New Kodak High Definition Film

[mtk]

Does anyone out there have an opinion on the Kodak "High Definition"

ASA 400 film? I haven't had the opportunity to shoot any yet....

Thanks, Mark

[freehueco]

Having processed a few dozen rolls, I'd say it's the best 400 speed film that Kodak makes. It's sharper and finer grained. But Fuji 400 is still better..

[fourfa]

isn't this the same as the previous Royal Supra 400?

[ted_marcus1]

<p>Very good film, with good sharpness, very fine grain, and quite saturated color. It also scans well. It has apparently been optimized for minilab printing. It's probably the best consumer color negative film, even though it's not available in 36 exposures. Portra 400UC is a better film (finer grain, better shadow detail and underexposure latitude), but it's ridiculously expensive unless you mail-order the gray market version.

 

<p>I have written more extensively about HD400 (including a comparison with Portra 400UC and the mysterious connection between it and Royal Supra 400) <a href="http://www.tedsimages.com/text/comment2.htm#hd400">here</a>.

[stephen hazelton]

I've used it and liked it. Then again, maybe I'm just not picky enough. I've also used it with the Kodak "Perfect Touch" processing, but have read some other posts from people that disliked it.

[James G. Dainis]

Kodak HD 400 is the same as the Royal Gold 400 which it replaced. That was the new Royal Gold 400, not the old Royal Gold 400. Some may find the saturated colors a bit cartoonish but it has its place.<BR>

<center><img src=http://www.geocities.com/dainisjg/kodk_rg.jpg></center>

[ccfutbol]

I have shot a number of rolls, ... wondering how it would stack up to Fuji Superia 400. I don't know if it was my lab, but I was getting a lot of unwanted blue cast in my Superia 400 prints. Sometimes it was beautiful, but sometimes it put me off. There's something I like in the Kodak film color and something I don't like. I'm not sure what it is. I think that the colors, like in the greens, are somehow less bold, in a pleasing way, ... but there's something a little platic-like in the colors -- that's about as good as I can describe it. Skin tones were acceptable to me. I've always like the idea that I can shoot the Fuji film in a variety of lighting situations and get decent prints. My experiment isn't over yet. A little more time with the film and I think I'll realize for what situations it will suit my purposes. BTW, ... I use a Wolf mini lab, from one of the larger stores where the lab is in a separate room. Regards. CC

[aguilabrava]

All the information available at Kodak.com indicates that this film is the "amateur" version of the more expensive Kodak Portra 400UC, the same film at a much lower price and available widely at dept. stores, drug stores, etc. It is basically a saturated high speed film with very fine grain, that according to Kodak can render very natural skin tones. I have not used it myself, but this is what I have read about it.

[canon_eos_rules]

I love Kodak HD400. True, Fujicolor Superia Xtra 400 (the new version) or Fujicolor

Portrait NPH beats it in terms of clarity, but the Kodak produces color saturation that

can't be beat (except by Kodak's own Portra 400UC). I haven't tried it with Perfect

Touch processing (nor will I probably ever will, now that I'm using a Digital Rebel), but

it comes out great on Wal-Mart's Fuji Frontier 390 with Fuji Crystal Archive paper

(IMO, my favorite RA-4 paper).

[ted_marcus1]

<i>All the information available at Kodak.com indicates that this film is the "amateur" version of the more expensive Kodak Portra 400UC, the same film at a much lower price and available widely at dept. stores, drug stores, etc.</i>

 

<p>This is, in fact, what Kodak will tell you if you ask their customer service representatives. But it clearly is <i>not</i> the same film. Portra 400UC has finer grain, especially in shadows and skin tones. If anything, it's a consumer version of the discontinued Supra 400 (not Royal), as many of its characteristics are very similar.

 

<p>HD400 is a good film. But Portra 400UC is a better film.

[the_macman]

How does Kodak HD fit in terms of color rendition between 400NC, 400VC

and 400UC ?

[aguilabrava]

Ted, I didn't ask the people at Kodak if these two films are the same, but these films are EXACTLY THE SAME, and if you don't believe me, then BELIEVE THEM (AT KODAK), go to www.kodak.com and check the characteristic curves, the spectral sensitivity curves, the spectral dye density curves and the modulation transfer function curves, these curves are IDENTICAL for both films. The only difference I could see in the TECH. Publications for these two films is the grain, according to KODAK, the Kodak HD 400 (amateur version) has a "print grain index" (value used by KODAK) of 39, while Kodak Portra 400UC has a 40, therefore the amateur one has a finer grain, at least according to them, the manufacturers.

