Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,857   Posts: 1,583,088   Online: 924
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Fujifilm 400H

  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    I understand that scanning can change the properties of negative film. However, are these changes consistent with what I am showing in the images above? Would so much color be added to a low saturation negative? The amount of color I'm seeing in my images is really much higher than I was expecting.

    To put it simply, do these images look like they are from 400H film?
    Yes they do. 400H is a great film and the shots you took seem very nicely exposed, well done Ratty Mouse. Looks like your lab did fine too.

    I do think you're missing the point of how negatives work though; they are simply an intermediate step.

    The contrast rate of the negative is only relevant when paired with the contrast rate of the printing process.

    When C41 films are paired with RA4 paper the resulting photos produce "normal" contrast photos.

    The film an paper "balance" the contrast of the final result.

    Sure it can be tweaked. They are all subjective. There are no photos that are printed without "adjustment" of at least exposure.

    The question I have for you is why did you expect something different?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    I shot a few rolls of 400H a couple of years back and was disappointed that they came out flat and "pastel" looking.

    Last weekend I used a new roll of 400H and was extremely happy with the stronger colors and contrast.

    I don't know if Fujifilm changed anything but I like the "new" 400H a LOT.
    - Bill Lynch

  3. #13
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    I shot a few rolls of 400H a couple of years back and was disappointed that they came out flat and "pastel" looking.

    Last weekend I used a new roll of 400H and was extremely happy with the stronger colors and contrast.

    I don't know if Fujifilm changed anything but I like the "new" 400H a LOT.
    Well that's interesting. I have some old rolls of the pastel looking stuff. Maybe need to order a roll of the new stuff and do a side by side.
    K.S. Klain

  4. #14
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Well that's interesting. I have some old rolls of the pastel looking stuff. Maybe need to order a roll of the new stuff and do a side by side.
    Fuji Pro 400H is a portrait film like Kodak Portra 400 and has pastel colour rendition,and soft contrast and natural skin tones. I shoot loads of it fresh, have it lab processed and have never had results as saturated and contrasty as Ratty Mouse.
    Ben

  5. #15
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,659
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    Scanning, you see. The lab will auto-correct the contrast and colour to what they (or the automated scanner) think looks right, which may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with the native appearance of that film.

    To know what it actually looks like, you need to print it optically to RA4.
    The Frontier scans to a certain fixed contrast (like RA-4 paper) and DOES give you contrast like you would have in a print, it is NOT like other scanners where it gives you the option of levels adjustment (to expand or contract contrast) most scanners scan extremely flat at auto corrections, the exception I've seen is the Flextight scanning b&w, the default look (if you do it via it's software and processing rather than raw) is like printing on a middle grade.

    Anyway increasing or decrease brightness on the Frontier corrections just increases or decreases dMax like printing, it doesn't expand or contract contrast, the images above are not exposed for lowered contrast for printing, therefore will not have lowered contrast via the Frontier either, they're exposed for higher contrast (underexposed even). If the lab printed with less density on the frontier (more brightness) the blacks would be -grey- not black.

    You do not get to alter/correct gamma on the frontier like you can with other scanners - you correct gamma by exposing correctly.

    Eg it would just do this:


    As opposed as to actually getting to alter the gamma, which gives you this if open it up



    As you can see, it's not a lab deciding to print this way, or automatic correction issue. It's a user issue (exposure).

    Imho I don't like 400H that much (Colour is fine, do like the colour), last time I shot some, it dropped shadow detail it shouldn't have (flat lighting, dark hair on a model, correctly exposed), very very grainy as well compared to Portra 400, and not sharp at all (6x7cm). At that time Portra 400 wasn't out (the new one), so I was shooting Pro 160S instead of 400H, which imho is probably faster than 400H.
    Last edited by Athiril; 10-25-2012 at 07:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,243
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Yes they do. 400H is a great film and the shots you took seem very nicely exposed, well done Ratty Mouse. Looks like your lab did fine too.

    I do think you're missing the point of how negatives work though; they are simply an intermediate step.

    The contrast rate of the negative is only relevant when paired with the contrast rate of the printing process.

    When C41 films are paired with RA4 paper the resulting photos produce "normal" contrast photos.

    The film an paper "balance" the contrast of the final result.

    Sure it can be tweaked. They are all subjective. There are no photos that are printed without "adjustment" of at least exposure.

    The question I have for you is why did you expect something different?
    400H is described as a low saturation film. My images came out VERY saturated so that is why I did not get expected results. Perhaps these images will look different when printed out on paper. That would be very interesting to see.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,243
    Images
    58
    The darks are REALLY weird in my 400H images. I have no ability whatsoever to push the shadows. Weird green dots appear and the grain is horrific. I dont know if that is a film issue or a bad scan from the lab. I have never had a problem pushing my Reala or Acros scans from this lab. This weekend I'm going to shoot some Kodak Porta 400 and compare how that looks and acts.

  8. #18
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,659
    Images
    28
    400H is very grainy in shadows, and in my experience, has less dynamic range into the shadows then all other films. Anyway just by looking at the general look of the image, I would put it down to exposure. Portra 400 is significantly finer grained @ box speed vs box speed, and more detailed, with a lot more DR.

  9. #19
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,796
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    400H is described as a low saturation film. My images came out VERY saturated so that is why I did not get expected results. Perhaps these images will look different when printed out on paper. That would be very interesting to see.
    I doubt that they will look much different on paper.

    I think that what you are describing as high saturation and contrast may simply be that the tones are "printing" or "falling" darker than you planned as a result of underexposure.

    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    The darks are REALLY weird in my 400H images. I have no ability whatsoever to push the shadows. Weird green dots appear and the grain is horrific. I dont know if that is a film issue or a bad scan from the lab. I have never had a problem pushing my Reala or Acros scans from this lab. This weekend I'm going to shoot some Kodak Porta 400 and compare how that looks and acts.

    RattyMouse I'm going to guess now, given the the funky shadow detail you describe and the amount of detail and lack of "pop" in the highlights, that you simply underexposed versus your intent for the shot.

    How did you meter?
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #20
    wogster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Bruce Peninsula, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    I understand that scanning can change the properties of negative film. However, are these changes consistent with what I am showing in the images above? Would so much color be added to a low saturation negative? The amount of color I'm seeing in my images is really much higher than I was expecting.

    To put it simply, do these images look like they are from 400H film?
    The negative is like a score, the print is like the performance, anyone who has been in a choir or orchestra will tell you, there is a lot of creative process getting from score to performance.

    There are two ways to get from negative to colour print, the traditional enlarger projection and the digital scan, they are different means to achieve the same thing (a print). I realized something a few years ago, if it's difficult to get a good print using enlarger projection, then a digital scan is also going to be difficult to get a good result. Night exposures can be the hardest to get good results from, because lit areas are often over exposed, while dark areas are under exposed, this can result in more contrast then normal. I think this is what we are seeing here, a slight over and under exposure, and in this case it worked quite well. You can do this intentionally by metering on bright areas, then metering on dark areas and splitting the difference.
    Paul Schmidt
    See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com

    The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin