High saturation 400 ASA suggestions please

Messages
3,616
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

It seems like summer is on the way and I'm looking for some 400 speed film for my point and press cameras , I would like something with high saturation any ideas ? The reason I'm going for 400 speed is my cameras only recognize 100 and 400 ASA film speeds altering the aperture to suit the film speed 100 ASA being 3.8 and 400 +5.6 am I likely to see much difference in depth of field between these two setting ? or should I just stick with my usual cheapo Kodak Colour plus 200 ?

Thanks for your advise.
 
Your options are pretty limited these days. Especially now that Fuji has discontinued Superia 400. You're pretty much left with Kodak Ultramax 400.
 
I'm more likely to push some slide to 400 than actually use colour neg film, but that's kinda where you are for saturation

push some Ektar ??
 
Hello all,

It seems like summer is on the way and I'm looking for some 400 speed film for my point and press cameras , I would like something with high saturation any ideas ? The reason I'm going for 400 speed is my cameras only recognize 100 and 400 ASA film speeds altering the aperture to suit the film speed 100 ASA being 3.8 and 400 +5.6 am I likely to see much difference in depth of field between these two setting ? or should I just stick with my usual cheapo Kodak Colour plus 200 ?

Thanks for your advise.
Maybe have a look at the Analogue Wonderland site, as they seem to have a range of more unusual films? I haven't used any of them, so can't suggest a specific one to try.

https://analoguewonderland.co.uk/pages/choosing-your-next-film
 
Portra 400 has plenty of saturation, especially if you're planning to scan and print on an inkjet. Ektar 100 has a bit more, which is useful if you're wet printing, but the light the photos are taken in has a bigger effect than the differences between the film stocks in my opinion.

These are Portra 400, scanned with a Pakon. Saturation pushed up a little and the contrast a fair bit more in Lightroom:

Overcast in the morning...

42068467460_9ecdcb43ec_b.jpg


Later in the day when the sun came out...

28930165397_ba9885f55c_b.jpg
 
Lovely photos FugiLove ! I have found out that a shop has openned up in Dudley selling vintage film equip ( it probably opened up years ago but I haven't been to any of the local towns or cities for at least 15 years) so I may well pop in and see what film they have. Kodak Ultramax 400 seems a reasonable price so I may well just give that a try. Thanks for the advise everyone.
 
Portra 400 has plenty of saturation, especially if you're planning to scan and print on an inkjet. Ektar 100 has a bit more, which is useful if you're wet printing, but the light the photos are taken in has a bigger effect than the differences between the film stocks in my opinion.

These are Portra 400, scanned with a Pakon. Saturation pushed up a little and the contrast a fair bit more in Lightroom:

Overcast in the morning...

42068467460_9ecdcb43ec_b.jpg


Later in the day when the sun came out...

28930165397_ba9885f55c_b.jpg

My Xpan is broken. Can’t get anything this good from it!
 
Lovely photos FugiLove ! I have found out that a shop has openned up in Dudley selling vintage film equip ( it probably opened up years ago but I haven't been to any of the local towns or cities for at least 15 years) so I may well pop in and see what film they have. Kodak Ultramax 400 seems a reasonable price so I may well just give that a try. Thanks for the advise everyone.

Thanks Brad. I haven't used Ultramax, but I do remember reading somewhere that it's grainier and less tolerant of over-exposure compared to Portra (more colour shift).

Probably all subjective and dependent on use/light/level of enlargement etc. Let us know how you get on with it. Every time I look at Portra it seems to have gone up in price :mad:
 
If 400 ISO is the criteria then I think it has to be Portra.
 
Just stick with your cheapo film TBH - it really isn't worth spending a great deal of money on 35mm film IMO in a relatively cheap camera.

Kodak Gold is the most expensive I would ever consider in 35mm:

Acton Bridge 5 by Fraser White, on Flickr
 
Hello all,
It seems like summer is on the way and I'm looking for some 400 speed film for my point and press cameras , I would like something with high saturation any ideas ? The reason I'm going for 400 speed is my cameras only recognize 100 and 400 ASA film speeds altering the aperture to suit the film speed 100 ASA being 3.8 and 400 +5.6 am I likely to see much difference in depth of field between these two setting ? or should I just stick with my usual cheapo Kodak Colour plus 200 ?

Thanks for your advise.

I wasn't too keen on the grain from Colorplus 200 so I switched to Kodak Gold 200 and that's become my general purpose film for reasonable lighting conditions, and I find it's got quite good colour saturation. 7 Day Shop currently have a 5 pack of 36 exposure Gold 200 for £19.90 including delivery, so it's a cheaper option than Ektar 100 for summer photography. https://www.7dayshop.com/products/k...ilm-135-36-exposure-value-5-pack-wh2-go236-x5 Hope this is useful.
 
