in Photoshop, is there a reason not to get Kodak NC film and then ramp up the colors after scanning to get something I like?  Why would I use VC or Ektar and maybe get stuck with loss of detail or perhaps too much saturation for my liking?  Thoughts?</p>

[mesullivan]

I find that increasing saturation in post scanning degrades detail while choosing a high saturation film does not. Kodak rates E100VS lower grained and sharper than G or GX and I find that true. Start with what you want instead of trying to achieve it with photoshop and I think you will be happier.

[tin_ho]

<p>I have tried to boost color saturation in post processing in Photoshop. It may look OK on screen but when the image is printed with my inkjet printer it looks aweful. On the other hand Kodak VC is always printed becaufully with plenty of saturation with only normal density and color balance post processing. I can barely see any film grain from my VC 35 mm film when blown up to only 8x10.</p>

[arjun_mehra]

<p>First of all, by that logic, you could also choose to shoot just Ektar 100 all the time, pulling down its saturation in Photoshop; alongside, you could abandon black-and-white films altogether, as, typically, it takes about three clicks to convert a color file to grayscale. Things do look different, though, don't they, when you get them a certain way to begin with from when you manipulate them afterwards? As well, one probably soon realizes that Photoshop isn't necessarily the "easy" path: fixing errors rather than trying to take error-free images — either way, it's work.<br>

If nothing else, I suppose you could keep in mind that Ektar 100 is far finer-grained than 160NC, or, apparently, than any other color negative film. Although, I guess you could just interpolate missing information, digitally, right...?</p>