Fuji Press VS NPH? For Wedding??

[julie_johnson2]

I am really confused here. I recently spoke to a lab tech and during

our conversation I mentioned I was going to use Fuji NPH 400 film

for a wedding I am doing, and wondered what his take on the new Max

800 and Fuji 800 films were. I got a very surprising answer... he

said he has seen the best results for weddings using Fuji Press 800

film because it has less contrast, and has a higher latitude range

than the Pro films. Now this just blew me away... I have only used

Press one time and found it to be ok, but I don't normally shoot

print film so I know a lot of the differences can be in the paper,

the processing, etc. I am a professional outdoor photographer but I

use color transparency film and digital and have over the course of

several years lost contact with what's going on in the print film

industry simply because I don't use it often enough.

I have been talked into doing a wedding next month (for friends, for

only film costs - my gift to them, and I cannot travel to the church

beforehand to test films) and am lost in regards which fast film to

use during the ceremony - since I cannot use a flash - I had almost

decided to use fuji 800 NPZ, but now am stymied. Has anyone ever

tried using Press for weddings? Any help with this would be greatly

appreciated.

[michelle_sternberg]

I've used the NPZ 800 35mm and have been very impressed so far. You get

decent 8x10 enlargements from them without too much grain.- assuming your

shots are sharp and in focus. I wouldn't suggest going much larger than that

though. Sorry- haven't used press before. Would be interested in a

comparisson on it though if anyone has photos handy... ;)

[william_au]

I don't have experience with Press either, but NPZ is a fine film. As long as you don't underexpose it (rate it at 640) the colors come out really nicely for a fast film with acceptable grain. I actually prefer the punchiness of NPZ over the blah NPH (though that may be my lab). Don't know what the Portra 800 is like, but may be worth a test roll. You could also shoot B&W - lots of options there: Delta 3200, TMAX 3200, Neopan 1600.

[scott_eaton]

I hate to be honest julie, but your friend sounds like one of those know-it-all mini-lab techs that saw a wedding once because you'd have to be a fool to claim Fuji Press has less contrast than NPH. That's just absurd. If you ask a pro wedding shooter what film they use, it won't be Fuji press, or any 800 speed print film for that matter. It will either be Kodak Portra NC/VC, or Fuji NPH for 90% of their work. A few will use Fuji NPZ or the high speed portra films for ceremony work.

 

Fuji NPZ is a great film, and it's superior to Press 800 for things like weddings because it has lower contrast and finer grain. I used to shoot a ton of it in my RB, and even more NPH. Given a choice between NPH at 320 and NPZ at 640, I'll take NPH and it's *MUCH* finer grain and lower contrast for weddings over NPZ or Press 800 in a heartbeat.

 

Still, if you think you'll be more comfortable with a 640-800 speed film, by all means use NPZ, but as mentioned above, the film really works best when shot at 640. Fuji Press really isn't a bad film, but like I said, it's not up to the level of NPZ, and there will be a difference in your prints.

 

Don't even consider the garbage Kodak Max films.

[steve_levine]

A quick look at some film curves, (on FUJI's www site), will contradict your lab "expert".The portrait 400 films, have much lower contrast & finer grain than any of the 800's.Of the 800's, Id choose NPZ hands down.The "new", MAX 800 films, arent as bad as the multi-purpose/speed film that once used this same name!If I needed a film to shoot some family stuff indoors without flash, this isnt a bad or expensive choice.

[peter_langfelder]

I have no experience with weddings, but the Press films definitely have more contrast and worse color fidelity than NPH. In particular orange and reds were off both in prints and in my own scans na dthe colors were much more saturated (not exactly what I fancy for people photography). NPH is much better in this, and seems to better in mixed lighting, too. I haven't used NPZ extensively, but the few times I did it seemed to be more contrasty than NPH.

[julie_johnson2]

THANK YOU ALL!! As I said, I've been out of the print loupe (pun intended) for quite sometime, but I was pretty skeptical when this tech told me this... That just went against everything I knew. I used to be a newspaper photographer & did all the dark room work, and although we shot exclusively in B&W, we generally opted for the higher contrast film (I loved T-Max) for the type printing we did - yes, I even got to experience probably the last newspaper in the world to go digital and learned by cut and paste and half tone prints! Thanks again for reassuring me that I'm not THAT far outta touch. I plan to use NPH 400 for the reception where I can use a flash, and NPZ 800 during the ceremony when I can't use a flash. But you say using 320 and 640 respectively will give me the best results? Man, how I hate going into this blind - not being able to shoot some test rolls really has me frightened.

I plan to use a F5 for most the work with a SB-800 flash on a Strobofoam frame, a N8008s with a SB-26 as back-up and throw in some D70 digital shots just because I can... I have a 4 star effect filter for some artsy shots I want of the bride and of them lighting the unity candle. Soft focus filters have me puzzled, to go with a spot filter or difusser - or smear vaseline on an old uv filter... I don't know... As I said, I QUIT doing weddings for friends for this reason... I worry myself silly doing it! Anybody wanna job? Ha ha!

[scott_eaton]

<I>I plan to use NPH 400 for the reception where I can use a flash, and NPZ 800 during the ceremony when I can't use a flash</i><P>Exellent combination - everybody agree?<P>Rate NPH at 320 and NPZ at 640. Process normally at a good lab. You'll almost certainly get good results.

[julie_johnson2]

Thanks, Scott, and everybody! Your help is really appreciated. <p>I hate the fact that I have to turn the film over to the bride after the wedding! I'm leaving - and again, the wedding is for friends - for two months on assignment and I couldn't talk them into waiting until I get back to see their pictures - duh! But because they don't live near me it may be an even longer time before I actually get to see them... that's going to drive me nuts! <p> Thanks again for all your help. Everyone have a safe and happy New Year!

[stephen_lutz]

I haven't shot film in years, but isn't "press" film supposed to be higher contrast, not lower? When I shot fuji, I really liked the NPH/NPZ films. Portra I had mixed results with, but I liked 160VC for portraits.

 

Anyway, isn't a "press" designation for a film sort of meaningless anyway? All press cameras I've seen for several years have been digital. Are any members of the "press" even using film anymore?

[EricM]

"Exellent combination - everybody agree?

 

Rate NPH at 320 and NPZ at 640. Process normally at a good lab. You'll almost certainly get good results."

 

yes, as long as it's all developed and printed at a Frontier Lab...

 

Julie, NPZ also pushes one stop really well. (1250 +1)

[plasma181]

Don't you hate when you make up your mind, everything in nice and sweet and ready to go, then somebody just has to add their 2 cents worth? I do a few social events and chemical engineering society meetings, and I've had good results with the Agfa Vista. They use this technology that reproduces colors exactly as the human eye sees it. Their 800 is too grainy for an event like this, but their 400 does a nice job. Also, their ISO rating is dead on. The number on the box is the number you shoot.