2003 was my last roll of film. I used to use Fuji colour print film as it gave deeper more saturated colours. But it was a little thicker than Kodak and so it often would fail to wind properly using Pentax MX autowinder. ISTR the suggestion at the time that you should de-rate Kodak film for deeper colours, i.e. Kodak 100 exposed as if it was ISO 80, Kodak 400 at ISO 320 etc.
1 Like
Brilliant, thanks for posting!
That’s usually just a scanning thing - the kids these days want their film to look all “warm and vintagey”, so most labs tend to scan everything a wee bit warm and slightly desaturated. A bit like how a lot of those wee all-in-one record players just hammer the low midrange to make everything “warm and vintagey” too.
It absolutely is, aye!
I think the emulsion’s changed a couple of times since then, but the general idea’s always been more or less the same. When you were printing things in the colour darkroom, you really needed the film emulsion to set the “character” of your images, hence stuff like Kodak Portra came in NC (natural colour) and VC (vivid colour) variants, or you could shoot Fuji if you wanted more of an emphasis on landscape colours. I’m sure when Kodak Ektar 100 came out, they were even talking about specifically making a film that scanned well rather than trying to set a vibe for the darkroom.
It’s generally not bad practice to do this anyway - colour neg film, especially modern stuff essentially just builds density if you overexpose it a wee bit, and the one thing you generally want to avoid is thin underexposed negs with nothing in the shadows. Essentially the exact opposite to how you’d want to expose with a digital camera!