Again, I haven't used any of these films myself, so my conclusion is based just on the technical information provided by KODAK, which I doubt is wrong.

[the_macman]

NPH is an extremely boring film. It captures faces with a tremendous

exactitude, which quite sucks unless you're shooting a model who has been

carefully souped up by makeup. I like my portraits to be a mean of underlining

and a little exagerating that rosy glow faces have. I like a little surreal look,

which is why I often go 400UC in bright sun.

 

NPH is made for dermatologists who are writing a dermatology atlas. If you

want to count the wrinkles, shoot NPH. If you want memorable stuff, go Portra.

 

As for saying that HD is the best 400 Kodak makes, I doubt it. I didn't try it, but I

doubt it.

 

That's the 2¢ of an amateur with little experience :)

[the_macman]

Antonio:

As a huge fan of 400UC, I would never have thought I'd be convinced this

evening to buy some HD next time I drop by a drugstore :-) Thanks. I'll see

how it goes.

[25asa]

I printed my first roll of this stuff a week ago. I don't totally agree its the same as Portra 400UC as the reds are not nearly as bold. To me it looks like the old Royal Gold film which I used a few times before.

[James G. Dainis]

The thing about consumer films like HD 400 is they are not at their optimum performance levels when they are sent out. Kodak knows that it may sit on the shelf for several months, in the store or at a home, or in the camera. Like the tomatoes that one buys at the grocery store with the film, it is sent out slightly "green" to allow for aging. Tomatoes you can tell by squeezing them but not so with consumer film. If you get good results with the film, check the expiration date and buy other film that has the same amount of months to go before the expiration date.

[steven_zellner1]

Mark:

 

I bit the bullet and decided to test HD 400 against 400UC. I sent the films rolls to a custom lab here in NYC for processing. The same Kodak paper was used for prints from both rolls.

 

I did not do anything scientific here. The lab did not measure grain, or anything like that. The only thing that the lab guy and I (and his boss) did was to compare prints (of New York's Central Park -taken the same day - mid afternoon - no appreciable change in sunlight). I ran through the rolls quickly to keep similar lighting conditions, and came up with alot of really lousy shots.

 

To be blunt, neither the lab tech, his boss, nor I could tell the difference in prints from one film to the other. Keep in mind, these were 4 x 6 snapshots, and not critically developed and printed enlargements.

 

My gut reaction is that the emulsion base for both films (and for Royal Supra 400) is the same. It would make sense for Kodak. Remember, Kodak has some financial problems these days, and it would be rational for Kodak to market its existing emulsions over as wide a base as possible (without putting additional funds into new product development) in order to generate revenue. The final Royal Gold 400 (or Supra 400) emulsion, that serves as the base for these 'new' films, is terrific. Why wouldn't Kodak want to spread the film around, to capture different markets? And if Kodak seems to muddle the marketing a bit, i.e. Royal Supra, HD 400 and 400 UC to seemingly similar market segments, how many people do you think will notice, or even care? We Photo Net readers can be a little particular, but I don't think that a majority of amateur photographers will notice like we do.

 

By the way, for me, it turned out that on a per exposure basis, 400UC was cheaper than HD400 (24 vs. 36 exposure developing). And, I am stuck with two 24 exposure rolls. I am going to stick with 400UC, or if I can get some, Royal Supra 400 36-exposure.

 

Don't worry about the differences (real or perceived). Try the films for yourself, and see whether YOU see a difference. If you can't, then look at the economics of both films. If you can, stay with the film you like.

 

Finally, I think that the HD200 film is terrific as well.

 

Have fun.

[scott_walter]

James mentioned that HD400 is not at its optimum level until it "ages" for a while. Any idea what that age point is?

[ted_marcus1]

<i>Ted, I didn't ask the people at Kodak if these two films are the same, but these films are EXACTLY THE SAME, and if you don't believe me, then BELIEVE THEM (AT KODAK)</i>

 

<p>I would be skeptical about the information Kodak publishes about their products, whether on the Web or elsewhere. Oddly enough, I did compare Kodak's specs of HD400 with Royal Supra 400. The only difference was that the base for HD400 is .12mm, while the Royal Supra is .13mm.

 

<p>Regardless of the published specs, I compared HD400 with Portra 400UC and found that the Portra had noticeably finer grain in the shadows. That's quite important when scanning, but far less important for prints (which tend to block up shadows). In addition, Bill Tuthill did a more quantitative test earlier this year. It involved scanning images of the McBeth Color Checker, which can reveal the grain more clearly. He found that the Portra had 15% smoother grain in the flesh-colored patches, if I remember right (he has another way of coming up with numbers). His results with underexposure latitude and shadow grain were consistent with mine.

