Superia/Press 800 vs. 800z (old NPZ)?

I understand Superia 800 and Press 800 are the same emulsion. How do they

compare to 800z? Specifically, does one exaggerate/mollify colors more, or does

one need to be rated at a slightly slower speed than the other for a proper

exposure? Any other differences to watch out for?

I have not used Press 800 since...probably 5 years ago - and I didn't particularly like it. Too contrasty for me. Strangely. Could have been old film.

NPZ800 is a fantastic film. A real wonder in low light, and it does very well in bright situations as well.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=34937

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=55291

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=30988

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=28863

Hello,

Yes; Superia and Press are manufactured identically, but Press is a pro film due to the way it is temperature controlled after manufacture, during shipping, and [hopefully] by your local store once it gets there. Actual film characteristics of a single random roll of Superia shouldn't be any better or worse than Press if shot and processed before expiration. The only thing the "pro" label raelly affects is roll-to-roll consistency, because you can buy a whole bunch that is from the same batch and has been identically stored. This is extremely important if you are shooting many rolls of the same subject matter. Hopefully you will have bought a bunch from the same emulsion batch. Once you have color balanced and exposed for one print, filtration can stay unchanged, and [hopefully] minor exposure changes can be made based off that first print. The printing process goes much more quickly, predictably, and smoothly. Even if you switch emulsion batches, all you have to do is shoot a MacBeth chart at the begininng of one roll, neutrally color balance a print of it, and you are set for the rest of that batch. It is a benefit for neg. film, but really mattered with transparencies, where the only way to change a cast before turning in a chrome would be to make a color-corrected copy. You won't appreciate it unless you: 1. actually do your own printing, and 2: are a stickler for detail. However, with the extremely minor (maybe a few dimes) difference in price between Superia and Press, I think getting Press is worth it.

As far as Pro800Z vs. Superia or Press 800, there is a difference. The Pro800Z holds up very well in 6X9 enlargements. For the speed, it has a very good ability to capture detail. Like with any film, the more perfectly exposed it is, the better the quality. The color and maleability ("pushability") are similar. Press 800 is just more grungy. Its something you'd use for photos where speed was the most important factor, regardless of image quality. Pro800 is something you'd use for the finest possible results in a bad lighting condition. The cost difference makes this worth considering. I'd pick up a roll of each. Expose the same exact picture with each, and bracket all the way from black to white using your shutter speeds. Try a few different scenes with different levels of detail and contrast. Try some where fine detail is present, like a page in a book, and others where color and form are more of an issue than any detail. Try some in flat lighting and some in contrasty lighting. Then make 11X14s and view them from different distances to see the characteristics of each film. Use the same camera for each roll, and the same method of printing. Keep an exposure record. It will be boring, but it is the only way to really answer these questions for yourself.

Keith

Fuji NPZ, rated @ 640.

Russ<div></div>

Russ, that makes me want to go with Press 800, if I should rate 800z at 640 for optimal exposure. I'll be shooting in low available light situations...

Keith, I'm sure I will do that one day, but today I am pressed for time and need as many impressions from experience as possible.

Sorry, Keith, but CZ is CZ is CZ. The only difference between Press and Superia 800 is 12 extra exposures on a roll of Press 800.The "prime cut" argument, along with the special handling song and dance, are perhaps reassuring but irrelevant. So Press is in the fridge and Superia isn't? No other difference--and not "better." It's a mild and annoying near-fraud by Fuji.

NPZ and 800z have always looked sharper to my jaded eye than Superia--a film I'm fond of.Saturation and contrast appear dialed down with NPZ/800z. I find all of Fuji's 800 films look best rated at 500-640.None suffer underexposure gracefully, so think before shooting them at box speed.Find a lab with a good C41 line and decent scan/print skills(and Fuji paper!)and you'll like these films

I have not used 800Z much since Kodak so vastly improved Portra 800,

but last time I did, it seemed about the same as NPZ, which I tested

extensively. So 800Z is a bit grainier than CZ-5 but has lower

contrast skin tones, although it is by no means a low-contrast film.

800Z also has much more saturated greens especially in cloudy weather.

CZ-5 has a huge price advantage, so I strongly recommend it. Oddly

it is much better than Superia 400. If you are doing low-light

portraiture, I recommend Portra 800.

Gary, this is ridiculous. Every time this question is asked, you have the same bogus reply. OF COURSE they are the same film. I said that in my post. However, I am curious as to why you advocate buying the packaging that costs more per exposure, has to be changed out of your camera 1.5 times as often, and that cannot be purchased in large quantities in matching emulsion batches (which you have previously stated is not a concern for you because you let a lab handle all of your dirty work, but IS a concern for those of us who actually shoot a lot and print a lot). Where is the fraud of which you speak if we are actually paying LESS for a film that is more consistent? Just the pain of dealing with 24 exposure rolls is enough to make me never purchase he film in loose packaging. And it IS kept in a controlled environment from manufacture until shipping. Like I have said many times, this makes it no better or worse than plain Superia, just more predictable and consistent.

Keith