captbrando Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 I am shooting a wedding this Saturday and have decided on NPH as my all purpose film (based on this board's overwhelming recommendation). Are there any comments on rating this film at 320 or 250 for best results? Is this truly an ISO400 film? or more of an ISO320? Thanks so much in advance for your help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 Stick to 320 and don't worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_andrews Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 I've rated it at 400 and at 320. The results are usually the same IMHO, but at 320 you'll get denser colors, and less grain in low-light/flash situations. So, go with 320. Do you use two bodies? If so, I'd suggest putting NPS into the second body and then comparing the results--I actually prefer NPS for its rendition of whites and skintones. Just a helpful thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 If you expose for the darkest darks in your scene that you want detail in,go for 400!If you want to bang away without thinking about this,250 or 320 are both fine.I use a lot of this and 400NC for weddings,IMHO these are both the "standard" of excellance for this task.Over exposing a bit makes my lab happy too,they like density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emaxxman Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 How about Arizona? :-) Sorry. I couldn't help it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernhard Posted July 7, 2003 Share Posted July 7, 2003 NPH @320 looks really good on a Frontier with only one problem: Shadows sometimes get gritty, most obviuos below the chin and on the neck under natural light (from above). If this is important to you, shoot it @250, that's what I'll do next time I shoot NPH for stuff like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris m., central florida Posted July 8, 2003 Share Posted July 8, 2003 I've been shooting NPH almost exclusively at weddings (well, maybe a little NPS or NPZ once in a while) and I always set it @ 250. 325 gave me grainy shadow detail once in a while, 250 seemed to cure that problem across the board, and the film can handle the overexposure fairly well. From experience, NPH does NOT underexpose well so I wholeheartedly suggest you stay away from shooting it at 400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_ton1 Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 What Scott said. Start with 320 and go from there if you're experimenting. If this is the first time you've used this film at a wedding, I'd set it to 320 and forget about it. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_watson Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 I'm wondering whether the old "250-320" gospel applies to the "new" NPH, which looks good to me at 400. The negs and contacts from last weekend's shooting look as nice at 400 as the old version did 1/3-2/3 over.Is the new NPH now really a ISO400 material? Looks that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffcalman Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 When people suggest setting a film at a speed other than its rated ISO (eg 320 for NPH), do u just hand it over to the lab and have them process it as they normally would, or do u tell them to take the appropriate steps (if there are any) to compensate for you having set it at a different ISO? thanks and sorry for the horribly long sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captbrando Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 When you rate the film at a different ISO like I am talking about, you tell the processor to continue to process at the listed ISO. In NPHs example, the widely accepted opinion is that it is not really an ISO400 film. It requires 1/3-2/3 stops of EXTRA exposure to really get good enough density to make a great print. Out of all of this, I have learned something interesting about film and digital photography. You are always (almost) better off over exposing film, and under exposing digital if you have to err on one side or the other. 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