I've been using Fuji NPH for my weddings, but......it just seems flat

It just seems so flat sometimes. No real pop like the old Kodak Porta VC that I

used. The pro lab seems to push Fuji on me and I got to admit it is cheaper. Was

wondering if anyone else notice the same flatness or do you have recomendations

on the other film I might try?

NPH is pretty much considered a standard for weddings as it handles the larger dynamic range you might see at such an event (clothing, etc.). Portra VC is "very contrasty", hence the name AND is somewhat at the opposite end of the scale when it comes to NPH. It's not as though they're meant for the same thing IMO. Then again, NPH, if shot and printed right, will give you very accurate colors. If you don't want that, and prefer Kodak (and can shoot it properly and sell it), then use it by all means. Just don't try to compare an apple to an orange.

160VC is nominally Vivid Color. Higher saturation, more contrast, but not a high-contrast film like the Supermarket films.

 

But, the low contrast of the Portra films is why Kodak makes higher contrast variants of the Endura papers, like Ultra. But, if you want details in the white gown and the black tux, you need to use something like Fuji 160S or 400N, or Kodak 160NC or 400NC.

 

But, if your lab prints on Fuji papers, that's why they're pushing Fuji films. Fuji doesn't work hard to make their papers print Kodak films that well, but Kodak does try and make their papers universal.

After I posted this I noticed that it was actually Fuji PRO 400H which I hear is the same film as NPH. Maybe with my age, I am seeing flater images now and missing the punch of the old film. Got another one to shoot tomorrow so will see how it turns out.

I presume it is being printed digitally? Sometimes I have printed Fuji proffessional films on a digital lab and they just looked really flat and lifeless. The same film printed optically was just totally different, much more "punch". The digital lab was a Noritsu and it just didn't like any of the professional Fuji films they never looked right, even after tweaking the saturation and contrast.

I had the bag marked for Optical printing, but you brought up something I was unaware of. I didn't know that film could be printed digitally. Guess I assume it must be scanned first. I am getting old.

There are still some volume labs that optical print if they cater to professional customers like wedding shooters. These labs have a lot invested in optical machine printing and an established and fussy customer base, so it's not impossible you have the option of optical printing.

 

NPH looks it's best when printed on Fuji paper, or through a Digital Fuji Frontier. When printed on Kodak paper it can look dull. Even though I'm not a fan of Portra VC 160, you might prefer it to NPH when printing to Kodak papers. If printing to Fuji papers, NPH should annihilate VC with ease, and not lack saturation unless you under exposed it.

Want some "POP" Shoot it in B&W and explain that in 75 years the prints will still look the same as the day they got them....

 

But if they want color tell them in 15 years they will look almost like bad B&W.

 

Or even better Shoot Digital and tell them the CD it is on will be gon in about 6 years...

 

Larry

...Or have Larry shoot the wedding in which case the bride will thrown them in the trash in 5-minutes.

Scott

 

LOL that was so Nasty I loved it.... Imortal does not have color... just Kodachrome and B&W.... I am grinning....

 

Larry

Larry,<BR> Good for you. Only a photographer who is confident of his abilities could laugh along with that.

Well, they do use Fuji paper. When looking at my Exposure ratings the lab gave me 4 negs Underexposed, 66 negs over exposed and 63 normal exposure. Of course, I tend to like different numbers than they do. They will print a heavy 95 density and call it over exposed, when if they would back down 10 to 15 points the print would have looked better and been labeled normal exposure. Its a continuing battle.

David, I suggest trying Fuji 800Z (formerly NPZ), which is much

higher contrast than 400H. If the grain of Portra 400VC didn't bother

you, 800Z won't either. I assume you're shooting medium format.

<P>

It's possible that 400H is lower contrast/saturation than "new" NPH.

Lex Jenkins reported <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FMg0">in this thread</A> that green saturation was tweaked lower in 400H.

We already knew that NPH had lower red saturation than Kodak 400UC.

Although Ctein reports NPH as being higher contrast than 400UC, as

optically printed on Supra paper, most people using digital methods

found that NPH was lower contrast than 400UC.

<I>Only a photographer who is confident of his abilities could laugh along with that</i><P>No, just ignorant.<P>When I did commercial lab work we'd have at least two or three brides a year come in with tears in their eyes because Uncle Harry (who also resembles father guido sarducci) shot their wedding on Kodachrome or Tri-X because they had brain damage.<P>How dare that bride want color prints though because she should be content knowing in 40 years she'll be able to project those images and still get the same blown out contrast and grain she sees today. She should be thankfull her wedding was shot with a specific type of german lens instead. Compared to those non-archival Fuji print films and papers she's better off as well. I know - lets make Cibachromes from those Kodachrome wedding shots because they will be more archival than Fuji RA4 and have better tonal renditions.<P>Otherwise, the barbs about the archival nature of color materials and digital is rapidly becoming akin to using the 'N' word in reference to African Americans, and entirely inaccurate. I trust Fuji Crystal Archive more than a trust commercially processed conventional B&W film or fiber prints given *I've seen* how many labs cut corners to save costs and don't adequetley wash them. Kodachrome processing I trust as much as I can swat the box with a 5-iron into the wind.

I resembale part of that last posting.... LOL<div></div>