Just stick with your cheapo film TBH - it really isn't worth spending a great deal of money on 35mm film IMO in a relatively cheap camera.

Kodak Gold is the most expensive I would ever consider in 35mm:

Acton Bridge 5 by Fraser White, on Flickr


It could be argued the exact opposite is true: that you will see more benefits from using good quality, fine-grained film in 35mm than larger formats, because you need every ounce of quality when you're using such a small negative. I printed an Xpan T-max 400 negative last night, and it's absolutely grain-free to the naked eye. I doubt that would be the case had I used Kentmere 400 or similar.
 
It could be argued the exact opposite is true: that you will see more benefits from using good quality, fine-grained film in 35mm than larger formats, because you need every ounce of quality when you're using such a small negative. I printed an Xpan T-max 400 negative last night, and it's absolutely grain-free to the naked eye. I doubt that would be the case had I used Kentmere 400 or similar.

............and the cost/quality of a Hasselblad xpan vs Brad's 'point & shoot' that he describes in his original post?

these are 'desaturated' Kodak Colorplus 200; I find the result OK TBH:



ScanImage29 by Fraser White, on Flickr



ScanImage36 by Fraser White, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
............and the cost/quality of a Hasselblad xpan vs Brad's 'point & shoot' that he describes in his original post?

these are 'desaturated' Kodak Colorplus 200; I find the result OK TBH:



ScanImage29 by Fraser White, on Flickr



ScanImage36 by Fraser White, on Flickr

The equipment you use is irrelevant. The only consideration should be the value to you of the photographs.

OK film = OK results. Fresh, high quality film = High quality results (or at least, the best chance of achieving high quality results).
 
Just so the OP is aware and can make their own judgement; Fujilove and myself constantly argue & are at each other's throats in another part of this forum and will never see 'eye to eye' over absolutely anything. We are polar opposites in viewpoints over absolutely anything and it appears to even be brought into this forum which is a shame.

My view hasn't changed; I think Kodak Colorplus 200 gives quite reasonable results; hence I've posted some examples; this will let you decide if the film stock is good enough. My own view is that putting expensive film in a 'point and shoot' isn't the best idea - continue with Colorplus that gives reasonable results and shoot more or Kodacolor Gold.


I think it is only fair you are aware of the 'history' between us.

HTH

This is the Colorplus image above with the natural colours of the film:



ScanImage36 by Fraser White, on Flickr

Fras.
 
Last edited:
Just so the OP is aware and can make their own judgement; Fujilove and myself constantly argue & are at each other's throats in another part of this forum and will never see 'eye to eye' over absolutely anything. We are polar opposites in viewpoints over absolutely anything and it appears to even be brought into this forum which is a shame.

My view hasn't changed; I think Kodak Colorplus 200 gives quite reasonable results; hence I've posted some examples; this will let you decide if the film stock is good enough. My own view is that putting expensive film in a 'point and shoot' isn't the best idea - continue with Colorplus that gives reasonable results and shoot more or Kodacolor Gold.


I think it is only fair you are aware of the 'history' between us.

HTH

Fras.

For goodness sake. Is there really any need for that?
 
I can see both points here; as Fraser points out, Brad's original post was about him wanting a well-saturated film to put in some of his 'point and shoot' 35mm cameras. Unless one of them proves itself to be a hidden gem of exceptional sharpness (which does sometimes happen - look at some of the results @FishyFish has obtained from his Canon Sureshot Zoom), then it could be argued that putting an expensive film (such as Ektar 100) in one of those is something akin to giving a strawberry to a combine harvester!

However, if using high-quality 35mm SLR kit (as FujiLove points out) there could well be a noticeable benefit in using a low ISO, high-quality, film. Although, the benefits of using a sharp, low-grain film (such as Ektar 100, or a lower ISO slide film) will be dependent on sufficient available light (or the use of a tripod) to eliminate camera shake, which could well negate the benefit of using a 'slow' and fine-grain film.
 
Last edited:
I can see both points here; as Fraser points out, Brad's original post was about him wanting a well-saturated film to put in some of his 'point and shoot' 35mm cameras. Unless one of them proves itself to be a hidden gem of exceptional sharpness (which does sometimes happen - look at some of the results @FishyFish has obtained from his Canon Sureshot Zoom), then it could be argued that putting an expensive film (such as Ektar 100) in one of those is something akin to giving a strawberry to a combine harvester!

However, if using high-quality 35mm SLR kit (as FujiLove points out) there could well be a noticeable benefit in using a low ISO, high-quality, film. Although, the benefits of using a sharp, low-grain film (such as Ektar 100, or a lower ISO slide film) will be dependent on sufficient light (or the use of a tripod) to eliminate camera shake, which could well negate the benefit of using a 'slow' and fine-grain film.

