Anyone seen the new Provia 400x?

Just asking. It was supposed to make its debut in August, 2006, as I recall.

Fuji's web site says "late summer 2006." Maybe they plan to unveil it at Photokina next month.

Same datasheet RMS granularity as EPN and EPP, with higher resolution.

My <A

HREF="http://cacreeks.com/films.htm">film characteristics table</A>

has listed it for weeks or months.

I still think Provia 400F is a pretty great film, and despite popular opinion (often coming from folks who haven't actually compared the two side by side), I find 400F to be just as good as Kodak 400UC, if not slightly better, in terms of grain... and noticably better in terms of sharpness. (400UC is the more "accurate" of the two, in terms of color rendition, though.)

One unfortunate thing about Fuji 400F slide film--it was not available in 220 for some reason. I'd be curious about 400X compared to the following 220 available films:<ul>

<li>NPH

<li>Astia 100F pushed 2 stops

<I>Provia 400F (RHP III) completely annihilates all 6MP DSLRs, even outresolves my Canon 20D </i><P>So now 400F out-resolves a 20D? <P>Hey, news flash people. 35mm 400F out-resolves a 20D, ....and Manufacturing jobs are moving to the U.S. I'm going to attach a shot I made with my 10D a few weeks ago shot at ISO 800 and with no grain filtering applied. Les, having concluded that 400F is superior than a 20D, should have no problem matching my shot with a sharper and cleaner shot from 400F. Right Les?

 

<I><P>often coming from folks who haven't actually compared the two side by side</i><P>I have, in MF, and I would take UC 400 in a heartbeat. 400F might appear sharper in middle and lower density areas because of the way print film tends to 'grain up', and 400F has the slide saturation advantage, but I'd still take UC 400. The biggest problem I have with 400F is it's absurdly high contrast, ziltch shadow detail, and low lattitude that makes Provia look like Astia. Hence why I preferred to pull 400F to 200 in 6x7 to yield a decent portrait film. Of course Les Sarile's 35mm 400F has more resolution than my MF 400F .<P> Besides a grain upgrade, Fuji needs to lower the contrast with 400X to make make it a better film, but that remains to be seen. The bad thing is I don't know of any pros willing to mess with 400 speed slide film any more and snap shooters would be better off with a Fuji F30. This means 400X will be mostly used by <b>amatuers</b> in pointless grain comparisons in this forum, which is an unfortunate and insulting last stand for this unique emulsion.<P>As for 400X vs NPH, why don't you shoot a wedding and find out how different they really are?<div></div>

Well regradless of what "outresolves" what, I'm glad Fuji is still putting some effort into new film technology. Nevertheless, I have a sick feeling in my gut that these latest emulsions may be the last "hurrah" in the E-6 department.

I'd be interested in trying the new Provia 400x. I shot a bit of 400F, but admit I don't really use 400 speed slide film anymore. 400UC @ 320 is much more forgiving to expose, easy to scan, and fine enough grained for me.

 

Attached is a shot on 400F back in 2002.<div></div>

Well Scott:

 

I took a look at your photo. I don't have similar subject matter to compare it too, but in my experience 400F would have yielded as good or better resolution, even in 35MM format. Please don't go on about post something to prove it; I have better things to do. There may be more grain, but that is to be expected, and sometimes preferred.

 

The grain structure in 400F was very smooth and pleasing. I was always amazed at just how much detail this film could eek out and how well it responded to noise reduction. I've taken this film to 13X19 enlargements with little trouble and almost no grain.

 

Don't knock it til you try it. Just hope that 400X will be as good.

 

Anthony

When we look at the digital versus film debate, what most digital proponents overlook is the large amount of in-camera digital processing that is going on when the image is taken. If we were to give film some of those advantages with post-processing - which most people shooting digital do (raw conversion, neat image, etc.) the actual difference in image quality are relatively small from the aspect of noise. In regards to resolution, there is no question that film is superior. There is far more data in the film than the typical desktop scanner can get out. So,

Scott, why don't you stop picking on Les?

