Fuji Superia xtra 400 vs. Potra 400 VC

[babette_ross]

I'm trying to decide between these two films for a trip out to the

the Grand Tetons/Yellowstone. I am going to shoot test rolls this

weekend but there will be a world of difference between out west and

norteast coast... anyone have a strong preference? I've decided on

400 speed. And i want my prints to be vibrant but not quite Velvia

type oversaturated. Thanks

[ccrevasse]

Rather than the Superia 400, I would use Fuji NPH, also 400 speed. In my opinion, the new NPH provides good skin tones and rich colors without being over-the-top. You can order NPH from B&H for a per-frame price that is about the same as the cost of Superia 400. Also, while I've never used either Portra VC or Portra UC, folks rave about Portra UC, but not VC, so you may want to try UC instead.

[eric friedemann]

I would suggest shooting Fuji NPZ 800 @ E.I. 400- low grain and beautiful color:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh3.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___231836___FUNPZ36PP___USA___CatID=0___SID=F7770101BB0

 

It would be my suggestion that if you shoot Superia 400, you bracket between 400 and 320.

 

I despise Kodak Portra films. I don't like the colors and they are difficult to print. But if you have your heart set on shooting 400 VC, I would bracket between 400 and 320.

[bill_tuthill]

NPH scanned by a Fuji Frontier and printed on Crystal Archive paper

is superb. So is Portra 400UC printed on Royal Gold or Agfa Prestige paper. NPH doesn't seem to scan quite as well as 400UC. These are definitely the best general-purpose print films available now. I

avoid Superia 400 due to inconsistency. Portra 400VC is very grainy

unless you're shooting medium format.

[ted_marcus1]

The current version of Superia 400 (identified only by a <i>rounded</i> backing card) is supposedly a new emulsion. Fuji claims that it has the finest grain of any ISO 400 film (Kodak makes the same inaccurate claim about High Definition 400, even though their own Portra 400UC has finer grain). Because this new version is an unknown quantity, it's impossible to make any statements about it until someone tests it (Bill?).

 

<p>If you are looking for good prints, I have found that Kodak High Definition 400 produces beautiful mini-lab prints on both optical and digital printers. Just be careful about giving the shadows adequate exposure, since underexposed shadows get very grainy. Kodak sells HD400 only in 24-exposure rolls, but "Royal Supra [Professional] 400" sold in Europe appears to be the same film and is available via mail-order in 36-exposure rolls. Portra 400UC has finer grain and gets great reviews from practically everyone who uses it, but it is quite expensive.

 

<p>Another option is Fuji Superia 800 (or the identical Press 800) rated at 640. While it's a bit grainier than the finest-grained 400-speed films, it's still very fine-grained. The color certainly meets your "vibrant but not quite Velvia type oversaturated" criteria and the image quality is amazingly good. You'd have a hard time identifying it as an ISO 800 film. The extra speed may come in handy for the inevitable overcast you'll encounter in Wyoming (I visited Grand Teton in early October 1990, using the late great Ektar 125-- and a tripod).

[steve_ql]

You'd like Print film, 400 speed, and "vibrant".

 

Portra UC

seems to manage great skin tones with superb colors. I mention

skin tones because I'm assuming you might include some people

in your photos as well (for memory or scale, etc.). VC and Superia aren't the greatest when it comes to skin tones. Color is subjective, so try it before you decide on it for the trip.

 

As far as grain is concerned, I have no idea why anyone would pick

NPZ over Portra UC. Even shot at 400, NPZ doesn't come close to

Portra UC for fine grain. I'm also making the assumption that you

might want to enlarge some of the Grand Teton pictures rather than

just keep them at proof size.

[babette_ross]

i originally had the NPH on my list, i was using the popular photography's rating of 89 color films (or some such title) as a guide. I think i had "rejected" it because of the saturation or grain rating (but the article is home and im at work so im not positive) but I'll swing by b&h and give that one a try too... instead of the porta uc - ive only used the nc and i do like that but not for scenry. I will, undoubtly, take a few pictures of us there - but im much more concerned with the scenery and yes, if something comes out great i will be likely to blow up to 8x10 so i was looking at low grain films (in that pop photo article)

[scott_eaton]

Kodak Portra UC if you're going the Kodak lab route, or Fuji NPH if you're using a Frontier or Fuji processing. It's as easy as that.

 

I'll shoot slides before using Portra VC. The V is for Valium, which is what the emulsion engineers use to evaluate this cruddy and boring film that is barely better than a 1980's version of VR 400.

