I've been using Supra 400 as my default film for most of
the past year. Previoulsy I mainly used Kodak Royal Gold 400.
I'm getting my film processed by Shutterfly ( they offer
and haven't noticed any big difference one way or the tuther re; scratches.
I'm satisfied with how the film scans on my SS4000.
Vuescan has good film terms for Supra.
I have the impression that Supra has smoother color transitions
than what I was getting with Royal Gold 400.
I'm not a good person to ask about grain. I love
Tri-x processed in Rodinal and printed with a Focomat.
Now that will give you GRAIN! ....and sharp as a tack to boot.
Just thinking about it might impel me to resurrect my
At 06:04 AM 3/24/01 +0000, Alan Tyson wrote:
>I've been trawling in the archive
>(http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/htdig) 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
>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