Film

LMRacing · 07-18-2009, 05:33 PM

So I absolutely love my 35mm for the black and white (Im using the C41 process kodak 400 right now) But I just cant find a color film that I like. even the 100 ISO I shot with was grainy and ended up looking very over exposed. I've tried the cheap Kodak gold and the Fuji Superia films and dont like either so far for color. I like somthing with a very high saturation, can anyone make a recomendation for me?

For the record I dont get any prints, I just have my film processed and have a negitive scaner that I use to make digital images with.

Sluggo · 07-18-2009, 05:56 PM

A bit off the beaten path, but I've been hooked lately on Fuji 160C for my color. I'm using it medium format (Pentax 67), but I imagine it would be similar in 35mm.

ChrisN · 07-18-2009, 07:15 PM

Just a question - are you scanning the film yourself? I find the scanning process, and the capability of the particular scanner, makes a huge difference to the results I get with different films, moreso with colour than with B&W. I rather like the colours I get with cheap Gold 100 scanned on a Coolscan V scanner.

jgredline · 07-19-2009, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by ChrisN

Just a question - are you scanning the film yourself? I find the scanning process, and the capability of the particular scanner, makes a huge difference to the results I get with different films, moreso with colour than with B&W. I rather like the colours I get with cheap Gold 100 scanned on a Coolscan V scanner.

This was similar to my thoughts. You should get some printed and you will be able to tell how grainy the images really are.

Cosmo · 07-19-2009, 02:23 PM

Any fuji pro film, Provia. High saturation, use Velvia.

k100d · 07-19-2009, 02:37 PM

PRO400H is used a lot for weddings, more neutral colours

LMRacing · 07-20-2009, 08:16 AM

Yes Im scanning the film myself, it makes things much cheaper. I am using a VuPoint 5megapixel negitive scanner. its not one of the better quality ones Im sure but the B&W shots come out beautiful with it. I dont understand why the film shots end up so grainy and un saturated

k100d · 07-20-2009, 08:35 AM

negative film by nature is hard to scan. you need to mess around w/ the levels to get the colours right

B Grace · 07-20-2009, 10:22 AM

I'll third the comment about scanning. Even the high resolution files I receive from the good quality lab I use often look wonky. It's the one reason I abandoned shooting film 100% and scanning for digital work. I've had my eye on the Coolscan scanners for years now. Shooting RAW with my K200D now leaves my film use to the luxury of shooting with my old cameras for fun.

mischivo · 07-20-2009, 02:04 PM

You must be using some really bad film to have it too grainy at 100 ISO. Here is a photo of an ugly garbage thing. Guess the ISO!

No cheating now...

Fuji Superia 400. Yes, it has grain, when I view it at 100%, which yields 21 megapixel files. But who judges grain by pixel peeping? If I were pixel peeping using my scanner, I can peep out the grain in Velvia 50, and that stuff is practically grainless! I think you'd be better served by film if you used a trusted brand and lowered your expectations slightly. Film will not be as nearly grainless as 100 ISO dSLR images -- that's life. Negative film will, however, have very generous dynamic range, far exceeding what most dSLRs can squeeze out (except maybe the Fuji S5, but that's built specifically for dynamic range).

Also, please consider the quality of your scanner before judging the exposure and colour of your film. C41 film is very difficult to overexpose. About the only portions of my shots that are truly "clipped" are specular highlights reflecting the sun.

If you require more saturation, I recommend Kodak Ektar 100, exposed at box speed (or rated at 80 when using an external light meter, to account for light loss in lens), or slide films. Velvia 50 or 100 come to mind, but they tend to make people's faces too red or orange. If you're taking images of people, use Velvia 100F. If you want toned down, but still saturated, colours, and you may have people in your shots, use Provia 100F.

jgredline · 07-20-2009, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by mischivo

You must be using some really bad film to have it too grainy at 100 ISO. Here is a photo of an ugly garbage thing. Guess the ISO!

No cheating now...

Fuji Superia 400. Yes, it has grain, when I view it at 100%, which yields 21 megapixel files. But who judges grain by pixel peeping? If I were pixel peeping using my scanner, I can peep out the grain in Velvia 50, and that stuff is practically grainless! I think you'd be better served by film if you used a trusted brand and lowered your expectations slightly. Film will not be as nearly grainless as 100 ISO dSLR images -- that's life. Negative film will, however, have very generous dynamic range, far exceeding what most dSLRs can squeeze out (except maybe the Fuji S5, but that's built specifically for dynamic range).

