I live in a country where film is terribly expensive, so I normally shoot Superia 400 (I shoot 35mm mainly). Now I know that it's often looked down on, and I wonder why that is? I mean, I normally shoot it at EI 100 - 200, I find that at 100 it lifts the shadows and reduces grain and contrast considerably, and when I *do* try a roll of something expensive like Pro 400, I can't see enough of a difference to, in my mind at least, abandon Superia and buy film 4 or 5 times the price.
Any thoughts? What am I missing here? Either in lab prints or my scans, at EI 100 I'm getting quite nice results, which I can post an example of if you would like to see what I'm talking about. Skin tones look okay to me, which is another accusation I've heard leveled against Superia.
Oh, and I am judging this all from either lab prints or my own scans on a Coolscan IV.