Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,601   Posts: 1,622,431   Online: 743
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    While they seem to illustrate your point, I feel those scans look great. Says the happily naive amateur

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Warwickshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,241
    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.

  3. #13
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,093
    Images
    42
    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

  4. #14
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    797
    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.

  5. #15
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    797
    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

  6. #16
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,685
    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

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,506
    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

  8. #18
    bvy
    bvy is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,093
    Images
    42
    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.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    881
    I have the exact opposite experience with Superia Xtra 400. I am lucky to be in a town where the local camera store does an excellent job with film processing. They do an excellent job with all color print films but an outstanding job with Superia Xtra 400. I do not find it too contrasty. I find it to be just right. The quality of color negative film processing, developing and printing, has always been variable. It still is. I also think that in many cases, people who feel a film should be given extra exposure are not metering correctly to begin with. Having said that, the only 800 speed color rpoint films I used at 800 were Kodak and Fuji. The Konica, Agfa and store brand (Ferrania/3M?) 800 spoeed films looked better when shot at 640 or even 500. Digital printing has given us better control of contrast and that has helped with all films but bad processing can still make any film look bad.

  10. #20
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,751
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    This isn't a comment about scanning, but using a scanner to determine film exposure. A simple test I use is to scan a film frame and include the unprocessed area, but none of the sprocket holes. Make sure you adjust the black point so nothing is clipped in the scanner software (don't use auto exposure). Then open in photoshop and adjust the black point using levels. Hold down the option key (on the Mac, not sure on PC). You will see the clipped areas turn black. If significant area in the image turns black at the same time as the unexposed border, you are under exposing. If you need to go much past where the border clips then you have probably over exposed, or could have exposed less and still captured all the detail.

    In color you can adjust each color channel, or just use the RGB. You will see which channel clips first, which can tell you if the color balance was also correct.

    Try that out for a few frames on both films and see which works best.

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