Also, please consider the quality of your scanner before judging the exposure and colour of your film. C41 film is very difficult to overexpose. About the only portions of my shots that are truly "clipped" are specular highlights reflecting the sun.

If you require more saturation, I recommend Kodak Ektar 100, exposed at box speed (or rated at 80 when using an external light meter, to account for light loss in lens), or slide films. Velvia 50 or 100 come to mind, but they tend to make people's faces too red or orange. If you're taking images of people, use Velvia 100F. If you want toned down, but still saturated, colours, and you may have people in your shots, use Provia 100F.

Excellent post!

BetterSense · 07-21-2009, 12:53 AM

It sounds like you want ektar 100. High saturation and probably the least-grainy film going.

Ratmagiclady · 07-22-2009, 09:51 PM

You know, for lots of saturation, (not mu usual cup of tea) I rather liked some of the results some of the fellows here were showing from that Kodak Ultramax you see around. Might be easier to come by.

I don't recall if it was particularly fine-grained, but then again, grain doesn't bother me.

tuco · 07-22-2009, 10:05 PM

Yes, Ektar 100 sounds like what you want. And this was developed at home using Jobo's C-41 Press Kit.

LMRacing · 07-23-2009, 05:08 AM

Yes that last image looks exactly like what I want. I suppose I am going to have to agree and say that the scanner is probobly the culprit of my ill shots. I just LOVE shooting with the older cameras. Im using a Ricoh KR10 lovingly given to me for shipping from another forum member here that I just love shooting with and I've my eyes on getting a pentax K1000 in the near future. theres just somthing about using a completely manual camera that really makes it more fufilling to me for some reason and I couldnt tell you why.

I think its just that I have this feeling that not everyone could use an older camera like that but anybody could put there hands on one of the newer cameras, set it to auto, and get a really nice picture out of it. The digital just doesn't feel like the art that photography once was.

07-18-2009, 05:33 PM	#1
LMRacing Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Silver Creek, GA Posts: 76	Film So I absolutely love my 35mm for the black and white (Im using the C41 process kodak 400 right now) But I just cant find a color film that I like. even the 100 ISO I shot with was grainy and ended up looking very over exposed. I've tried the cheap Kodak gold and the Fuji Superia films and dont like either so far for color. I like somthing with a very high saturation, can anyone make a recomendation for me? For the record I dont get any prints, I just have my film processed and have a negitive scaner that I use to make digital images with.

07-18-2009, 05:56 PM	#2
Sluggo Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ames, Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 774	fuji 160c A bit off the beaten path, but I've been hooked lately on Fuji 160C for my color. I'm using it medium format (Pentax 67), but I imagine it would be similar in 35mm.

07-22-2009, 10:05 PM	#14
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,030	Yes, Ektar 100 sounds like what you want. And this was developed at home using Jobo's C-41 Press Kit. Last edited by tuco; 07-22-2009 at 10:19 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Any horror film buffs know this film?	K-9	General Talk	12	09-24-2010 05:43 PM
Returning to Film: Would I be put-off by using consumer film	pcarfan	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	39	07-06-2010 06:49 AM
Newbie SLR film and film develop qestion	winglik	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	11	06-15-2009 03:13 AM
favourite film camera and other film cameras?	k100d	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	54	03-25-2009 09:13 PM
Walgreen film same as Fujifilm film?	Kentax	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	6	05-15-2008 04:50 PM

07-18-2009, 07:15 PM	#3
ChrisN Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Downunda Photos: Gallery Posts: 212	Just a question - are you scanning the film yourself? I find the scanning process, and the capability of the particular scanner, makes a huge difference to the results I get with different films, moreso with colour than with B&W. I rather like the colours I get with cheap Gold 100 scanned on a Coolscan V scanner.

07-19-2009, 12:44 PM	#4
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by ChrisN Just a question - are you scanning the film yourself? I find the scanning process, and the capability of the particular scanner, makes a huge difference to the results I get with different films, moreso with colour than with B&W. I rather like the colours I get with cheap Gold 100 scanned on a Coolscan V scanner. This was similar to my thoughts. You should get some printed and you will be able to tell how grainy the images really are.

07-19-2009, 02:23 PM	#5
Cosmo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	Any fuji pro film, Provia. High saturation, use Velvia.