 

<p>That said, HD400 and Portra 400UC are similar films. They scan with the same VueScan settings (Royal Gold 400 Gen 2 or Supra 400, which provide slightly different color balance) and have similar grain in highlights and mid-tones. HD400 is very good, possibly the best readily-available consumer film you can get. It's possibly the closest thing to the discontinued Supra 400. But Portra 400UC is a better film. What I can't say is whether the better characteristics make it worth paying the outrageous official price or mail-ordering enough of the gray-market version to justify the shipping cost. I think it's worth mail-ordering the Portra, but if I were to run out of it while traveling (or if I were flying and wanted to avoid worrying about x-rays) I would have no problem going to the nearest drugstore and getting some HD400.

[ted_marcus1]

<i>Finally, I think that the HD200 film is terrific as well.</i>

 

<p>I honestly can't understand the point of HD200. HD400 already has extremely fine grain and very high sharpness. Even if the HD200 has slightly better grain and sharpness, is it enough to notice? Is it enough to overcome the risk of lower sharpness (from a slower shutter or wider aperture) that often goes with slower film? The one marketing advantage a slower film usually offers is a lower price, but when I've seen three-packs of HD200 the price has been higher.

[dmanthree]

Ted,

 

HD200 is finer grained and sharper than HD400, and, for whatever reason, scans better (with my scanner, anyway). So for me, there is a point. I just wish it were available in 120 size.

[scott_eaton]

<I>If you want to count the wrinkles, shoot NPH. If you want memorable stuff, go Portra. </i><P>The Portra films are basically the result of Kodak corp trying to keep the same tonal rendition (and customer base) of their glory years of the 1970's and 80's, when all print film essentially, uh, looked the same. As much as I respect Portra NC/VC, I have to admit they are the result of a lack of clear imagination on Kodak's part since that 'Portra look' you keep raving about hasn't changed much in 20 years. A senior portrait shot on Portra NC today looks pretty much the same as it did 20years ago on Vericolor, cept todays film has finer grain. Same color saturation that's for sure.<P>NPH on the other hand was designed for neutrality and to give the reigns of artistic control to the photoghrapher vs the emulsion engineer. NPH vs Portra UC has been talked about many times, and as far as I'm concerned Portra UC has more in common with NPH in terms of tonality than it does the other Portra films save the name.<P>Kodak HD is an amatuer print film, and like all amatuer print films there is no guarantee what's in the box other than fancy packaging. The wide ranging opinions here about this film only reassert my point that any given aamatuer print film is going to vary wildy in it's production and change from emulsion generation from generation. You have no guarantee what's in the box and Kodak nor Fuji does not owe you one when you shoot amatuer print film. Due to the common sharing of technology within film lines you may get a film that look real close to UC, or closer to older Royal 400 and it's harsh contrast. Six months from now when a new gen code of Kodak HD hits the shelves, (I do believe Gold 400 went through about 8 iterations) it will be something else while UC 400 will likely be unchanged and still the better film.

[ilkka_nissila]

If the relation between HD200 and HD400 is at all similar to that between Royal Supra 200 and 400, the 200 speed has much finer grain than the 400. I only use the 400 when shooting indoors in available light. I get monstrous grain from RS400 when scanning especially if faces are slightly underexposed.

[bill_tuthill]

I'm starting to believe that the RS200 and RS400 are better emulsions,

or better-made, than HD200 and HD400. I bought a roll of HD200 locally

and in 2400 dpi Macbeth chart scans, it was grainier than HD400 except

for skin tones. (For people HD400 seems terribly grainy, even in 4x6 prints on Agfa paper; the latest Superia 400 with rounded backing card,

still CH-7, looks better.) Whereas I have seen RS200 scans on the Web

that look phenomenally good. Perhaps this just supports Scott's point:

with amateur films, you never know.

[manuel_garcia5]

Kodak HD 400 is a great �load in your camera and shoot� consumer film. Saturated colors, very sharp, and can be developed anywhere with great results. I�ve been using this film since late May of this year & have been very please with the results. I�ve recently switch to Fuji NPH 400 and for my current shooting am very pleased too. Now having said that you�ll need to understand how to use NPH. NPH renders colors exactly how you remember them rated at 400. Not as saturated as the Kodak HD (which isn�t a bad thing). For more color you�ll need to set the ISO lower (like 320, 250, or 200), which may be a pain for the point & shoot crowd, but is worth it. Nighttime flash is where this film amazed me. Perfect color, sharpens, & detail. However If I were out of film I wouldn�t hesitate to use Kodak HD 400. It all depends on how you want your pictures to look. Good luck!