NPZ@400 Pictures

[alex_tudor]

Here are 3 NPZ@400 pictures, all shot with flash at a wedding (for

fun - I wasn't the official photographer) I went to last Sunday.

Thanks to Eric for opening my eyes to this great film. 4x6 proofs

look very fine grained under an 8x loupe. I'll get some enlargements

to see how grainy they are.

 

Alex

[alex_tudor]

2nd

[alex_tudor]

3d

[paul_french1]

Alex - nice shots...did you process at 800 or pull +1?

 

thanks...

 

paul

[scott_eaton]

I'm going to switch to my typical 'call it as I see them mode' and put on my teflon coated flame proof suit. I've done enough tours of duty laying thousands of weddings on proofing tables to be a good critic.

 

I can't tell these images from amatuer Superia 400 or Max 400. The contrast is too frikken high, everybody's skin has hot spots, skin tones are harsh and artificial with the extreme Fuji Easter Egg pastels, and over-all unflattering. The bride of course will say she liked them, only because she's on "wedding crack" like all brides, and would say so anyways. If you consider the "2nd" shot to be good portrait quality we have some serious, serious disagreements on standards.

 

Next time, shoot NPH, because I cant' tell the above proofs from half a dozen brands of amatuer 400 speed films. This stuff looks like Frontier proofs from Ektachrome VS or Superia 400 taken to Walgreens.

 

Sorry Alex.

[emaxxman]

I like the tan lines on the one chick.

 

The only think I don't like about the pics is the lack of warmth. The color is very sterile looking. I find that to be true of NPZ to a degree.

[phule]

Scott,

 

For those of us without a clue (i.e. me), can you provide some more details about the problems you see? What are these hotspots (and where are they)? Which colors are pastels, the skin tones?

 

Thanks.

[canon_eos_rules]

Yuck.

 

Skin tones are too red, contrast is too high, and the colors aren't accurate, either. The moral of the story: Stick with Portra 400UC.

[alex_tudor]

Perhaps I may get chastised for this (and I pray not - I was just trying to see if anyone caught on), but this is NOT NPZ@400! I took these pictures a while ago using guess what? PORTRA 400UC!!!

 

I wanted to see what people would honestly say not knowing the real film that was used, and posted it as being NPZ@400 (since in truth I AM looking at that film to switch from 400UC - see my previous posts). Had I said it was 400UC would the replies have been the same? Before I got some inconsistent comments from different people regarding 400UC and Kodak vs. Fuji in general - hence this post here.

 

In truth I was always a fan of 400UC until I saw how much sharper and beter Fuji pro films were on the Frontier. Even NPH which is too bland for me. I will have to try it @250.

 

I do agree with some of the comments made (not all), and I think it's a result of me using 400UC on a Frontier and that's why I want to switch.

 

So I wanted to see if anyone caught on. I thought people honestly would. Not only that, but Fuji qualities were attributed to a Kodak film! This goes to show that a Frontier can really mess up 400UC scans.

 

Or perhaps 400UC is just bad with flash? Hence the lack of warmth?

 

Also an important point to be made is one that Scott has said from the beginning - don' mix Kodak films with Fuji labs and vice versa!

 

I hope I didn't offend anyone, it was not my intention. Nor to waste anyone's time. You guys are great - this was just perhaps a stupid test now..

 

Alex

[steve_ql]

If you are shooting at 400, NPH would be the more appropriate

film to use, especially for a wedding. It's both finer grained

and lower in contrast.

Composition and lighting is a separate matter which could

also have had an effect in the higher contrast. NPH would

have helped there. Portra NC 400 would have worked as well.

 

If you need the extra film speed (at the sacrifice of grain),

then by all means use NPZ (at 640 or even 800). But because it's

always quite possible the bride will return for an enlargement,

NPH should be considered before NPZ since enlarged prints

will look more pleasing with its finer grain. With appropriate

lighting, NPS should be considered as well (or Reala for finest

grain). For such special occassions, it's best not to be limited

to a single film.

[James G. Dainis]

I had to keep going back and reading your original post. Every time I looked at one of the photos I kept thinking, "Geez, that looks just like Portra 400UC."

[steve_levine]

I cant imagine using UC for weddings.We tested UC at several weddings and were less than thrilled with the results.It is far too contrasty and has awfull flesh tones.

[bill_tuthill]

Were these scanned from Frontier prints, Alex? I did notice some

highlight burnout (of gray hair) on the third image (10.jpg) but

lowering gamma made the face too dark.

[alex_tudor]

James,

 

Funny huh? You were right!

 

Steve,

 

I don't know what 400UC looks like properly, so I can't comment on if it's good or not for weddings. But it's definitely not from these pics! On the other hand I'm trying NPZ because NPH seems kind of flat to me. For weddings that's probably good, but I want a Fuji 400 all around film with more saturation.

 

Bill,

 

No, these were scanned from the negs. Maybe the operator was especially bad on this day?

 

Alex (IN DESPARATE NEED OF A COLORFUL ALL-AROUND FUJI 400 FILM!!)

