Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,469   Posts: 1,570,881   Online: 1103
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by freddie.rios View Post
    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!
    The the flash hot spot is ridiclously above 'brilliant reds' in red (and green and blue).

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    perkeleellinen Thank you!
    You introduced enough evidence to show that at least as of 2002, they changed the emulsion, so that would tie-in with other members confusion as to how NPH probably didn't change much for them, but significantly changed for me. There's also a probability that it changed once again before being renamed or repackaged as Pro400H. Since it changed at about the time I stopped using it, that would also explain my confusion. At least I can show, that as of early 2002, the NPH that I was using is vastly different than the 400H sold today, and while some people may deem it having a washed out look, I actually prefer it to 400H. I guess it's just part of life as films keep getting discontinued. I would like to try out the "New Portra 400", though.

  3. #23
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,021
    The main difference is that 400 H has a fourth emulsion layer, and is much better in mixed light.
    Ben

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    How did you print the NPH? How did you print the Pro 400H? You have to make gray-card-matching prints on the same medium to really compare them in detail.

    Are you comparing the Pro 400H to your old NPH photos, or to recent photos shot on old NPH film?

    Pro 400H can be nice and snappy, especially if you underexpose it (which most people do when shooting in bright light with an in-camera meter). However, it can also be made more muted by overexposing it.

    I don't think it is much different than the frozen NPH that I still shoot. Somebody mentioned the fourth color layer. That may be the only difference, though I thought NPH had it too. I would consult the Fuji data sheets and see what they say.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 02-18-2011 at 06:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    BTW, I found on another photo forum a re-posted e-mail from Fuji on the matter with a Google search for "Fuji NPH datasheet" (5th result). Here is the link to the forum: http://photo.net/film-and-processing...0FMg0?start=10. It is the last post on the page.

    The e-mail reads:

    Thank you for contacting Fujifilm, USA's Contact Center. Please allow us to assist you.

    NPH 400/NPZ 800 was not discontinued, however the name changed to Pro 400 H/800 Z. Pro 400 H/800 Z uses the same emulsion as NPH/NPZ so you can expect the same great results.

    We sincerely hope this information has been beneficial to you. If you should have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us again. It would be our pleasure to assist you.

    Thank you for your interest in Fujifilm products and services.

    Respectfully, Contact Support Agent 2710 Fujifilm Contact Center 1-800-800-3854


    This was Feb., 2006. The fourth color layer could possibly have been added after then, but I don't know.

    I think if you are getting scans and automated prints, you cannot accurately judge, especially against old prints that were processed and printed differently. I would make carefully-and-identically-exposed-and-processed test shots, and print them optically to match a middle gray card. Meter off the gray card and then open up half a stop, or just use an incident meter, and try to shoot in light around 5,500 K.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 02-18-2011 at 06:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    2F/2F Thanks for the info, which fully backs up others claim that NPH with the 4th layer at least is the same to 400H. You are right, scans and automated prints is not an accurate way to judge films, done almost a decade a part. However, that is the tricky part with Negative films. It's very difficult to get the colors just right, between different labs, different processing machines, and scanners. Each item has its own take or representation of what a color should look, and we're not even adding the technician variable. All these variables is what makes some people only shoot color on E-6, and even that's not perfect. I'm afraid I'm not going to do as you suggest with the gray cards and such, perhaps if you'd like to, but it's not an endeavor I'm willing to partake in. You see my control was as a typical user, and not in a lab setting with controlled variables. If I did do it an a lab setting and made errors, I can see why your suggestions might make sense, but as I only used it for vernacular photographs, I don't see the expense in doing that. I hope my image from the previous page is enough that at least the 2002 NPH is not the same. That's about it.

    BTW, as you live in Los Angeles, what lab do you use most often?
    Last edited by freddie.rios; 02-18-2011 at 07:52 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added the BTW

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Hi,

    I used A and I until I found out about Samy's Santa Barbara. It is the same machines, same quality, but lower prices. They have a mail-in special that is $5 a roll for 135, 120, or 220. It is a very good deal on the 220 processing, which is mostly what I shoot in color. I hear that Swan is good too. My friend, who is working on a master's degree at Cal Arts, uses them for everything. (Cal Arts has a nice printing lab, but it is not set up for color film processing.)

    The grey card test only makes sense if you have NPH to begin with, of course. I would say that the variation you see is coming from perhaps a different lab's processing, but probably more so a different printing process and materials than you were using 10 years ago. If you were to get custom enlargements made instead of automated ones, I'll bet the film would look better to you.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #28
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,952
    Images
    108
    May be 10 years ago , automatic printers were not scanning the prints which they will print. All new automatic machines are transforming the print bad digital one for to able to correct for printing and for write to the cd.

  9. #29
    Mark Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Anglia,UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    38
    I can't see any massive difference between the two based on the curves:


    I think the biggest difference will be in the printing, years ago it would have been optical, now that's rare. I'm not saying the film hasn't changed just that other things in the image chain have change more.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    BTW, the $5 a roll price at Samy's Santa Barbara is for E-6 only. My mistake.

    C-41 is $5 for 135, $5.25 for 120, and $7.95 for 220. By comparison, A and I, which uses the same machines and has way more Hollywood attitude, is $8 for 135 or 120, and $14 for 220.

    I just sent in a batch of 87 rolls to Samy's. It cost me $588.34. If I had taken the same batch to A and I, it would have cost me $971.29.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

Page 3 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