Film..

[Nocturnus]

So way back when, I used to shoot on nothing but Kodak Supra. Now that it's gone, what would be another good film to use? Kodak Ektar?

[zachary]

Im assuming Supra was color? Ektar or Portra, ektar is more vivid, portra is muted, for portraits.

I also like Fuji 400H.

[crbeveri]

Tri-X 400 if you want B&W :)

[Anthony Martinez]

No idea what Supra was, but I quite like Portra. Ektar is nice as well. I don't much care for 400H personally, but that's all personal preference. Can't hurt to pick a few different rolls up and shoot them to see what you like most.

[venchka]

Ektar 100, all of the Porta films, Any of the Fuji 160 films and Reala 100. I don't have enough experience with the faster Fuji films to offer a sugesstion.

[Colyn]

Ektar 100 in an excellent film for color.

Arista Premium 100 for B%W...

[Nocturnus]

And Precision doesn't seem to have much in stock..

I did grab some Portra 160 for testing. Prob go out tomorrow and see if I remember how to use this camera.

[PatrickONeill]

Supra was my favorite color film, 400 was grainless and printed beautifully. been using Portra 400NC and now new Portra400 since its untimely demise.

if you lived in fortworth, I'd suggest going to Fort Worth Camera. they stock Kodak ProImage 100. That film is the closest to what Supra 100 was.

[jeeper]

How do you guys usually rate Ektar? I haven't shot a lot of it, but what I have shot was always at ISO 100 - and it always seemed much too magenta for me... I might just pick up a 5 pack and experiment with it to see where I like it.

[smalltrees]

Supra was Kodak's amateur film line... Portra 800, and Fuji 800... ( both exposed at 250...) were my all-time favorite color films...

[RT_Panther]

Originally Posted by zachary

Im assuming Supra was color? Ektar or Portra, ektar is more vivid, portra is muted, for portraits.

While I whole heartedly agree with you, these folks have done pretty good with Ektar 100 & portraits ....
Flickr: Kodak Ektar Portraits

[PatrickONeill]

Originally Posted by jeeper

How do you guys usually rate Ektar? I haven't shot a lot of it, but what I have shot was always at ISO 100 - and it always seemed much too magenta for me... I might just pick up a 5 pack and experiment with it to see where I like it.

according to its DX code. its latatude is +/- 1. that's very slidefilm like and agrees with what most people have been saying that Ektar is a film you do not want to over or underexpose by much. I have a stock of 4 rolls that I'm going to be shooting in a week or two.

[jeeper]

Hmm. The low latitude probably explains my problems with it.

I think I will buy some more and just meter more carefully.

[smalltrees]

in the Ektar line, Kodak used the T-grain technology, used in T-Max B/W films...
the biggest problem with Ektar, they never upgraded their line of papers, to match the contrast range of Ektar... now, if you scan your processed films, you can control this issue... also understand, that Kodak's, and other film companies ratings, in this case latitude, are rather biased... you can always over-expose color films, this will confuse an "automated" printer... you only need longer print times with a negative with more density... under-exposure, of any amount will result in loss of shadow detail, and more importantly shadow color, as the blacks will go blue... you cannot compensate for under-exposure with processing, but, you can compensate in printing with over-exposure... over-exposure, using more silver, will reduce the feel of grain, same grain structures, just bringing it closer together... if that makes sense... grain in color film, is the lack of dye, or the spaces between dye clouds, that print black... over-exposure, fills those gaps... by using/exposing more silver....