Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,550   Posts: 1,544,679   Online: 877
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oakdale, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    261
    Welcome back to film and also to this site.

    Mike

  2. #12
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,533
    Images
    28
    Try this - http://www.flickr.com/photos/athiril/5417148671/

    You need to revisit the scanning/printing. Otherwise I might suggest chemistry error.. I haven't had a problem with strong reds either. The flash is ~5600K and exceptionally bright, exposure was EI 400 for the model, but that hard spotlight on reflective tiles retains detail, that is several stops over normal highlights. None of the dyes/colour channels exhibit clipping/no contrast.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    stillsilver Thank you very much. I am truly enjoying it.

    Mark Antony Wonderul shot, and I also enjoyed going through your blog. That is basically the kind of contrast I get in my shots, albeit in a smaller 35mm frame.

    AthirilI'm not sure where you are taking this as I mentioned my love for 400H. Your photo only shows a nude women, but there are no brilliant reds. Processing, chemicals, scanning, are all variables out of my control unless I change the Lab who processes it, which I did, 3 times! If you keep insisting it is those, then I'm sorry I can't help you. Good Luck!

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,211
    Are you able to show us an example of 400H and NPH so we can see what you see with your photos?
    Steve.

  5. #15
    Mark Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Anglia,UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    38
    My guess is that the newer emulsion may be slightly different, I know that dye tech moves on. I think most of the increased contrast probably comes from slight underexposure rather than the new film having iherently higher contrast, the resulting compensation with modern printers (mostly digital) will give higher contrast.
    Have you tried to find the old Fuji PDF and compare the curves?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/free0s/5456012812/

    This is just an example of the differences between the two negatives. Granted, the orange mask isn't enough evidence to say that Fuji hasn't somehow kept the characteristics of NPH in a new emulsion, but what I can see from my own eyes, they just don't appear to be the same.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,211
    NPH was given a makeover in 2002 and for a while was known as 'new' NPH. This was the announcement:

    http://home.fujifilm.com/photokina20...r_pdf/pr_1.pdf
    Steve.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,211
    In this thread a poster thinks new NPH is more saturated than the old version:

    http://forums.popphoto.com/showthrea...t-Fuji-NPH-400
    Steve.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    I don't know if 400H is exactly the same as NPH. I would assume it's been tweaked some for finer grain, etc.

    However, I would wager the problem you are having with blown out reds is from the scanning they do before printing. There probably are tones that are still separated in the reds on your negatives, but to get at them, you are probably going to have to get a scan done on a different style machine or do it yourself.

    You can always try the new Portra 400 too. I don't find it punchier than the old ones. It's a hair more saturated than 400NC, but not much. Has about the same contrast and finer grain.

  10. #20
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by freddie.rios View Post
    I've been a long user of Fuji's NPH film and stopped using film about 9 years ago and mistakingly jumped on the digital bandwagon only to recently comeback in full force with analog. Anyway, as I came back, I could no longer find NPH and was saddened that it had been discontinued. Fortunately, I've been hearing around the internet that Fuji Pro 400H is an essence the same emulsion, only renamed to re-align Fuji's naming conventions. So as any good photographer who is best with the tools he knows well, I purchased the new 400H and have been using it for about a couple of months now. However, I've noticed that the results weren't quite the same, even with the same camera. NPH had the characteristic of low contrast, slightly softer colors then Fuji's other emulsions, and was most likely the reason for making it one of the films of choice of wedding photographers.

    Fuji Pro 400H on the other hand seems to be more like Superia, maybe only slightly less contrast. Strong reds like LEDs, stoplights, tailiights that are on, all take the same blown-out, out of gamma look that Superia is known for, or well at least the Superia I used 10 years ago.

    At first I thought it was my original pro lab(in Hollywood), so I switched to another Pro lab, and I got the same thing. Then to really narrow it out, thinking that perhaps they use the same techniques in the US for developing Fuji, I went to Japan just recently and purchased some 400H there, and had it developed there. Well to my surprise, it was the same!

    So I looked for some of my old NPH negatives and laid them side by side and noticed that the orange color mask on the 400H was a darker shade then the NPH. Also, on the NPH, you could see much more detail in the negative as opposed to the 400H. That might explain why the NPH seemed better at scanning then the 400H. I also looked at my older Superia 400, same speed as the 400H and NPH, and noticed that the color mask was the same darker shade of the 400H, and not of the lighter NPH.

    I'm not saying 400H is a bad film. If anything, I realized it's very consistent with predictable results, regardless of lab or continent. I jut wanted to tell my story, that I don't think it's the same film at all as my once loved NPH.

    Is there any other low-contrast film, Fuji or Kodak out now?
    I'm still uncertain you'd see such utter consistency given: different film batches, different labs, different subjects/lighting. Despite assurances from Fuji, 400H--much like old NPH--seems to like over-exposure of up to a stop. Most wedding shooters appeared to rate it at ISO200-250. You should try that if you're unhappy with your results at ISO400. The new stuff scans beautifully, as does the new Kodak Portra.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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