My XA3 is probably my most ‘point and shoot’ camera and I get noticably better results from it when using films like T-max and Ektar, than a roll of something like Vista 200. So again, I think it boils down to the value you place on your photos. If I’m just shooting some bits and bobs around the village, then sure, I’ll use some colorplus. But if I’m on holiday or away in London for the weekend, then I’m going to spend the money on Portra. And that’s whether it’s going in my XA3 or Xpan. Makes no difference.

I realise the original question was about saturation, but I’ve also noticed colour accuracy seems to be better with Portra than el cheapo film. I know it can all be balanced post scan, or under the enlarger, but Portra seems to me to give a much better ‘starting point’, and often requires no fiddling at all.
 
My XA3 is probably my most ‘point and shoot’ camera and I get noticably better results from it when using films like T-max and Ektar, than a roll of something like Vista 200. So again, I think it boils down to the value you place on your photos. If I’m just shooting some bits and bobs around the village, then sure, I’ll use some colorplus. But if I’m on holiday or away in London for the weekend, then I’m going to spend the money on Portra. And that’s whether it’s going in my XA3 or Xpan. Makes no difference.

I realise the original question was about saturation, but I’ve also noticed colour accuracy seems to be better with Portra than el cheapo film. I know it can all be balanced post scan, or under the enlarger, but Portra seems to me to give a much better ‘starting point’, and often requires no fiddling at all.

To be honest, I don't like Portra 400 as I find it's a bit on the muddy and muted side of saturation, certainly when I've used it with my Yashica TLRs. I like Portra 800 as I find this has more 'pop' and, of course, Ektar 100. For 35mm SLR, as I've said, although I've had good results from Colorplus 200 (a good colour range and saturation), I wasn't that keen on the noticeable (to me) grain I seemed to get from it, so I'm happy to pay a bit extra for Gold 200, which is now my 'go to' print film, unless lighting conditions and camera lens quality merit Ektar 100, which in my opinion (which counts for bugger all to anyone other than me!) has got to be the nearest a print film has ever got to Kodachrome 64 (that's torn it - hate mail on a postcard please! :LOL:).

Anyway, back to 'everyday' summer (and the bits of year either side of it when the sun is bright enough); for me, Gold 200 is worth the difference in price for the difference I see between the two films for the type of photos I take. I think this is another important aspect, find a film that compliments the style of photo you take (or are taking at the time). However, not everyone will agree with me, and that's fine.
 
Right now, Fuji Superia 400 is still widely available. Use it while you still can.
 
To be honest, I don't like Portra 400 as I find it's a bit on the muddy and muted side of saturation, certainly when I've used it with my Yashica TLRs. I like Portra 800 as I find this has more 'pop' and, of course, Ektar 100. For 35mm SLR, as I've said, although I've had good results from Colorplus 200 (a good colour range and saturation), I wasn't that keen on the noticeable (to me) grain I seemed to get from it, so I'm happy to pay a bit extra for Gold 200, which is now my 'go to' print film, unless lighting conditions and camera lens quality merit Ektar 100, which in my opinion (which counts for bugger all to anyone other than me!) has got to be the nearest a print film has ever got to Kodachrome 64 (that's torn it - hate mail on a postcard please! :LOL:).

Does the lab you use use a Noritsu scanner? The Noritsu heavily influences grain in the scan on it's auto settings so may well be worth trying a lab that uses a Fuji Frontier
 
Your options are pretty limited these days. Especially now that Fuji has discontinued Superia 400. You're pretty much left with Kodak Ultramax 400.
Right now, Fuji Superia 400 is still widely available. Use it while you still can.

Fuji haven't discontinued Superia X-tra 400.

If you like/don't mind grain, shoot Ultramax (more yellow/red) or Superia (more blue/green). If you want finer grain shoot Portra and adjust to taste in Lightroom.

If you're shooting film to scan you can pretty much make anything saturated/contrasted. Shoot in strong light also (either natural or flash) to boost colours.
Once you realise that you're probably better of shooting digital though (gets coat).
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that Fuji had discontinued all of the Superia (inc Xtra 400) film stocks and were only currently manufacturing C200? I thought that any Superia branded film now being sold was just old stock that will eventually run out.
Fuji haven't discontinued Superia X-tra 400.

If you like/don't mind grain, shoot Ultramax (more yellow/red) or Superia (more blue/green). If you want finer grain shoot Portra and adjust to taste in Lightroom.

