Alan.... Many of the so called generic or "supermarket brand" are made
by major manufacturers (konica, etc.) It sounds to me like your
scratches and muck problem is a Laboratory problem, not a film
problem... try to find a good custom lab where they use a dip and dunk
processor as opposed to a roller transport processor... the difference
is that with dip and dunk, the film is hung from a hanger and weighted
so it can be dipped into and out of the process chemistry without any
thing such as rollers touching it... roller transports are ok if they
are meticulously cared for (which most consumer labs don't) but they
still have their problems... a professionally run dip and dunk line is
absolutely the best way to process your negs... you should see a huge
difference in the scratches and muck problem.
Mike M.
Alan Tyson wrote:
> 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
