kodak supra

Hi there,

Sorry to bother you here, but I would like to know is kodak professional
supra films (200 or 400) really discontinued? Why I still saw it sold at
B&H's website? I have shot portra 800, portra 160nc and hi-definition 400
recently. Can anyone compare supra films with these films for me? I know
kodak recomment portra 160vc, 400uc to replace supra 200, 400, but I do
prefer some cheaper films for casual use. Is supra what I'm looking for?
Thank you!

L. Jou

L. Jou wrote:

Sorry to bother you here, but I would like to know is kodak professional
supra films (200 or 400) really discontinued? Why I still saw it sold at
B&H's website?

No bother, that's what this newsgroup is for! As far as I can tell,
Supra 100 is discontinued worldwide. Supra 200/400 and Royal Supra 200/400
are still sold at B&H, non-Royal for much less money. It appears that both
these films are imported, since they are supposedly discontinued in the USA.
I have never seen a comparison of the Royal and non-Royal Supras.

I have shot portra 800, portra 160nc and hi-definition 400 recently.
Can anyone compare supra films with these films for me?

Portra 800 varied so much in my tests that I won't comment. Portra 160NC
is an excellent low-contrast portrait film that might serve for other uses
if you don't mind insubstantial shadows and have a suitable lab (Kodak or
Agfa). Portra 400UC is an excellent medium-contrast multi-purpose film
with high color saturation and ultra low grain for the speed. I love it.
High Definition 400 is grainer than 400UC, especially skin tones, so I'm
not sure what recommends it over Fuji Superia/Press 800.

I know kodak recommend portra 160vc, 400uc to replace supra 200, 400,
but I prefer cheaper films for casual use. Is supra what I'm looking for?

Go ahead and try it, and please report back to us! I do not remember
hearing any really negative comments about Royal Supra 200 or 400.

In article ,
says...
L. Jou wrote:

Sorry to bother you here, but I would like to know is kodak professional
supra films (200 or 400) really discontinued? Why I still saw it sold at
B&H's website?

No bother, that's what this newsgroup is for! As far as I can tell,
Supra 100 is discontinued worldwide. Supra 200/400 and Royal Supra 200/400
are still sold at B&H, non-Royal for much less money. It appears that both
these films are imported, since they are supposedly discontinued in the USA.
I have never seen a comparison of the Royal and non-Royal Supras.

I have shot portra 800, portra 160nc and hi-definition 400 recently.
Can anyone compare supra films with these films for me?

Portra 800 varied so much in my tests that I won't comment. Portra 160NC
is an excellent low-contrast portrait film that might serve for other uses
if you don't mind insubstantial shadows and have a suitable lab (Kodak or
Agfa). Portra 400UC is an excellent medium-contrast multi-purpose film
with high color saturation and ultra low grain for the speed. I love it.
High Definition 400 is grainer than 400UC, especially skin tones, so I'm
not sure what recommends it over Fuji Superia/Press 800.

I know kodak recommend portra 160vc, 400uc to replace supra 200, 400,
but I prefer cheaper films for casual use. Is supra what I'm looking for?

Go ahead and try it, and please report back to us! I do not remember
hearing any really negative comments about Royal Supra 200 or 400.


I use royal supra 200 all the time. If you look at the scanning examples
in the tips section of my web site you can see some examples of how much
detail can be extracted from this film using a modern scanner.
Follow the tips link on my home page and scroll to the scanning
discussions.

--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Robert D Feinman wrote:

I use royal supra 200 all the time. If you look at the scanning examples
in the tips section of my web site you can see some examples of how much
detail can be extracted from this film using a modern scanner. Follow
the tips link on my home page and scroll to the scanning discussions.

One I know is from Royal Supra 200 (because you said so previously) is:

http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html

This looks excellent, perhaps even better than scans I've seen from
Royal Gold 25, which has a more-bubbly grain structure.

But my own 2400 dpi scans of High Definition 200 were much worse,
leading me to wonder whether it is a grain-size aliasing issue
owing to the use of 2400 rather than 5400 dpi, or whether Kodak's
High Definition 200 is a much worse film than Royal Supra 200.

Subject: kodak supra
From: Bill Tuthill
Date: Thu, Dec 11, 2003 3:38 PM
Message-id:

Robert D Feinman wrote:

I use royal supra 200 all the time. If you look at the scanning examples
in the tips section of my web site you can see some examples of how much
detail can be extracted from this film using a modern scanner. Follow
the tips link on my home page and scroll to the scanning discussions.

One I know is from Royal Supra 200 (because you said so previously) is:

http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip25.html

This looks excellent, perhaps even better than scans I've seen from
Royal Gold 25, which has a more-bubbly grain structure.

But my own 2400 dpi scans of High Definition 200 were much worse,
leading me to wonder whether it is a grain-size aliasing issue
owing to the use of 2400 rather than 5400 dpi, or whether Kodak's
High Definition 200 is a much worse film than Royal Supra 200.