 

Fuji can reformulate Superia Xtra all they want. It's still a consumer print film, meaning it's sold in sleezy liquor stores and will have obnoxious contrast and lousy consistency.

[eric friedemann]

"I have no idea why anyone would pick NPZ over Portra UC. Even shot at 400, NPZ doesn't come close to Portra UC for fine grain."

 

Perhaps because you can actually shoot NPZ at 400 and get a negative of normal density. People on this board shoot Portra UC at 320 so as to avoid underexposed images.

[bill_tuthill]

Rounded backing card, eh Ted? I'll look for it. Hopefully it'll be

similar to new NPH, as some older Super G+ emulsion (CH-4?) was to

old NPH, before Fuji started royally ruining and randomly renaming CH.

The pre-round emulsion CH-7 has the most pock-marked skin tones

I have seen short of Royal Gold 1000 and other obsolete films.

[elliot_n]

Portra 400VC. The V is for versatile.

 

If you must, do a side-by-side test with Portra 400UC. The U is for ugly.

[scott_eaton]

<I>If you must, do a side-by-side test with Portra 400UC. </i><P>I have, and UC won, and 'if you must', please learn to upload images to your personal folder if you're going to make assertations that VC is a decent film. Show us your 'versatile' images, or please shut the {expletive deleted} up regarding this retarded film which was another example of Kodak's marketing dept inventing film. I suppose you pefer PMC over NPZ as well.<P>Unlike the rather p~ssy-whipped and grainy Portra VC, UC is capable of recording both decent skin tones and strong colors, and be able to work in available light conditions, as per my upload. VC, as proven by other tests and not just by my mouth, is nothing more that Portra NC with more contrast. Basically, if you want the Portra VC 'look', and basically that dull Kodak 1992 senior portrait look, then process Portra NC half a stop because you'll get the same results as Portra VC. We're taking out-door scenics here, and not senior portraits, so that pretty much excludes VC being in the same building in this discussion. <P><div></div>

[preston_merchant]

Being dogmatic (and snide) about the most inconsequential issues makes for high comedy.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

It's a laff a minute here on PN.

[bill_tuthill]

I used 400VC once, and the inconsequential results are online in case

anybody wants to see its muddy greens in overcast weather (images 1-3

and 5-6, the sun came out for #4), its lack of shadow detail (images

8 and 16) and its bubbly blue-sky grain (images 13-15). Wish I had

listened to Scott before departing on this trip:

 

http://creekin.net/battle.htm

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Bill, what did you scan those from ? They resemble minilab prints to me, which would certainly explain the shadow & highlight clipping.

[bill_tuthill]

Those were HP-S10 scans from negatives. Perhaps Vuescan could do

better using the dedicated Portra VC setting? I'm willing to try.

[rickaubin]

"Kodak Portra UC if you're going the Kodak lab route, or Fuji NPH if you're using a Frontier or Fuji processing. It's as easy as that."

 

I had intended a vote for NPH, then saw Scott's comment about UC. How bad is the Kodak stuff on a Frontier? I'm itching to try it for scenics.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Bill, I'd be very surprised if you couldn't dig up better shadow and highlight detail, as well as selective color saturation, with some simple Photoshop manipulation -- provided the detail is on the neg's.

 

<br /><br />I would start by looking at them on a lightbox with a loupe, and comparing areas of detail apparently lost in scanning -- to see if anything is there. If it is (and the pics are important to you), I would rescan in Vuescan, paying particular attention to clipping by moving your cursor over relevant areas and reading the resulting rgb and density values (which appear at the bottom of the screen). Adjust vuescan settings until you have the widest possible tonal range <I>without any scan-induced clipping whatsoever</I>. Gamma, color and contrast can all be addressed in PS later, though it certainly helps to try and get it into the ballpark at this stage.

[canon_eos_rules]

The new Superia 400 is great, but 400UC is MUCH better. If you're not on a budget,

go with Portra 400UC-the best print film in the world (in my opinion). However,

because you don't like Disneychrome (Velvia), I'd suggest you try 1 of each at home

first and see what you like best.

 

BTW, I've heard almost nothing but bad things about Portra 400VC, so it might be

best to avoid it.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

I really like Kodak 400UC and Portra 400VC. Both are excellent films. I burn them @ 320.

 

Russ<div></div>

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Portra 400VC snap<div></div>

[gheorghe_chistol]

<p>This fisherman is scarry, looks like one of those guys from cheese zombie movies. Sorry for the remark. Btw, I love Portra 400 VC, sunsets look amazing on it.</p>