Fuji Pro 160S - how did pro's use them
Hi, I just like to know your views on this film. I have a few rolls in the freezer and just a roll of this and scanned with my Nikon Coolscan 4000.
When you zoom into the image at 100% you do get the grain ... is this normal? What is the typical largest print size suggested? Do people use noise reduction techniques. I heard that some people said that Pro 400H was better in the grain, can someone comment? When pro's shot this for portraiture did they do much editing prior to print?
I would imagine the Pro 160S or the Kodak Portra NC160 was one of the main films for portrait photographers.
100 percent is going to depend on the resolution you're scanning at.
I always scan at 4000.
Originally Posted by jayvo86
I only have 135 format now. When I had my graduation prints done, he used a medium format and Fuji film I think, as I saw the green boxes. A while ago now, early 2000s. But the semi larger print I got was a bit more saturated, would he have shot Fuji NPC at that time? Or would that be NPS but edited prior to print .... The print just seemed more saturated than what I tend to get with my Pro 160S on my scanner.
At 4000 you can get a 12x18 "full resolution" (300dpi) print.
How grainy are you talking? Most people over expose a little with color negative film. (Or expose for the shadows.) Where are you noticing it "grainy?" How old is the film?
At least I think that's right. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Originally Posted by jayvo86
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I hate to take this thread in another direction, but here goes...
The film was/is a great film for portrait photography, particularly wedding type stuff. It had a lower contrast , so you could optically print an image to show good shadow detial and also show detail in the lace of a wedding gown without going crazy making contrast reduction masks.
It also was lower in saturation, as compared to most mass colur negative market films, so print colours did not jump at you, but printed as a bit more muted.
When you print something to 12x18" you dont have your nose in the print looking for grain.
You stand a metre or so back and appreciate the image as a whole
I still have a few rolls in my freezer of 35mm, about 5 rolls of 220, and even a box of 10 4x5 sheets.
It is nice stuff, and the right situation needs to be known to me before I want to use it.
my real name, imagine that.
I had it printed optically, in the freakin' dark.
Scanning should be discussed elsewhere.
film has grain, nuff said
I've been drum scanning 35mm 160S, and it scans really nice! This has usually been at ~4000-8000dpi(I like to do one scan, you can always down-sample for smaller prints, rather than re-scan for going larger, heck, memory is CHEAP compared to your time)
I've only optically printed 160S a few times, and it was nice. But the color pack was much lower #'s-wise than Kodak's films.
Originally Posted by rayonline_nz
I agree with WildBill that scanning should not be discussed here on APUG.
But I still want to ask the OP - why does visible grain seem to be something negative? Grain is what makes film what it is. In a portrait, the tonal palette, contrast, and color saturation would seem a lot more important. A little bit of grain is good for the photographer's soul.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
Not discussing scans at all. Just talking about the grain on this neg film.
I've shot other ISO film of slides like Kodak E100G, there's quite a bit of difference in the grain. I just thought that when people used it for weddings, some of the clients may have ordered enlargements and being a low ISO film this was suppose to be pretty good or is it just different with print film. I have a old dSLR but the grain larger than my 400 or even 800 ISO which is a 6MP camera.