NPS 160 finer grain than Astia 100F??

[Emre Yildirim]

So I was looking at datasheets for fun, comparing films.

According to these datasheets, NPS 160 has an RMS of 4, while Astia has 7. I always thought Astia was the finest grain color film?

Astia:
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/RAP100FAF3-149E_1.pdf

NPS 160:
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/AF3-809E.pdf

Resolving power seems to be higher with NPS 160 as well (63 vs 60). Am I reading something wrong here or is NPS 160 a superior film? I might have to switch to shooting more negative film if this is true.

[John Brownlow]

It's not just about the grain... I am totally addicted to Kodak Portra NC in 160 and 400 flavors. 400 is crunchy, 160 is creamy. The color rendition is to die for. 400 is my favorite color emulsion bar none, but 160 gives it a pretty good run and for some things is far superior.

[Al Seyle]

"400 is my favorite color emulsion bar none, but 160 gives it a pretty good run and for some things is far superior."

John--
Could you tell us what types of subjects you would prefer the 160 and which the 400. And are you direct enlarging or scanning? Thanks.

[Eric Leppanen]

By the way, NPS is being replaced by Fuji 160S (RMS 3). See www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/AF3-203U_Pro160S_Product_Information_Bulletin.pdf.

Comparing print and slide films is to some extent like comparing apples to oranges. Look at Fuji's disclaimer below the RMS number listed in their print film datasheets: "Due to difference in measurement conditions, comparison with color reversal film is not possible." My personal experience with drum-scanned film is that slide film produces digital prints with less grain than print film, but that's just me and others have reported different results.

Print film has more exposure latitude; slide film has more contrast, (arguably) more color saturation and pushes better. Print film shows grain in the highlights, slide film show grain in the shadows. Which is film better? Depends on your priorities and application.

[John Brownlow]

Al -- scanning on an Imacon. The 160 is better where you have *incredibly* fine detail. The color rendition of the two emulsions is almost identical, and is what makes it so great. The 400 feels slightly sharper because of the grain, counterintuitively. I live in fear of Kodak discontinuing this film.

[Emre Yildirim]

While we're on the subject of 400 speed color film...is there any 400 speed color film available? I know there is plenty of B&W, but what about color?

Provia 400 doesn't seem to come in 4x5, and neither does Fuji 400H.

[Emre Yildirim]

Oops...I meant...is there any 400 speed LF film ASIDE from Kodak?

[Eric Leppanen]

There are no 400 speed LF films other than 400NC. Your best bet would be to shoot either Astia 100F or Provia 100F at ISO 400 and push process by two stops (Fuji claims these films can support a two stop push). I personally have never tried this; anecdotally I have heard that Astia is the better candidate for a two-stop push, as reportedly its contrast and color shifts are more manageable. I would suggest shooting test rolls of 35mm Astia and Provia to see how such a push would work in your application.

[bglick]

I finally got to the bottom of this issue myself. I applaud Fuji's effort for giving this information, but at the same time, I can't beleive they don't provide information exlaining the RMS values for neg / pos. film.

The films are tested using two different methodologies. Therefore, different scales are used for the outcome. To bring the two on a level playing field, you must divde the chrome film numbers by 2.3 to compare with neg film. So for example, 7.1 / 2.3 = 3.1. Therefore, Astia still has 1/2 the visible grain of NPS. But regardless, this neg film does seem to have some impressive numbers.