Best C-41 film for scanning in 2008

I am doing the same thing but w/ the Nikon 5000. I have found the Kodak portra series to scan the best for me (I use mostly the 160/800). The Fuji negative films don't scan quite a smoothly as the Kodaks for me.

I have had very good luck with Kodak Ultra Color 100UC. It scans better than the old Portra 160, both NC and VC (IMHO).

I have not yet tried the new formulation Portra.

At 400 speed, I'd say Kodak UltraColor 400. At 800 speed, Superia scans with vapid greens, and Fuji Pro 800Z with too much contrast, so Portra 800 would be my pic.

Hi

I mainly photograph outdoor scenics and architecture. I've been doing fairly much exactly that, in that I didn't get a DSLR until about 2006. I used to use Provia however I've now converted over to using negatives. I've found that I get better scans of them than I do with pos.

I've been using Fuji NC (Japan name) which I understand is similar to the Pro 160C. The resolving power is reported to be similar to Provia and this fits with my tests. I find that I can scan more detail out of it than I can Provia, this might be an artifact of my scanner. I have only done side by side (same subject same lens, same camera, same as much as I can...) with 4x5 sheet with a Epson 4870 flatbed. Perhaps I might find differences with 35mm and a Nikon LS-5000. Anyway I like it a lot.

Of course with people you night prefer the Kodak for skin tones.

My testing is all put up here http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/

:-)

I'd avoid 800 altogether, use 400 only when needed and shoot 100 wherever possible. The reason? Grain and grain aliasing in scans.

There is no "best" film, other than the one you use regularly and become familiar with it's applications and quirks. There is no magic formula for scanning any negative color film other than skill and practice.

The main difference is the amount of grain and detail. I use ISO 100 for landscapes and ISO 400 for hand-held, flash and people shots (Fuji Reala and 400H respectively).

I'm never sure I understand what people mean by "easy to scan" when it comes to C41. Unlike color transparencies, no color negative film will push the limits of a quality filmscanner from a technical perspective, and any of them may or may not be difficult to color balance depending on the software being used, knowledge & skills of the operator, subject matter, lighting, exposure, processing,...

What it really boils down to is - don't worry so much about what's easy to scan for C41, and go with the films that you like and work well with. Your preferences will be determined by your own style, shooting subject, grain preferences and so forth. In other words, the things that have always determined what film is "best" for you in a given situation, still do.

Scott

I find Fuji 160C and 800Z particularly easy to color balance and get the contrast right. Find UC400 relatively difficult to get to look natural (jack up contrast and greens get very artifical looking, etc). Reala's low contrast gives you a lot of latitude for your shots but requires more skill figuring out how much to increase contrast.

I have used Kodak High Definition 400 and Fuji True Definition 400 with good success. The trick is to get a film with fair saturation (not too high or low) and low contrast. The low contrast lets you get lots of information on the negative. Then you can scan it, and block up the shadows or blow out the highlights in Photoshop as you wish. You can make it look like Velvia if you want. It's easier to throw out information you don't want than to create it when it's not there.

I haven't scanned Portra, but it would probably be better than Hi Def due to it's slightly lower contrast.

I have had excellent results by using FujiFilm Provia 100 F film, however, it is a slide film. But it scans extremely good for me. I use a Minolta Dual Scan IV and a Epson V700 the later used for 6x6 from old medium format Mamiya C330.

Bob

Kodak has worked hard at getting their films to scan well. It is my understanding that the most recent versions of Portra have been improved over the older version. But I find that even the old Portra scans very well. My older Fuji negatives didn't scan too well. I use Nikon 9000 scanner, and have used Vuescan. But I intend to purchase SilverFast soon, because I seen how the demo version works really great.

I recall reading that Fuji has also improved their films for scanning. You can't go wrong with Portra. But of course, you should experiment with different films. That's the fun of it.

"Kodak has worked hard at getting their films to scan well. It is my understanding that the most recent versions of Portra have been improved over the older version."

Well, Kodak does appear to have improved the grain in the new Portras, (or at least the 160 versions that I've tried), and all other things being equal, that'll make scans more pleasing to most, but I don't find them any harder or easier to scan than the old versions. Still, it makes for a good marketing message in this day and age when most films are scanned.

As for the issue of color balance being harder with one film than another? Why? And I mean why from a technical perspective? What mechanism would cause this to occur? Certainly some images are harder to balance than others, even from the same roll of film. If the image has no true neutral black or white point, that's always going to be the case, but I've never found any C41 film inherently and consistently harder to color balance than another. Assuming you properly account for film base, lighting, processing and all that other stuff is going to absolutely SWAMP any minor color differences between different film types.

And contrast? Perhaps I've just got the Monday morning crankies, but, c'mon... From the scanner's point of view, there's no such thing as "high contrast" C41 film. It's ALL low-contrast. Don't believe this? Take the highest contrast C41 film you can find and make a raw scan of it. No processing whatsoever.* Now normalize the channels - ie, get rid of the offsets you'll have between each channel (or you Vuescan folks, scan using "Advanced Workflow" to normalize). Now look at the resulting composite histogram. What you'll see is a very, very narrow band of data, with tons of space at each end.

Choose the film you like to work with. Your scanner won't care.

Scott

* The easiest way to get an unprocessed negative scan using most software is to scan as positive. Setting "color negative" in most scanning software automatically moves both black and white points to the edges of the narrow band of data.

Before (hopefully) anyone starts to respond, let me clarify what I mean relative to the contrast issue.

I'm not suggesting that different C41 films don't have different curves. Of course they do, and some are going to treat highlights and shadows more gently than others. But it's not a scanning issue. A good scanner will have so much headroom when it comes to the (non)contrast inherent in C41 films that it's simply not an issue worthy of discussion relative to scans. If it's in the film, the scanner'll get it. If it isn't, it won't.

If you prefer a film which rolls off more gently in the shadows, the by all means, choose such a film for reasons of personal preference. But not because of scanning issues.

Scott

At 100 ISO I find that Reala scans really well on my Minolta Multi Pro.