Is NPS really this crappy?

[voodoocat]

I decided to try NPS160 today. I thought being 160 it might have less grain than 400 speed film. These are crops from 2880 dpi scans.

Kodak Portra 400VC:

Fuji NPS 160

I don't think I actually want to shoot another roll of color negative film in my life. Unless I need high speed color film for some reason.

 

[Josh]

Did you over expose it a bit? If not try it that way, it will cut down some of the grain.

I am assuming that you shot it with 35mm. If you are shooting with medium format you might as well us NPH 400 (but you know that =). I don't know how much you inlarg it but I won't take 35mm higher than an 11x14, and prefer not to go over an 8x10.

I don't shoot digital so I'm not sure if you lose anything by scanning a nagative. Maybe that will make some grain? I don't know, just a thought.

I use NPS for wedding reception candids and rarely go up to 8x10; it works well for me.

I know alot of guys (including myself) that will shoot it at 100 iso.

 

[voodoocat]

Well I did overexpose by 1/2 stop. I'm wondering if this didn't get messed up in the processing. I seem to have missing highlight detail and the negs feel a little thin to me...

Both shots are scanned with the same scanner at the same dpi (the highest available on the minolta scan dual iii) The grain on the portra 400 looks right... the NPS160 looks more like Kodak 800.

here is the entire picture that came from. You can still almost see some grain... I'm just really fed up with negative film in general. Since every single film has it's own color of amber it's too damn time consuming to get marginal results.