NPS vs NPC vs NPH vs NPZ

I know they vary in speed (except NPS vs NPC), but what otherwise is

the difference?

 

Would you take one (which one?) to Ecquador and the Galapagos for some

photojournalistic-type travel photography? (i.e., would one of these

be good for harsh equatorial sunlight?)

 

I've used some NPH for some "portrait" work (family vacations and kids

at the playground, etc), but have no experience with the other films.

NPS is supposed to be lower than normal contrast.

NPC is tenably for fashion and has high contrast and color saturation

NPH is good low contrast portrait.

NPZ is a good all around high speed film.

Other than speeds there aren't significant differences when the films are processed similarly and printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Skin tones tend to be neutral. Greens, especially foliage, tend to be saturated a bit more than other colors. The faster films are a bit grainier.

Shot both NPS and NPH at some weddings last week. Both are great for portraits with great skin tones. I see no difference except for ISO. Might be a little flat for what you are trying to do. Maybe slide film such as Sensia or Velvia may be better if you are going to have a lot of vivid colors. Just my two cents.

 

Scott

I will be careful using Velvia for portrait work.

NPC and NPZ are higher contrast than NPH, so if you're worried about

"harsh equatorial sunlight" they are poor choices. NPS is grainier

than NPH and NPZ is much grainier. Personally I'd use Kodak 160NC

instead of NPS if I wanted a low-contrast slow film. And I get

better results from Kodak 400UC than from NPH on my scanner, although

it's the other way around on a Frontier.

For bright sunlight, try Reala in the Fuji lineup; NC 160 is a great creamy film, lovely in low light, great tone transitions, less vivid for nature work. NPZ I find a little over-oxygenated, contrasty with good saturation but well-balanced for a fast neg film; grainy. NPH is my low light neg film, colour accuracy as good as it gets, a great all-purpose film, low grain, good speed at 250/320, use Frontier printing/proofing. Bill knows far more than I do, but my 400UC experience was not good, with quite unpredictable colour shifting. Try some of each in the conditions you will be using them for. NPC, most leave alone.

For avoidance of doubt, NPH when printed via a Frontier on Crystal Archive, looks quite a bit more saturated colourful than you might expect from a "portrait" type film, and without losing its ability to handle skin tones well. My daughter used it extensively during a long trip to Belize and it performed well in usually contrasty circumstances.

 

That said, I suspect that finding a really good lab will have a greater influence than your choice between these films.

NPH is the best all-rounder , the grain seems better than NPS.

NPS blocks up quickly were as NPH captures highlights, which is just as well as NPH has

very poor under exposure latitude ( grain increases and saturation falls ) .

 

I used NPH extensively in the harsh North Australian light. It captured the stunning colors

well - with good accuracy and saturation. Just take care of the shadows and err on the

side of ISO 200.

 

NPC and NPS are about to be obsoleted - spring 2005 the Fuji press releases says, but I

don't think its out yet. Perhaps they are hold back to try to deplete stocks. Pro 160s is the

NPS replacement which is supposed to have better grain. NPH and NPZ remain unchanged

in all but name.

I'm surprised by the lack of grain of NPH on a 6x9 print. Very nice for 400 speed. Heck, I was really surprised at how tight the grain was on a 12x18 enlargement.

 

I haven't found the grain of NPS objectionable, but I haven't used it very much. Just started playing around with that one, myself. Fuji Neopan 400 and NPH are my bread & butter films.

 

 

Eric