Is this amount of grain normal for Fujifilm Superia 200?

[Josh66]

They only make Portra 400.

Has it always been that way, or is that new...? I can't remember now...lol.

 

[leinadg]

Fuji Pro 160ns seems to be harder to find here though.

It's still new, so it may take a little while to show up everywhere. (You can probably still find in-date 160S & 160C too.)

Last I checked - Freestyle & B&H didn't have it (I usually buy my film from them).

From what I've heard, it's supposed to be somewhere between 160S and 160C. Kodak did the same thing with their 160 Portra films a while ago. There used to be Portra 160VC and Portra 160NC - now there's just "Portra 160". (And that is also supposed to be somewhere between the two it replaced.) I believe there are still NC and VC versions in the Portra 400. (NC = 'Natural Colors', VC = 'Vivid Colors'. That's what I've always been told anyway.).

They only make Portra 400.

Now for a monkey wrench......

Unless the negative is printed optically on photographic paper to verify the grain structure, the grain you see could be digital noise.

And that is exactly what it is, unless you pay for pro scans and proper adjustment, do it yourself, or buy a condenser enlarger and some filters or a color head and same RA4, they just digitally blast up the exposure and ruin it.

Kodak still lists Portra 160, 400 and 800 on their website. Dont they still make them all?

I actualy scanned these myself with a Epson V700. It may not be a proffesional scanner, but looking online, I have seen images with much less noise in them. My first thought was therefore that maybe it was the film that was the problem.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Superia 200 sucks. Especially shot at 200. It's more like superia 64. If you buy an expensive film like ektar 100 or portra 160, shoot it at ISO 50, you'll have hardly any grain (for 35mm).

 

[leinadg]

I have ordered a roll of Portra 160 and Fuji Provia 100F I´ll try to overexpose the portra with 1 stop.

 

[ulrichsd]

Superia 200 sucks. Especially shot at 200. It's more like superia 64. If you buy an expensive film like ektar 100 or portra 160, shoot it at ISO 50, you'll have hardly any grain (for 35mm).

Sorry, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have a noob question. When you say shoot the film at ISO 50 when the film is actually 100 or 160, do you just mean to set the aperture or shutter to overexpose a stop / stop and half? Won't it then look overexposed?

 

[Josh66]

Color negative film has a lot of range, so you can overexpose a stop or so and not really blow anything out. I usually shoot 160 film at 100.

 

[Josh66]

Kodak still lists Portra 160, 400 and 800 on their website. Dont they still make them all?

Yeah, they still make them - but each one used to have a "VC" and "NC" version.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Superia 200 sucks. Especially shot at 200. It's more like superia 64. If you buy an expensive film like ektar 100 or portra 160, shoot it at ISO 50, you'll have hardly any grain (for 35mm).

Sorry, I don't want to hijack this thread, but I have a noob question. When you say shoot the film at ISO 50 when the film is actually 100 or 160, do you just mean to set the aperture or shutter to overexpose a stop / stop and half? Won't it then look overexposed?

Color neg is alot different than digital, you don't have to nail the exposure right on. When you overexpose, you don't loose information, you just get more of it. With most color neg films there's enough highlight latitude that you'll have to overexpose 4 or 5 stops to get an image "blown out", and even than..they're generally not, they'll just have funky color.

 

[bhop]

Kodak still lists Portra 160, 400 and 800 on their website. Dont they still make them all?

Yes, it's all still available. I was at freestyle saturday and a guy in line in front of me bought some of each. The "new" 160 just came out last year. Personally, i'm a big fan of it.