42816
#1 in Photographic film
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit reviews on Fujifilm 1068620 Superia X-TRA 400 35mm Film - 4x24 exp, (Discontinued by Manufacturer)

Sentiment score: 4
Reddit mentions: 9

We found 9 Reddit mentions of Fujifilm 1068620 Superia X-TRA 400 35mm Film - 4x24 exp, (Discontinued by Manufacturer). Here are the top ones.

Captures true color even under fluorescent lightsPatented 4th color sensitive emulsion layerFujifilm 1014258 Superia X-TRA 400 35mm Film -4 PackColor print film is 35mmFor action or low-light shotsColor print film : 35mmFujifilm 1014258 Superia X-TRA 400 35mm Film -4 PackFor action or low-light shotsPatented 4th color sensitive emulsion layerCaptures true color even under fluorescent lights

Found 9 comments on Fujifilm 1068620 Superia X-TRA 400 35mm Film - 4x24 exp, (Discontinued by Manufacturer):

u/ratatek · 3 pointsr/analog

I'm under $6 a roll doing this:

u/jeffk42 · 3 pointsr/analog

> When you get your negatives developed at a local lab, if they have the option to scan the negatives and send it you as jpeg or tiff do you get both or one or the other?

If they have the option, it's generally going to be one or the other.

> Do you think it's worth the extra cost to get a tiff and post process the image more through Lightroom/Photoshop or do you already like how the labs develop the photos and just go for jpeg?

I've done tests comparing images scanned with both of my own scanners, scanning as jpeg and as tiff (at the same resolution) and then testing to see if there's any difference in the amount of data available. In those tests, the images came out exactly the same. I manipulated them, moving slides into crazy positions in Photoshop, and the results were always equivalent.

Maybe that's not 100% definitive, but in my experience a scanned jpeg vs tiff is not the same as digital jpeg vs raw. The latter makes a huge difference. The former makes none. Of course, those are with my scanners and not with lab scanners.

> Can you ask local labs to push/pull your negatives?

You have to ask your lab. They're all different.

> Does that cost extra?

Yes., usually a couple of dollars per stop.

> What are reasons for wanting to push/pull your film? What is the major difference?

Pushing film means you're leaving it in the developing solution for longer than the normal amount of time. Pulling means you're taking it out sooner. It's usually (though not always) done in connection with overrating or underrating the film (setting the camera's EI to a value other than the ISO printed on the box). There are a number of reasons why you'd want to do this. If you're in a position where you need an ISO 1600 film because of the light levels and all you have is ISO 400 film, you can overrate it to 1600, and later ask the lab to push process 2 stops. It's also useful for contrast control when you have a difficult scene. Exposing for the shadow areas and then developing for the highlights allows you to set the "boundaries"of your tone and allow the middle tones to fall into place between them, increasing or decreasing the contrast as the case may be.

The side effects depend on which way you're going. Overrating and pushing increases contrast and grain, can kill shadow detail, and in C-41 films may result in color shifts. Underrating and pulling film reduces grain and contrast, but is hardly ever done with C-41 film because you can overexpose it a lot without changing the development and still get perfect results.

My advice? Don't get ahead of yourself. Be comfortable with an emulsion before you start changing variables. People love to jump on the bandwagon and start push processing before they know what they're doing, and it's really easy to be disappointed in the results.

> I mostly shoot portraiture so any film for portraits would be great! Both black and white and color. Or any 35mm films in general that are just spectacular?

It seems obvious, but the Portra films (160, 400, 800) are designed for that kind of work. Fuji 400H is also nice. These are all professional grade films, so they cost more. If you want to make cheaper decisions for messing around and learning, look into Agfa Vista Plus 200, Kodak ColorPlus 200, or Fuji Superia 400.

For B&W, Ilford HP5+ and FP4+ are my primary films, but I also use Pan F+ and Delta 3200 when appropriate. Fuji Acros is also a great film.

u/petercylo · 3 pointsr/ThriftStoreHauls

> For people and family photos, I love ISO 400 color print film. It's fast enough to let me shoot without flash in any light, and good enough to look good even if I have plenty of light.
>
>Any ISO 400 film will work, and you can get it anywhere that sells film. Fuji Superia 400 is my favorite low-cost ISO 400 film. It sells for about $3 a roll.
>
>Fuji 400H Professional is my favorite — but costs about $8 a roll. I order it online as I always have; good film always has to be ordered.
>
>If you're expecting to be shooting in very dim light, ISO 800 print film doesn't have much more gain than ISO 400, and you'll be much better able to stop motion. It has slightly less vivid colors and a little more grain, but that's much better then a blurry picture if the light is very dim.
>
>
>
> ISO 100 print film is even better if you're outdoors and don't expect to be indoors during the same roll of film, except that ISO 100 print film is usually optimized for nature and landscape photos more than for people photos.

​

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-shoot-film.htm#recommendedfilms

u/sueness · 1 pointr/AskPhotography

I used this from Fuji film. It was opaque... I opened the camera afterwards and made sure the pinhole existed, and it did too.

u/woobie1196 · 1 pointr/analog

Is this the Superia you are talking about?

Seems pretty cheap; worth a shot!

Thanks for the recommendation!

u/ampeed · 1 pointr/orlando

Fujifilm 1068620 Superia X-TRA 400 35mm Film - 4x24 exp, (Discontinued by Manufacturer) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00004TWLZ/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_tuK4Ab6K0BXR7