I've shot a couple rolls of Supra 100 recently, and it does seem to be
somewhat better than the RG 100 in regard to scratch protection, all
processed at the same local lab which is about average in respect to
scratches. Not a lot of diffence between the two as far a grain/aliasing,
but better than the RG 400. The Supra gave very good results indoors with a
flash at the International Motorcycle Show (Brought to us by Toyota Trucks)
in Atlanta, but then again so did the RG 100. But the two rolls, shot on the
same day, developed by the same lab at the same time, and the Supra does
show less scratching.
Edwin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Tyson" <AlanTyson@bknowl.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
> I've been trawling in the archive
> () for the discussion I
> remember here 3-4 months ago about Kodak's "Supra" neg
> films, with allegedly good characteristics for scanning, and
> a protective layer. The conclusions were ambiguous then.
>
> Like Michael Wilkinson who's reported here lately, I've been
> suffering from scratches and muck on my negs, but also
> grain/aliasing on my 2700dpi Scanwit. Ed Hamrick's website
> actually recommends Kodak Supra 400 with a link to an
> enthusiast's website.
>
> My local Jessops' photographic chain store doesn't stock
> Supra 400, but will order it up at about 25 ukpounds for a
> 5-pack of 135-36. This is several times the price of the
> cheapo supermarket 400ASA neg film I generally use. Despite
> the 'grain' problems I'm usually happy with the results, but
> I hate the scratches & muck. Many of the scratches look to
> me as though they're due to post-handling of the negs
> (enprinting & bagging).
>
> Since our last discussion, has anyone here been using Kodak
> Supra 400, and scanning it? Does the extra hardening work as
> scratch protection?
>
> Regards,
>
> Alan T
>
