Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,773   Posts: 1,516,603   Online: 1109
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    783
    Images
    33
    Thanks everyone. PE, I'll try to do a side-by-side scan -- a negative from each roll on the same pass. Won't be before tomorrow.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    235
    Between Superia and Gold...Gold every time. I can't stand Fuji Superia. In my opinion, it's too contrasty, leans too far towards the blues and greens, and is way oversaturated. Superia Xtra 400 and 800 are pretty much the only two films that I think are truly ugly. Kodak Gold isn't too great either..It's as if you're shooting at a white balance of 7500k.

    I've been consistently disappointed by Superia and Gold, and I stopped shooting analog for 4 years because those were the only films i'd buy (i was too cheap) and they would look so terrible every single time.

    Fujifilm though isn't bad by any means.. I ADORE 400h and 160s. Those have become my two go-to films for shooting pictures of people. The amateur films, are amateur for a reason.


    Just take a look for yourself, these are straight off a Frontier SP2000, both shot on the same day, and processed together on the same day:


  3. #13
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    771
    Images
    11
    While they seem to illustrate your point, I feel those scans look great. Says the happily naive amateur

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,180
    Just to add that I think Superia 200 is much more toned down than Superia 400. In my experience the 400 is very punchy compared to the 200 which is more subtle (as is the 800, I think) and actually closer to Reala than its 400 brother.
    Steve.

  5. #15
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    783
    Images
    33
    I won't be posting any scans. Simply requesting that I go through the exercise was enough. Apparently the Noritsu scans I get back from Target have exposure adjustment applied. To confirm, I placed the two similarly exposed negatives side by side on my own scanner, corrected for exposure on one of the Fujifilm (200) frames, and then applied that to the whole viewing area. (I hope that made sense.) The Kodak frames were noticeably darker than the Fujifilm frames. Vice versa when I started with one of the Kodak (100) frames; the Fujifilm frames were brighter.

    So I stand corrected. I'm sorry for the trouble, but I'm still glad I posted. I learned something.

    Now my challenge is trying to determine which speed film is best suited for sunny (i.e. EV15) conditions. The camera, by the way, is the Vivitar Ultra Wide & Slim -- great fun for casual, lo-fi shooting. It has a fixed aperture and shutter speed, but I don't trust the published specs. Not to mention, I'm sure every one is a little bit different due to the cheap nature of the camera. It probably doesn't matter much. But at least I know the film is working now!

    Here's and example of what I shoot with this camera. This is Fujifilm Superia 200 on a bright overcast day.

    beltzhoover by bvybvy, on Flickr

  6. #16
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    I am a big fan of superior 200. All mine is expired but still in the freezer. It is my go to cheep film. I only use it for fun but its good for that.

  7. #17
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    734
    Images
    19
    I forgot. I did a test with superior 200 and shot it from 1 stop under to 5 stops over. develop and scan my cvs.
    -1
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	015_11.JPG 
Views:	44 
Size:	305.3 KB 
ID:	44560
    0
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	016_10.JPG 
Views:	43 
Size:	280.1 KB 
ID:	44562
    +1
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	017_9.JPG 
Views:	39 
Size:	250.0 KB 
ID:	44561
    +2
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	018_8.JPG 
Views:	33 
Size:	240.7 KB 
ID:	44563
    +3
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	019_7.JPG 
Views:	27 
Size:	231.8 KB 
ID:	44564
    +4
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	020_6.JPG 
Views:	25 
Size:	235.6 KB 
ID:	44565
    +5
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	021_5.JPG 
Views:	29 
Size:	236.2 KB 
ID:	44566

  8. #18
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,173
    Images
    148
    Having shot predominantly Fuji colour films since the switch from E4 to E6 and C22 to C41 I settled on Superia 200 because it's exceptinally fine grained, great tonality and not over contrasty.

    I'd suggest thouh that F1.4's experiences maybe down to the processing rather than the film itself. I've seen some awful results from films from all the manufacturers and in each case it's been the processing.

    Ian

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,419
    I prefer Kodak Gold to Fuji. Fuji looks cold/dead to me.

    It seems an unfair advantage to set a scanner for Fuji and then scan Kodak on those same settings. An experiment guaranteed to favor Fuji.

    Soon it won't matter anyway as we will probably have only one to choose.
    - Bill Lynch

  10. #20
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    783
    Images
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    It seems an unfair advantage to set a scanner for Fuji and then scan Kodak on those same settings. An experiment guaranteed to favor Fuji.
    The only thing I "set" was the exposure. That's all I was interested in for this test. In any case, I ran the same test in reverse -- starting with Kodak.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin