www.antiquecameras.net Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I think the world of Kodak's 400 UC film...it is the best all around film I have used since Fuji's original Reala film in 120. Any 800 speed film compare to Kodak UC 400 ? Fuji NPZ 800 ? thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.antiquecameras.net Posted November 16, 2005 Author Share Posted November 16, 2005 PS - my question is for 35mm sized film if that makes a difference....I just read some think the older NHGII is better than the NPZ800...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin_hundsnurscher Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Portra 800 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 I have not been, admittedly, a fast film fan and have avoided using it whenever possible over the years. I mention that because I think it magnifies my comment that NPZ is quite remarkable, especially in medium format. I had a couple of sample rolls in the freezer and had a situation come up that had me reach for the NPZ and I really couldn't be happier with the results. It is now a go-to film when I expect lighting constraints and don't expect enlarging beyond 8X10 (but it may also be fine on bigger prints but I haven't needed to try it yet). I wish someone had promoted trying it before as I can think of situations where I would have had better results than I had with slower alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 If you're happy with the high saturation of UC400, you will be equally happy with NPZ800. Quite expensive stuff, but if you need the stop of speed, it's the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I was going to say, buy Natura 1600 in Japan or via Eb*y. Contrary to Les, NPZ is much <B>much</B> grainier than 400UC on my 2400 dpi scanner. Portra 800-2 seems promising, but I don't have much experience with it. Last weekend I took pictures of a canoe trip and, with short days, the 400UC was underexposed as it got close to evening. Portra 800-2 might have helped, because I think its shadow speed is faster than 800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zave_shapiro Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Kodak's 400UC also works great for me. That a punchy film can also do skintones and have smooth transitions is a treat. Faster? I've had nice results with Portra 800. Faster film calls for compromise and I can live with minor colour shifts and grainy artifacts. This is a case where your local situation makes the difference If you've been happy with 400UC it's a combination of the nature of the film, the development and the printing. 2 out of 3 for your lab or mini-lab. Try Portra 800 at 800, let the lab adjust. You didn't say why you need the speed so I won't guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now