adrian_byng_clarke Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 I have picked up some 160 and 400 Portra for a wedding at which I will be a backup. Is there are good fast low-contrast wedding-style film I should carry just in case there are some worthwhile available light opportunities? I've seen a lot of reccomendations for Delta 3200 but the B+G don't like B&W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Fuji NPZ 800? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardMiller Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 As Rob said, NPZ. Really, really nice stuff. Even pushed a stop, it still looks pretty darn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 I'll make it unanimous, Fuji NPZ 800. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmahler5th Posted May 6, 2004 Share Posted May 6, 2004 Why not use Kodak Portra 800? At least that way your color prints will have the same, or similar color qualities.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 For available light conditions, you don't want the same film. Portra was designed for studio lighting, i.e. strobes. NPZ handles available/mixed lighting very well and can be pushed to 1600 with excellent results. With Portra under tungsten lighting, the color qualities of the flesh tones will be more to the orange, much less so or not at all with NPZ. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian_byng_clarke Posted May 7, 2004 Author Share Posted May 7, 2004 NPZ sounds good. I'll pick up a roll or too to try it out. Does anybody have examples of NPZ - I'd be really interested in seeing it pushed to 1600 vs. 800. As I said, this will be used at a wedding so I'm a little worred about contrast range... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmahler5th Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 James: if you read the technical brief for Kodak Portra, it says that Portra is good in mixed lighting conditions, on location photography, and with on-camera flash. It is not a film designed exclusively for studio lighting. The Portra line does have a Portra T, which is a Tungsten blanced, studio lighting film. The rest of the products in this line work equally well on location as in the studio. With that said, I cannot say that Portra 800 is any better than NPZ 800. The ultimate goal for wedding photography is making a print, and it's usually nice to have prints with the same color characteristics. I'm sure there are options for making NPZ 800 prints match those of all of the Portra shots Adrian will be taking, and Fuji is a good choice, so shoot away! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian_byng_clarke Posted May 7, 2004 Author Share Posted May 7, 2004 When you guys say that NPZ works well with Tungsten does that mean with a filer 80* or without? I ended up buying to rolls of NPZ to try out. I think I'll push one and shoot the other normally. How do you guys normally rate NPZ when shooting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 Steve,<BR> You may be right. Something tells me that Kodak may have changed the emulsion in the last year or two. Originally it was designed for studio strobes, which would be the same lighting chracteristics as outdoors, natural light. <P>Adrian,<BR>It is a good idea to try the film ahead of time. A wedding is not the time to try out new film. With NPZ, don't bother with a filter. Rate it at 620 EI for normal and 1250 EI with a one stop push. You might wast to try some Portra at the same time. James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BernardMiller Posted May 7, 2004 Share Posted May 7, 2004 Adrian-- Here is an example of a shot, under tungsten lighting (no flash) using NPZ pushed one stop. What I do is rate it at 1600 in the camera, but ask the lab to push the film two stops (as if I had shot it at 3200). That makes sure the negative has a little more density. If you do that, just make sure that you take your film to a lab where they actually push the film in development, and not one where they develop normally and then try to compensate in printing (be forewarned: they will, quite likely, charge you quite a bit extra for this service). James' advice will probably do you just fine, however. As you don't need to jack up your shutter speed, like I did here to freeze the action a little bit, you can be more generous with your exposures. If the light is halfway decent, you are using a fast lens, and you have steady hands, you probably won't need to fool around with pushing the film. But with NPZ, it's there if you need to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 There is a slight typo in my above post. The E.I. should be 640. That assures a slightly denser negative to be on the safe side. It is easier to print a dense negative than a thin one with good results. <P> Great shot! I never realized that NPZ was around when Sugar Ray Robinson and Carmen Basilio fought. James G. Dainis 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