Kodak Hi-def 400 film question

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Pinaki, Sep 13, 2006.

  1. Pinaki

    Pinaki Guest

    How good is this film? How does the grain compare with
    regular 200 speed film? I want to use it to take photos
    of indoor events (get-together, etc.). I don't intend to
    take natural light photos, but use just the built-in flash of
    my Pentax ZX-5. Will it work? Or will the snaps be
    too dark and/or grainy?

    Thanks in advance,
    Pinaki.
     
    Pinaki, Sep 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pinaki

    Peter Irwin Guest

    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.
     
    Peter Irwin, Sep 13, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. What do they now call the old 'Royal Gold 100'?
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Sep 13, 2006
    #3
  4. Pinaki

    Peter Irwin Guest

    The last generation of Royal Gold didn't have a 100 speed film.
    Kodak pointed out that the new RG 200 when exposed at EI 100 had
    finer grain than the old RG 100.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Sep 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Pinaki

    bmoag Guest

    All I can say is that in my experience with minilab development it tends to
    higher contrast. It is a good choice of film for the purpose you intend.
     
    bmoag, Sep 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Pinaki

    Pinaki Guest

    Thanks a lot, guys. That is definitely encouraging. I'll give it a
    shot.

    Pinaki.
     
    Pinaki, Sep 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Pinaki

    Alan Browne Guest

    It's not a bad film, esp. if you print small (no larger than 12x8 in any
    case).

    Built in flash sucks. You'll get bright (and often overexposed) faces,
    harsh saddows and dead black BG's.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 16, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.