Consumer and pro grade film

[PhotoAmateur]

I've been shooting with Fuji Superia film, I see it all over, in grocery
stores, drug stores, etc. Is there a better negative film by Fuji? I've
heard a lot of good things about Fuji film and have noticed that most
professionals use Fuji Velvia, I know it's a slide film, but I'm looking for
a better negative film than Superia unless Superia is fine.

[Bob]

I like Fuji NPS 160 or NPL 160, S for short exposures and L for long. I think there is an additional layer that will increase the tonal range over Superia. You probably won't notice any difference unless you do your own processing and printing.

[Eddie]

I like Fuji NPS 160 or NPL 160, S for short exposures and L for long. I think there is an additional layer that will increase the tonal range over Superia. You probably won't notice any difference unless you do your own processing and printing.

I agree. I love NPS 160, it has a good grain at a higher ASA and good balance, I print my own negs though.

[Dave]

One of the best consumer-grade films I've ever shot is Fuji Reala. It
is a print film, and only comes in ISO100. It beats Superia 100,
Royal Gold 100, and Gold 100 easily.
As for faster films, I believe that you can and will see a difference
if you use pro film. But remember to treat it right; keep it
refrigerated, use it within its recommended expiration date, and
select it to match the type of shooting you will be doing.

If you are willing to go to the extra trouble and expense of using Pro
films, and you have your film processed at a decent lab, you will see
an improvement in the quality of your pictures. Here are some of the
films that I enjoy using:


ISO100--------

Fuji Reala: It's not a pro film, but when the light is sufficient for
ISO100 film this is the type I grab every time.

I'm anxious to try Kodak Supra 100. Does anyone else have any
comments on it?


ISO200--------

I haven't found a 200 speed film that I like. Royal Gold and Gold
both seem lackluster and grainier than they ought to be. Superia 200
also seemed underwhelming.

ISO400--------

I had all but given up on 400 speed films until I began playing around
with pro-grade film. The now discontinued Kodak PJ400 turned out to
be a success. I've also had a lot of good luck shooting Kodak
Porta400VC under various lighting conditions. But I'm anticipating
liking Kodak's new Supra 400 once I get a chance to shoot a roll or
two of it.

ISO800--------

Kodak Max just doesn't do it for me, with its dull contrast and muddy
look. Royal Gold 1000 is too grainy and lacks shadow detail. I had
completely given up on 800+ print films until I read an article about
18 months ago about Fuji NHG II 800. I shot a couple of test rolls
and was surprised at that film's abilities. In daylight conditions it
doesn't give the best color I've ever seen, but its picture quality is
very good even in low light. It stands up well to underexposure
followed by push processing too.

I haven't yet tried Porta 800, nor Supra 800, and I'm anxious to do
so. It wouldn't surprise me if these new films compare well with
Fuji's NHG II 800.

ISO1600-------

Fuji makes an ISO1600 that I've shot a couple of times. It is a
consumer grade (at least the one I'm talking about). It is quite
grainy, and lacks shadow detail. It fares a little better if
overexposed, but not much.