Kodak 400 HD ... Do you rate@400ISO ?

[fredus]

Hi there,

 

I'm going to shoot tomorow and I just saw these 2 rolls of Kodak HD

400 in my fridge ... Is it best to leave it @ 400 or do you

overexpose it a bit (@320 ...) ?

 

Fred

[lex_jenkins]

I don't think that rerating color negative film less than a full stop is worth the effort. Last week I shot a roll of Kodak Gold 100, duplicating some shots while varying between EI 100 and 50. I could hardly see the difference in either the prints or negatives. In a couple of cases the rerated negatives scanned a bit better, holding both highlight and shadow areas better.

 

Try bracketing in full stops, at 400 and 200, then write back with your opinions. Might be interesting to compare results.

[fredus]

Well I rate NPH 400 @ 320 and really can see a difference. I was wondering the same with Kodak HD. I might as well try anyway ...

[tony_b]

The HD Kodak film is sold in Europe as 200 ISO film. Some photo magazines estimate that it is the same film as the 400 ISO sold in USA, only the ISO rating on the package changes.

[steven_clark]

Just expose it like you would any c-41 film... Which is to say ignore the meter and expose for the darkest shadows you want a useable image in. Underexposed C-41 film is just plain but-ugly unlike the smooth black of a slide, you don't just let it happen like you do with slide film.

[ilkka_nissila]

Not really, HD200 and 400 are the consumer versions of Royal Supra 200 and 400, and at least the latter two are very different in grain. Look up the data sheets before quoting unreliable sources.

[pascal_miele]

in USA HD is 400

in France HD 135 is 200

in France HD APS is 100

 

It's the SAME emulsion !!!!

 

When you increase ISO you increase the grain too.

 

With color negatives with a 400 you can shoot from 50 to 800 with no problems.

 

and with a BW (chromgenic or classic) ???

 

try it, with C41 or a good classic dev !

[ilkka_nissila]

Pascal, ISO film speed ratings are not just random numbers given by the manufacturer. There is a certain procedure for determining the film speed and that's that.

 

I would heartily recommend you to shoot some of that APS HD100 stuff, expose it at iso 400 and scan the results. Oh, clear film? Such a surprise.

[fredus]

Well I've tried to expose it @200 and I really like the result. Low grain, nice color ... Kind of glad with this film:

 

<a href="http://nosfotos6.free.fr/sfo1025/746871-r1-12.htm"><img src="http://nosfotos6.free.fr/sfo1025/746871-r1-12_thm.jpg" vspace="5" hspace="5" width="104" height="150" border=0></a>

[bill_tuthill]

Why is HD 400 so much worse than Portra 400UC?

Is it poor quality-control during manufacturing?

If so, I'd be careful to make generalizations about how to rate it.

Some rolls might be faster than others.

My non-statistically-significant test of HD400 showed

it to have about one stop less shadow speed than 400UC.

[ted_marcus1]

<i> My non-statistically-significant test of HD400 showed it to have about one stop less shadow speed than 400UC.</i>

 

<p>I'm currently doing a statistically-insignificant test of 400UC, having done a corresponding statistically-insignificant test of HD400 earlier this year. Based on scanning both films, I'm finding that 400UC really does handle shadows better then HD400. There's clearly less grain and more detail in underexposed shadow areas. Other than that, the grain doesn't seem noticeably finer overall (HD400 is pretty fine) and the troublesome blue sky doesn't show any less grain/noise.

 

<p>From what I've seen so far, 400UC is a very good film, possibly the best ISO 400 color negative film out there. But if I were on the road and ran out of 400UC, I'd have little hesitation about stopping at a supermarket and picking up some HD400.