What does "better scanning characteristics" mean in a film?

[Philip]

I just bought a batch of (fresh!) Kodak ProImage 100 film.  After I received it, I searched around Flickr for images made with that film.  It struck me that they are often muddy pictures, no matter who took them, and in what cameras. 

The film was designed almost fifteen years ago (the Kodak information sheets on the web are dated 1997), and I remember sometime about five or six years ago films coming on the market that were touted as having "better scanning characteristics" than older films. Presumably my thirty rolls of ProImage reflect the earlier kind of film, and I'm wondering if the muddiness I see on Flickr pages is a reflection of those poorer scanning characteristics.

What is it that makes a film better for scanning?  Is it something to do with the colour of the mask? Something to do with the grain shape/size/distribution?  (I know, C41 film does not have "grain" . . . .) I wonder, what is it?

Philip

[martolod]

Marketing ploy

'Buy this because is has mystery ingredient x..and comes with 50% more Seductofol than other brands.'

ok that's enough cynicism from me for today.
i'm going to go back to riding my unicorn....... :eek: :p

[Philip]

Ha ha! That's my normal reaction to "New! Improved!" claims, but I was afraid to say it out loud.

Philip

[martolod]

Ha ha! That's my normal reaction to "New! Improved!" claims, but I was afraid to say it out loud.

Philip

if one speaks the truth, one does not need to be afraid to say it out loud.

[Julio1fer]

I have shot a lot of rolls of ProImage 100. I find it much like Kodak Gold 100 but with less color saturation. Not a bad film; maybe even better than Gold 100 for skin tones and flash. Same as Liz Taylor, made for weddings.

As for scanning, I'd guess that the only answer is smaller grain = better scans. ProImage 100 does not have much less grain that Kodak Gold IMHO.

[Philip]

I thought I'd bump this up in case anyone has more to say about "better scanning characteristics."   

I've been using my stash of Pro Image 100 off and on for four or five months and really like it.  It seems to scan fairly well (at least by the lab I go to) and, compared to the other film I'm mainly using these days -- very expired 800-speed film -- it looks like really hi-tech stuff.

This is a shot on the film, taken in my Minoltina P, and scanned by a local WalMart.



There's a bigger version of this at my Flickr page:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/flipflik/6456020343/sizes/o/in/photostream/