[alex_tudor]

So far in the Fuji realm for higher speed films my choices are:

 

NPH

 

Press 400

 

X-TRA 400 "Evidence Pack"

 

X-TRA 400 (7/11 type :)

 

NPZ rated @ 400

 

What is my all-around best choice? I prayed it would be NPH, but it was just too pale (OK for weddings and portraits but what about other things?). I will try it at 250. NPZ looks to be OK, but grain will be a factor there. Press 400 I have not tried, X-TRA 400 is not consistent, but perhaps the "Evidence Pack" is, since it's in the pro line and emulsions are more consistent? Even then TOO contrasty!

 

Damn!

 

Alex

[kns]

Okay, are there reasonably well controlled demonstrations of Portra UC processed in Kodak labs vs Fuji labs? If Fuji processing does in fact compromise the quality of the output then the rules are clear.

 

K

[el_fang]

Hmmm... these pictures look fine on my monitor. Maybe Grandma seems a slight bit ruddy, and I would have dialed the flash down a half stop or so on the other two, and an Omnibounce probably would have improved the wall shadow situation in the minister/bride shot - but that's nitpicking. Nice shots, Alex.

[ccrevasse]

Good job, Alex. Ideally, this sort of demonstration would tone down the belligerence of some of our esteemed film experts. (Not you, Bill.) Unfortunately, similar past demonstrations have had little effect.

 

With regard to NPH, have you tried the "new" NPH? It's not so new anymore (I think it came out late last year), but if you haven't tried it, I find it produces nice, saturated colors on the Frontier without being too strong or creating unnatural skin tones. Then again, I mostly photograph people, so your needs may be different. Plus, I've never tried any of the Portra films -- I've got a refrigerator full of NPH and Reala.

[maxasst]

I was surprised that you coaxed that much color from the NPZ. I have only Superia 800 that I used to take on-the-side wedding pics to compare to yours, and the colors on mine were much more bland. Follow up questions:

 

1. How did you rate the Portra 400?

 

1.a. If it was rated at a slower speed, what adjustments did you make to your flash compensation? I understand that if the flash is oriented to a slower film, it would be expected to give more lumens.

 

2. What lens did you use? I have read of lenses that give a warmer or cooler tone which may have influenced the color of the skin. OR, if this was taken recently, then everyone is of a more warm/reddish skin tone because of the ambient temperature.

[alex_tudor]

Al,

 

Thanks. I did have the OmniBounce on and tilted up, but the ceiling was to damn low so the shadow was inevitable - don't shoot people against a wall!

 

Chris,

 

I didn't mean to annoy anyone!

 

I've just shot a roll of NEW NPH this morning - at 400, 320, and 250 for each shot. I shot some shots of my wife and then of other things to see how colors will come out. I hope it will satify my so I can put and end to this search! If not I'll have to use NPH for weddings/portraits and Press400 for all-around use I guess.

 

Rahy,

 

I always rate 400UC at 400 since it's so colorful at 400. But if I did rate it lower, the flash (550EX/E-TTL) would pick up on that and adjust itself for output. I used the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens on an EOS-1V body. Shots are from mid July of this year.

 

Alex

[canon_eos_rules]

Alex, the bad results I mentioned from 400UC in my previous post (when I was suckered into believing it was NPZ) are probably because you teamed Portra with Fuji paper/chemicals and NOT Kodak paper/chemicals (which Portra 400UC is optimized for). I'll be trying 400UC tomorrow or Saturday and will give you my results (using Kodak Edge Generations paper and Kodak chemicals) soon.

[alex_tudor]

Canon EOS Rules,

 

Yes, and I agree on that point. I've said above that Scott was right all along - don't mix Kodak and Fuji or beer and wine!

 

Alex

[alex_tudor]

BUT, I should add the the pictures are not as awful as some make them out to be (in terms of contrast, colors, etc.). There is major fanaticism around here, which is really not necessary.

 

One day I will try to post 4 pictures of the same subject in the same light with 4 different 400 speed films - untouched scans. And then we'll play a guessing game. THAT should be interesting. Consumer films are not as bad as some make them out to be. They may not be very consistent if you shoot 30 rolls, but they are pretty damn good.

 

Alex

[ccrevasse]

Alex says these photos were scanned from the negatives, so we're not seeing examples of Kodak film printed on Fuji paper. Right? So the "wrong papers and chemicals" excuse is not available to explain the confusion. My question: is scanning Kodak film through a Frontier machine enough to create "Easter egg colors," "high contrast," and other purported failings, regardless of the paper on which the scan is printed?

[steve_ql]

"Consumer films are not as bad as some make them out to be."

 

Is that the point of your post? Because if it is, I'd love to

know of a consumer film that looks like Portra NC or Fuji's NPS/NPH.

 

And if you're shooting anything worth printing, why even waste

your time with consumer film when you can get NC for a bit more

in price? With cost of processing and printing, you shouldn't even quibble with a dollar more in film cost especially when the photographic subject is a wedding.

 

It's easy to screw up professional film shots and then label

them as no better than consumer film, but the question

to you is, can you make consumer film look as good as pro film

when you take it to the lab to make prints for the bride?