Reasonable replacement for Fuji NHG-II?

[jeffrey_bromberger]

Hello to all...

I've done a fair amount of band/club/bar photography, usually

shooting NHG-II and scanning into my computer with a Nikon LS-4000.

I've been out of the loop for about 2 years. Needless to say, it's

been a while since I have had to purchase 35mm film. It seems that

Fuji, in it's infinite wisdom, has discontinued my film of choice

(yuk) and left me searching for something comparable.

 

I've tried the CZ 800 speed film and found it lacking. Has anybody

out there experimented with the NPZ film, particularly in the

scanning arena? While I realize that I have to be the final arbiter

of what I'm looking for, I'd be delighted to hear from anyone who's

gone through the same change recently.

 

I guess, though, that this means I need to guard my stock of frozen

NHG-II MF film with my life :-)

 

Thanks in advance!

 

j

[EricM]

once you start using NPZ, you'll throw that freezer full out. seriously, it's that much better.

[r_miller1]

You will most likely find NPZ to be very similiar to NHG-II. I doubt that you will find it to be any "better".

 

Best regards,

[scott_eaton]

Sorry, but NPZ slaughters NHG I & II....especially when it comes to scanning. NHG II was a great film, but it was lousy in terms of scanning and is slower than NPZ. Skin tones may have been a hair better with the older film, but NPZ 'whips' it in all the other depts

 

The jump from NHG II to NPZ was less dramatic than NHG I to II. The older film is the lowest contrast of the bunch and has slightly greater color saturation which made it a popular Kodak killer and portrait film (Fuji put NHG 400 on a VPS mimmicking base so it printed on VPS film channels), but it's long dead and obsolete. NHG I was also a bit grainer than NPZ.

 

Stick to rating NPZ at EI 640 for starters, and if you haven't tried Kodak's incredible UC 400, you should. Only took Kodak what, 12yrs to come up with a worthy competitor to NHG 400?

[bill_tuthill]

NPZ has a cooler color balance then NHG II, to my eye. Do you push?

If so you should also try the new Portra 800, which Ctein says pushes

better than NPZ. Here are his comments from the Sep/Oct 2004 issue

of Photo Techniques magazine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>

"Push processing... increases the grain in NPZ much more than

it does in the improved Portra 800. On average, pushed Portra 800

has finer grain, [although] some tones and colors still had

finer grain in pushed NPZ.

<P>

"I prefer the [lower] contrast of Portra 800 to Fuji NPZ's

slightly punchy look.

[unpushed] NPZ was the clear winner [for color fidelity. However]

push-processed Portra 800 came out much better. Its contrast and

saturation went up with pushing, but no so much as Fuji NPZ's.

Portra 800 wound up with healthy improvements in color saturation,

although flesh tones and greens turned out more poorly than in

unpushed film In comparison, Fuji NPZ picked up so much contrast

and saturation that its color was garish and unrealistic It also

showed more color crossover with push processing than Portra 800."

</BLOCKQUOTE>

I should mention that many DSLRs now have better high ISO results

than film.

[scott_eaton]

Bill makes a pretty good assesment about NPZ being a wee bit cooler than NHG II.