Re: Kodak Hi-def 400 film question It is good for 400 speed colour negative film.
It used to be called Royal Gold 400.
It is supposed to be somewhat less grainy than Kodak Gold 200.
Print grain index for HD 400 on 4x6 prints is rathed as 39.
PGI for Kodak Gold 200 is rated as 47. Four units is a just
noticeable difference, lower numbers are better, so the HD 400
film should be two "just noticeable differences" better than
Kodak Gold 200. (BTW Kodak Gold 200 is not a very good choice
of film, Kodak Max 400 is not noticeably grainier and has
twice the speed; Kodak HD 200 is noticeably better than HD 400)
Graininess of colour negative films depends greatly on
exposure. Underexposed film produces much worse grain
than correctly exposed film. Film given an extra stop
exposure will have slightly less grain than "correctly"
exposed film. Extra exposure is not really incorrect
for negative films unless you really overdo things.
Actual overexposure of negative films generally requires
several or many extra stops of light reaching the film.
Many people find that setting the ISO dial to a slightly
lower number than what is marked on the film gives them
useful insurance against underexposure. You may wish
to do some experiments to see whether you get an improvement
by going with a setting of 320 or 250.
If the subject is outside the range of your flash, your
pictures will be underexposed. If that is your problem,
the only solutions are: faster film, bigger flash or
larger lens aperture.
Modern 800 speed films aren't very grainy when correctly
exposed, and will be always better than a 400 speed film
underexposed by a stop.
Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net
Peter Irwin
|
|