If you're shooting film to scan you can pretty much make anything saturated/contrasted. Shoot in strong light also (either natural or flash) to boost colours.
Once you realise that you're probably better of shooting digital though (gets coat).
 
I think they stopped the 24exp rolls and now only provide it in 36exp rolls. It is slightly ambiguous though.

https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...-24-exposure-superia-rolls-with-36-exposures/
It's a bit of a confused article but good news if Fuji is continuing production. I like the Superia emulsions. I presume that 800 speed has been discontinued though? The article first states that 200/ 400/ 800 will be available in 36 exp rolls and then continues to state that 800 was discontinued. Or did they change their mind?
 
I was under the impression that Fuji had discontinued all of the Superia (inc Xtra 400) film stocks and were only currently manufacturing C200? I thought that any Superia branded film now being sold was just old stock that will eventually run out.

Nope. For the moment Fuji has stabilised on C200, Superia X-tra 400, Pro 400H, Velvia 50 & 100, Provia 100 for 35mm.
Japan only Industrial 100 may be floating around, but can't remember if that's been discontinued or not.

Fuji killed the Superia multi-packs which may be why you're getting confused ? Although apparently they're bringing those back in America.

Anyhoo, with the rumoured April 30% price hike I'd probably be shooting Ultramax and Portra over Superia anyway. Providing Kodak don't follow suit of course....
 
Does the lab you use use a Noritsu scanner? The Noritsu heavily influences grain in the scan on it's auto settings so may well be worth trying a lab that uses a Fuji Frontier
It's either Noritsu or home scanned on an Epson flatbed. As I said, Colorplus is OK (I much prefer it to the old poundshop Vista), but at the price 7 Day Shop are selling Gold 200 for then I'm happy to pay a bit more for the more pleasing (to my preferences) results and 'look' I get from Gold 200.
 
Fuji haven't discontinued Superia X-tra 400.

If you like/don't mind grain, shoot Ultramax (more yellow/red) or Superia (more blue/green). If you want finer grain shoot Portra and adjust to taste in Lightroom.

If you're shooting film to scan you can pretty much make anything saturated/contrasted. Shoot in strong light also (either natural or flash) to boost colours.
Once you realise that you're probably better of shooting digital though (gets coat).

Half the art of film photography is matching the characteristics of the individual film to the type of shot you are taking to mutually compliment the look of each. Just think of us F&C regulars as modern alchemists and masters of light and silver halide, not like the digital 'we'll fix it in post' 1,000 shots to get 1 brigade? :p ;) Well, he did drop the 'D-bomb' in the F&C forum! :giggle:
 
Half the art of film photography is matching the characteristics of the individual film to the type of shot you are taking to mutually compliment the look of each. Just think of us F&C regulars as modern alchemists and masters of light and silver halide, not like the digital 'we'll fix it in post' 1,000 shots to get 1 brigade? :p ;) Well, he did drop the 'D-bomb' in the F&C forum! :giggle:

Oh aye, absolutely. When you're wet printing....
As soon as you're scanning you're entering the digital realm ;)
 
Hello all,

It seems like summer is on the way and I'm looking for some 400 speed film for my point and press cameras , I would like something with high saturation any ideas ? The reason I'm going for 400 speed is my cameras only recognize 100 and 400 ASA film speeds altering the aperture to suit the film speed 100 ASA being 3.8 and 400 +5.6 am I likely to see much difference in depth of field between these two setting ? or should I just stick with my usual cheapo Kodak Colour plus 200 ?

Thanks for your advise.

I would definitely suggest Fuji Superia Xtra 400, which is still available, contrary to a suggestion above. I've been using it in its Agfa Vista 400 packaging for some years; the Vista is now discontinued and very hard to find. The Superia is definitely a better film than C200, and I much preferred it to Kodak ColorPlus 200...
 
Oh aye, absolutely. When you're wet printing....
As soon as you're scanning you're entering the digital realm ;)
I've had a bad experience with wet printing my negatives... whilst wet prints stick to the computer screen nicely while still wet, I just can't seem to get them to appear on the forum or upload them to Flickr unless I produce a digital replica and use that instead. ;)
 
I've had a bad experience with wet printing my negatives... whilst wet prints stick to the computer screen nicely while still wet, I just can't seem to get them to appear on the forum or upload them to Flickr unless I produce a digital replica and use that instead. ;)

Have you tried folding them up? Probably easier to slot into a CD ROM drive that way.
 
I've had a bad experience with wet printing my negatives... whilst wet prints stick to the computer screen nicely while still wet, I just can't seem to get them to appear on the forum or upload them to Flickr unless I produce a digital replica and use that instead. ;)

Your problem here is you're using the new, digital, Internet. You need the old analogue version. Here's some information about it:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGusHCv2mKc
 
Back
Top