<i>There is far more data in the film than the typical desktop scanner can get out.</i><br><br>So you're really comparing DSLR vs. scanner, not DSLR vs. film.

I suppose that it is fair to compare dslr to film+scanner. After all, most of us are using

film as a basis for digital output. Even the large format negative of Walker Evans is used

as a basis for digital output these days:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/arts/design/25evan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

If one is to take slides and project them, however, I think most people would be impressed

by the overall quality compared to looking at a computer screen.

 

Also, I think that we should all recognize that there are certain qualities that film capture

has that is very different from digital and has a certain appeal to some.

How can a reasonable person compare Digital to film? They are apples and oranges. Everyone knows that It is like comparing Soviet Cameras to Nikons...... The Soviet cameras will always win .. Pravda says so.

 

;)

 

Larry

Les, I just checked out the "Luminous Landscape" article you cited. What a laugh! Based on the images posted, the D30 could only be considered superior to Provia, as Michael Reichman claims, if loss of surface features and texture is regarded as a good thing. Granted, digital cameras have come a long way since the D30, but Reichman's credibility on the subject is nil.

 

I am with Scott, however, in hoping that Provia 400x has lower contrast than 400f. High contrast and a tendency for shadows to go blue are the only problems that I have had with that film, which I otherwise like very much.

les - i've looked at every sample in your gallery. i cannot find one as sharp, detailed, or clean as what scott posted (within the narrow dof of course), which is pretty typical of dslrs. even among your iso 100 film shots of flowers. if film is so superior and gives you such an overwhelming advantage, could you show us a macro flower and/or insect shot that's as good?

 

please don't point to your maps. your gallery photos do not compare nearly as well as the maps. if you have better photos, post examples. if not, then why is the film advantage you preach at every turn lost when you go into the field?

 

also...the obsession with reichmann...SCARY. you really need to chill out.

<P><i>Mike, for someone who is not even a patron of Photo.net and without any samples at all, you seem awful picky about what you want to see aren't you?</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>just so you know, you don't impress me by acting like this.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Also, don't you find it a little odd that someone glorifying his 6MP compared to something else doesn't have any direct comparisons to come with it - just that he is the self professed processor guru?</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>i thought it was pretty plain from the language he was comparing to your work.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>Anyway, let me help a brother out by pointing you to an example of Kodak 100UC-053 > 2Meg that is already on my site but perhaps due to your limited bandwidth missed it.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>i saw it. nice shot, but it's not pixel sharp or as clean as one would expect from a dslr. maybe the pixel sharp comment isn't fair given the action, depends on the shutter speed. it is good, but it's nothing that couldn't be matched digitally under the same conditions.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>But hey if you're going to make at least an attempt at it, I would suggest you shoot side by side - dig and film. So, here are some more real world side by side examples using the same fine lens Canon EOS 100 f2.8 macro and same manual settings with plenty of DOF - f11 and shutter speed - 1/2500, to make sure there is enough in focus to make a proper evaluation.</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>i've got one problem with this: the 20d was clearly not shot at iso 100. no way a 20d has that much noise at 100. i want to say 800 but the color noise in the shadows makes me think 1600.</P>

<P></P>

<P>did you have to shoot the digital at a higher iso to even things up in terms of noise/grain or detail? or was this a mistake?</P>

<P></P>

<P>even so...theres not that much to choose between them. the film is a touch better in this case. but you could have gotten a better 20d shot. </P>

<P></P>

<P><i>This real enough for you?</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>not really. i'm wondering what iso the 20d was at, clearly 800 or higher, and do not think its representative of the best that body can do. in any case, this does not warrant the brow beating and preaching you do whenever anyone talks film and digital. that's not a difference to rant, rave, and write home about.</P>

<P></P>

<P><i>I'll tell you what's scary Mike, people who make tests that are not replicatable - as in MR's tests, or completely one sided rants - like SE. Making you believe their word without basis and then extrapolate some measure of superiority from it. . .</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>seriously...chill. your obsession with "mr" is freaky.</P>

So, Les, for the record, what ISO was the 20D photo shot at?