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.