What Color print 400 film do you use?

[lZr]

Fuhi Reala and Fuji 800Z

[sepiareverb]

Hey Barrett great example of what the Pro can do- what's that 6 different light sources in the Macys shot? All fits together in a very natural-looking way.

I used to work for Macy's (over the river in Newark, Bambergers) in the photo studio. Printed all the black & white stuff for the newspaper ads & supplements, did some color compositing to put football games in TV screens and did a little bit of propping help for the photogs (cigarettes while on break- remember those smokeless ashtrays?)

[Ming The Merciless]

Kodak Portra 400 VC

[Joe Vitessa]

Interesting. According to the poll results, the majority seems to use Superia, but there's barely a mention of it in this discussion. Are we using it reluctantly? I find that it's cheaper than the rest, easily available, and actually does a fairly decent job... I guess others agree.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by Joe Vitessa

Interesting. According to the poll results, the majority seems to use Superia, but there's barely a mention of it in this discussion. Are we using it reluctantly? I find that it's cheaper than the rest, easily available, and actually does a fairly decent job... I guess others agree.

Also no takers on my question as to why Kodak Max is "not desirable".

This thread is kinda weird, a lot of subjective opinions without (IMHO) enough pictures to draw an objective conclusion from, oh well...

[amateriat]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

Also no takers on my question as to why Kodak Max is "not desirable".

Okay, I'll bite: Most all of the Kodak MAX emulsions I've tried – mostly 400 and 800 – struck me as grainy, early-generation hand-me-downs compared to UC400, or even the older Supra. Scanning was a bit wacky with MAX as well; I'd say this was a dead giveaway of MAX being an older Kodak formula, but then I recall how easy Gold 100/200 usually scan (for me, anyway, with the last few Minolta scanners I've used), and I doubt the MAX formula is as old as Gold's.


- Barrett

[clintock]

The only thing I have against Kodak Max is the the word 'Max'.
Other than that I tried one roll about ten years ago and it didn't look like I thought it should so I never bought anything with the words 'Max' or 'Gold' and heaven forbid 'Gold Max'!
Plus I read on the internet about this guy who's sister knew a guy at her job who said it was no good, so that's good enough for me to consider a fact!.. or maybe it was the guy's mom, not her sister.

[danwilly]

whatever is on sale

[bigdog]

Keeping it cheap, Fuji Superia 400 Xtra. When I want better results and cost is not a concern, Kodak UC 400. When there is plenty of available light outdoors, Fuji Reala.

[shadowfox]

Originally Posted by amateriat

Okay, I'll bite: Most all of the Kodak MAX emulsions I've tried – mostly 400 and 800 – struck me as grainy, early-generation hand-me-downs compared to UC400, or even the older Supra. Scanning was a bit wacky with MAX as well; I'd say this was a dead giveaway of MAX being an older Kodak formula, but then I recall how easy Gold 100/200 usually scan (for me, anyway, with the last few Minolta scanners I've used), and I doubt the MAX formula is as old as Gold's.


- Barrett

Barrett and Clint, thanks for trying

I guess it's just me, I like the results from Kodak Max especially the 200ASA on my XA. Now, I just got a hold of a couple of barely expired (2/2007) Kodak High Def 200. Let's see how those perform on my XA.

[DavidH]

Fuji Pro400 is my main film in both 35mm and 120. It processes easily at home in my Jobo and scans superbly well. As do its cousins 800Z and 160S...

I tried the Kodak UC film on a shoot last year but it gave me too much contrast and didnt scan as well as the Fuji. But others have had different results so I guess there's no hard and fast answer.

[clintock]

I find the subjective qualities of the film is often swamped by the minilab.
The best portra film will look like crud if the lab is not adjusting for it right.
Here's the source of my bias against max film, I should buy some and try it again, but it's so much easier to sit here and read what others say I should think..
mmm chair so soft.. getting sleepy..
http://www.tedsimages.com/text/comment5.htm

[rogue_designer]

My preference is 400UC, overexposed about a 1/2 stop.

But for the most part, I don't use 400 color.

[Doug]

ISO 400 is such a useful film speed, I think, very versatile. That translates to EI 250 for me with C41 films, so Sunny 16 says 1/250 shutter at f/16 in bright daylight (but my calibrated incident meters tell me 1/2 stop more than that). That still gives me a few choices even with a 1/500 leaf shutter, and on the dark side it's adequate for office interiors if the lens is at least f/2.8. Quite a range. And there are some excellent color films in this speed category, plus all the chromogenic B&W films too. And on the silver side, Ilford FP-4 at EI 250 in Diafine gives nice results. So I think EI 250 is a comfortable place to be.

[kshapero]

What brand is Walgreen's? Actually does a pretty decent job. I bought a whole bunch of it for $5 for 4 rolls.

[NickTrop]

Originally Posted by kshapero

What brand is Walgreen's? Actually does a pretty decent job. I bought a whole bunch of it for $5 for 4 rolls.

Used to be Agfa but now I'm pretty sure it's Fuji. Both good. Agfa was a little grainy but I like its neutral colors.