Using NPZ for the first time.

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by alex_hosking, Jan 15, 2007.

  1. I used it at a birthday party, I was pleased with the results, although my 9x6"
    prints were a bit grainy.

    There was no grain at all in the images where I used the flash which makes me
    think that the film isn't a true 800 speed as I know neg film gets more grainy
    when its under exposed. Would using Portra 800 make much difference, not only is
    it (apparently) the fastest 800 speed film there is, but its been updated twice
    in the last 3 years, So is it any better than NPZ, and also is the new version
    truly better than the old version or is it all marketing Hype, because from what
    I saw in the thread comparing the old and the new Portra 160VC, there wasn't
    much difference.
     
  2. Both NPZ/Pro 800Z and Portra 800 are good films, and there isn't a lot to choose between them. I switched to Portra 800 when the previous version came out, and this year's version appears to be less grainy. I find it to be better for pushing than NPZ as well.<p>

    Here's an example of 2006 Portra 800:<p>

    <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5040225-md.jpg"><p>

    There's a larger version in my portfolio.<p>

    Best, Helen
     
  3. Sounds to me like your camera isn't exposing accurately in low light conditions without flash. I've had no problem with grain with 800Z (unless I underexposed), and I've never used flash with it, just available light. Low light is often tricky to meter.

    I'd pick between the Fuji and Kodak based on what paper it would be printed on, Fuji's papers favor their films, Kodak's work well with either brand.
     
  4. Yeah I should have used a pro lab, but I used ASDA which is the best non pro lab I know, They did 9x6" prints in an hour for ?11, and the Pro lab was 11.50 for 6x4" prints, but with a free CD, not I have to scan, so I regret not using the pro lab.
    I don't think the lab was at fault because the flash shots look fine, I I would doubt that the F80 couldn't meter correctly, I think next time I will rate it at EI 640.
     
  5. Oh and I think I have had that roll of film for over year now, but I didn't think it would matter because it was in the fridge most of the time.
     
  6. |Oh one last thing, does the new Portra have 2 electron sensitization?
     
  7. Alex, if you're shooting NPZ it is old and possibly near expiration,
    because Fuji started packaging it as Pro 800Z in spring 2005.
    I would try a fresher roll before drawing any conclusions, because
    fast film degrades quickly. Portra 800 has finer-grained blues, while
    800Z is higher contrast, which you might prefer in flat lighting.
     
  8. Obvious grain in fast Fuji materials is probably(not possibly)the result of underexposure and/or a "loose" C41 line at your lab.If I'm using NPZ/Pro800/Superia 800 in an older body with centre-weighted metering, I'll rate it at ISO500-640 to keep it from getting murky.At box speed, I'll often over-expose a bit to be safe.I know Scott Eaton would differ, but even grocery store Superia 800 is a remarkable film for available light work with fast lenses.
     
  9. OK thanks guys, I didn't think degradation should be a problem after being in the fridge for just over 12 months.
     

Share This Page

1111