07-19-2009, 02:37 PM	#6
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	PRO400H is used a lot for weddings, more neutral colours

07-20-2009, 08:16 AM	#7
LMRacing Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Silver Creek, GA Posts: 76 Original Poster	Yes Im scanning the film myself, it makes things much cheaper. I am using a VuPoint 5megapixel negitive scanner. its not one of the better quality ones Im sure but the B&W shots come out beautiful with it. I dont understand why the film shots end up so grainy and un saturated

07-20-2009, 08:35 AM	#8
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	negative film by nature is hard to scan. you need to mess around w/ the levels to get the colours right

07-20-2009, 10:22 AM	#9
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	I'll third the comment about scanning. Even the high resolution files I receive from the good quality lab I use often look wonky. It's the one reason I abandoned shooting film 100% and scanning for digital work. I've had my eye on the Coolscan scanners for years now. Shooting RAW with my K200D now leaves my film use to the luxury of shooting with my old cameras for fun.

07-20-2009, 02:04 PM	#10
mischivo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Toronto Posts: 397	You must be using some really bad film to have it too grainy at 100 ISO. Here is a photo of an ugly garbage thing. Guess the ISO! No cheating now... Fuji Superia 400. Yes, it has grain, when I view it at 100%, which yields 21 megapixel files. But who judges grain by pixel peeping? If I were pixel peeping using my scanner, I can peep out the grain in Velvia 50, and that stuff is practically grainless! I think you'd be better served by film if you used a trusted brand and lowered your expectations slightly. Film will not be as nearly grainless as 100 ISO dSLR images -- that's life. Negative film will, however, have very generous dynamic range, far exceeding what most dSLRs can squeeze out (except maybe the Fuji S5, but that's built specifically for dynamic range). Also, please consider the quality of your scanner before judging the exposure and colour of your film. C41 film is very difficult to overexpose. About the only portions of my shots that are truly "clipped" are specular highlights reflecting the sun. If you require more saturation, I recommend Kodak Ektar 100, exposed at box speed (or rated at 80 when using an external light meter, to account for light loss in lens), or slide films. Velvia 50 or 100 come to mind, but they tend to make people's faces too red or orange. If you're taking images of people, use Velvia 100F. If you want toned down, but still saturated, colours, and you may have people in your shots, use Provia 100F.

07-20-2009, 02:53 PM	#11
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628	Originally posted by mischivo You must be using some really bad film to have it too grainy at 100 ISO. Here is a photo of an ugly garbage thing. Guess the ISO! No cheating now... Fuji Superia 400. Yes, it has grain, when I view it at 100%, which yields 21 megapixel files. But who judges grain by pixel peeping? If I were pixel peeping using my scanner, I can peep out the grain in Velvia 50, and that stuff is practically grainless! I think you'd be better served by film if you used a trusted brand and lowered your expectations slightly. Film will not be as nearly grainless as 100 ISO dSLR images -- that's life. Negative film will, however, have very generous dynamic range, far exceeding what most dSLRs can squeeze out (except maybe the Fuji S5, but that's built specifically for dynamic range). Also, please consider the quality of your scanner before judging the exposure and colour of your film. C41 film is very difficult to overexpose. About the only portions of my shots that are truly "clipped" are specular highlights reflecting the sun. If you require more saturation, I recommend Kodak Ektar 100, exposed at box speed (or rated at 80 when using an external light meter, to account for light loss in lens), or slide films. Velvia 50 or 100 come to mind, but they tend to make people's faces too red or orange. If you're taking images of people, use Velvia 100F. If you want toned down, but still saturated, colours, and you may have people in your shots, use Provia 100F. Excellent post!

07-21-2009, 12:53 AM	#12
BetterSense Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Dallas Posts: 98	It sounds like you want ektar 100. High saturation and probably the least-grainy film going.

07-22-2009, 09:51 PM	#13
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	You know, for lots of saturation, (not mu usual cup of tea) I rather liked some of the results some of the fellows here were showing from that Kodak Ultramax you see around. Might be easier to come by. I don't recall if it was particularly fine-grained, but then again, grain doesn't bother me.

07-23-2009, 05:08 AM	#15
LMRacing Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Silver Creek, GA Posts: 76 Original Poster	Yes that last image looks exactly like what I want. I suppose I am going to have to agree and say that the scanner is probobly the culprit of my ill shots. I just LOVE shooting with the older cameras. Im using a Ricoh KR10 lovingly given to me for shipping from another forum member here that I just love shooting with and I've my eyes on getting a pentax K1000 in the near future. theres just somthing about using a completely manual camera that really makes it more fufilling to me for some reason and I couldnt tell you why. I think its just that I have this feeling that not everyone could use an older camera like that but anybody could put there hands on one of the newer cameras, set it to auto, and get a really nice picture out of it. The digital just doesn't feel like the art that photography once was.