[filmscanners] Re: color negative/print film advice

["Sam A. McCandless" <samcc@vom.com>]

Thanks, Doug for your Kodak ratings. I'm glad to have your report and
looking forward to hearing what you think of the new HD 400 after
you've scanned it. I'm hoping it will be a superior to Supra 400 so I
can at least be sure of an improvement at ISO 400.

Dsm


At 7:38 PM -0400 7/11/03, Doug Franklin wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:51:51 -0700, Sam A. McCandless wrote:
>
> > I'd appreciate some advice about which color negative/print film(s)
> > to use for landscape and nature photos. I'll be scanning it in my
> > Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (not Plus). Or in a modest upgrade of my
> > SS4000, but not on an Imacon or a Leaf, etc.
>
>I scan with a CanoScan FS4000 and use almost exclusively print film.  I
>use Kodak film almost exclusively because I prefer its warmer tone to
>the Fuji films I've used.  I don't think I've scanned any of the Fuji
>negatives yet, in fact.
>
>I've had the best results scanning @ 4k ppi using Kodak Gold Max.
>Portra 400 NC didn't work well at all (lots of chroma noise or grain
>aliasing).  Supra 100, 200, and 400 were better than Portra NC.  Royal
>Gold 1000 is better than Gold Max 800.  Haven't tried Portra VC.  I've
>got some of the new "High Definition" developed, but haven't scanned
>any of it yet.
>
>Basically I'd rank them this way, best results to worst (scanning
>only):
>
>1) Gold Max 200 or 400
>2) Royal Gold 200 or 400
>3) Supra 200 or 400
>4) Portra NC 400
>5) Royal Gold 1000
>6) Gold Max 800
>
>
>TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body