Hi Bill/Robert:

Robert, I really like this one:

A
HREF="http://robertdfeinman.com/hi_maui_plantation_h1.jpg"hi_maui_plantat
ion_h1.jpg/A

....it almost has a 3D look to it. What camera and lens did you use to take it
(and exposure too)?

I love the tones throughout and the mist in the background, I never realised
Royal Supra 200 was so good. Would regular Supra 200 or even their garden
variety Gold 200 (which I am also growing fond of) be the same or a similar
film? How do they all differ, if they do indeed differ?

TIA

Regards and Happy Holidays to both of you,

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

Hi Robert:

Was this shot on Royal Supra 200 too? (In case I forgot to ask which film it
was shot on in a previous post):

A
HREF="http://robertdfeinman.com/hi_maui_plantation_h1.jpg"hi_maui_plantat
ion_h1.jpg/A

TIA

Regards,

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

in message ,
wrote Lewis Lang ...

Hi Robert:

Was this shot on Royal Supra 200 too? (In case I forgot to ask which film it
was shot on in a previous post):

http://robertdfeinman.com/hi_maui_plantation_h1.jpg

Amazing picture indeed.

It helps though to have hills/mountains nearby (w.r.t the camera) to
not disapper in the mist. I would be deligthed to know if my
assumption is wrong.


- parv

--
In order to reach me, do away w/ WhereElse in the address.

In article ,
says...
in message ,
wrote Lewis Lang ...

Hi Robert:

Was this shot on Royal Supra 200 too? (In case I forgot to ask which film it
was shot on in a previous post):

http://robertdfeinman.com/hi_maui_plantation_h1.jpg

Amazing picture indeed.

It helps though to have hills/mountains nearby (w.r.t the camera) to
not disapper in the mist. I would be deligthed to know if my
assumption is wrong.


- parv


The maui pictures were taken with Kodak Ektachrome 200 speed film.
The edge marking says ED-3. I think that is elite 200, but can't quite
remember.
The panoramas were taken with a Noblex 35mm camera. This is a swing-lens
camera in which the lens rotates as the exposure is made. This give a
horizontal angle of about 135 degrees, but suffers from distortion since
the film is wrapped around a cylinder. For scenes with no strong
straight lines it's not as noticeable.
As for the online image, I scanned the side in and tweaked the contrast
in photoshop.
One thing that makes the image work is the low contrast of the original
scene which makes using transparency film easier to manage.

Lately I've been doing a lot of work with color negative film and have
revised my opinions about the need for transparency film. The latitude
is so much greater that is is possible to reproduce images on sunny days
without having to compromise the shadow detail as with slides.

I'm currently going to explore the tradeoffs between shooting 200 speed
film versus shooting 400 speed film rated at 200. The weak point
with negative film is underexposure. The contrast is too low and the
grain is too prominent. So "over exposing" should put the shadows
into a region of the response curve which has better tonal separation
and less grain.

The trade off has to do with the more obvious grain with the higher
speed film as well as generally poorer color reproduction.
I've posted a query as to whether anyone had already done such a
comparison, but didn't get any responses.

--
Robert D Feinman

Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com

In message - Kevin
Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:53:13 -0500 writes:
:
:On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:04:16 GMT, "L. Jou"
:wrote:
:I know kodak recomment portra 160vc, 400uc to replace supra 200, 400, but I do
:prefer some cheaper films for casual use. Is supra what I'm looking for?
:
:
:Supra is a great film. I like the look of it, and the way it performs
:in every situation. I have just run out of 100 and only have 20 or so
:rolls of 200. I always have a camera loaded with 400, from my regular
:bodies (spotmatic sp, nikon fm3a, or f4e) or my wifes point and shoot.
:
:I personally go with porta 800 when I can not get a roll of supra 400.
:I do not like 400vc a little grainy, and 400UC has a much higher
:saturation than 400 Supra, but low grain. However, when I shoot
:family kids parties I love using 400UC.
:
:Buy a pro pack and give it a try. film is a highly selective item
:that I believe one can decide for themself.

Hi

I tried Porta 400 UC when my local dealer ran out of Supra and I didn't really
care for it. I've been ordering "Royal Supra" from B&H Photo (in New York -
USA). Royal Supra is the replacement for Supra that's manufactured in the US
but not sold in North America (figure that one out).

Rob

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:04:16 GMT, "L. Jou"
wrote:
I know kodak recomment portra 160vc, 400uc to replace supra 200, 400, but I do
prefer some cheaper films for casual use. Is supra what I'm looking for?


Supra is a great film. I like the look of it, and the way it performs
in every situation. I have just run out of 100 and only have 20 or so
rolls of 200. I always have a camera loaded with 400, from my regular
bodies (spotmatic sp, nikon fm3a, or f4e) or my wifes point and shoot.

I personally go with porta 800 when I can not get a roll of supra 400.
I do not like 400vc a little grainy, and 400UC has a much higher
saturation than 400 Supra, but low grain. However, when I shoot
family kids parties I love using 400UC.

Buy a pro pack and give it a try. film is a highly selective item
that I believe one can decide for themself.