NPZ 640, 500, or 400 ?

[alex_tudor]

As some know from my previous posts, I love Kodak 400UC, but I don't

have any good Kodak labs around so I use a Frontier lab. I would

thus prefer a Fuji film instead, but NPH 400 is not colorful enough

for me at all.

 

For some reason, until Pierre mentioned it in another thread, I

never even thought of using/trying Fuji NPZ and rating it lower. I

assumed (wrongly) that it was as colorless as NPH. My ignorance has

hurt me until I shot a roll of NPZ today. I took identical shots of

400UC and NPZ. I left 400UC rated at 400, and with NPZ I took each

shot twice, once at a 640 rating and the next at a 500 rating.

 

In comparing the Frontier prints I'm quite happy to say that I'm

simply AMAZED at how good, grainless, and colorful NPZ is! This is

one AWESOME film! I don't need 800, but if Fuji's NPH is not so

colorful, NPZ will do for me over 400UC.

 

Some questions of course ;) I've only shot one roll, but plan to

shoot more. But I ask (and I HAVE searched with mixed results) the

experts or the experienced NPZ users since they HAVE the experience.

 

I can't seem to decide what to rate NPZ at. 640 is definitely nice

and 500 is slightly even more colorful. The only issue with rating

it at 500 that I've seen so far is that skintones tend to "white

out" or wash out.

 

So what IS the ideal "all-around" best rating for NPZ for most

conditions? 640 or 500? I've seen some rate it at 400 too! Of course

all processing (I naturally assume and I've done so) is still done

at 800, no?

 

What about when using it with flash? Would lower than 640 be no

good? So far with 500 I saw slightly more saturation and slightly

less grain. I assume 400 is the max to overexpose it to, but then I

really fear washed out skintones.

 

So what do you NPZ folks do and in what situations? 640 for

portraits? 500/400 for all-around?

 

Furthermore, so far it seems like I CAN replace 400UC with NPZ and

get good results. Is there a reason to NOT do this, seeing I'm using

a Frontier lab?

 

Thanks to all who've helped! You guys are great!

 

Alex

[alex_tudor]

One more thing. I can rate at 640/500/400 but I will be processing at 800 (normal), right?

 

If so I assume the lab will make the necessary exposure corrections when printing so I *DON'T* get too overxposed prints! The reasons I got this now was because I told the lab NOT to correct anything and print like a contact sheet with 0 corrections. Am I to assume a good lab will know how to process NPZ rated at 400 so it looks good and saturated?

 

Also, I've noticed that the NPZ comes out in both prints and scans sharper! than 400UC from the Frontier. I took two pictures of my wife wearing a red shirt and a pink undershirt and it was so much sharper on NPZ.. Hmm... Scott?

 

Alex

[eric friedemann]

NPZ is the best 400 speed film on the market. Why Fuji deliberately overrates the film at ISO 800 is a mystery. Just shoot the film at 400 and process normally.

[alex_tudor]

Eric,

 

Just shot another roll today and will get it developed later. I shot at 640/500/400 each shot.

 

You say to rate it at 400 (one stop overexposed) and process normal. That sounds good, but won't colors be washed out at 400? I'll wait and see, but do you have samples? Does your lab not correct? It would have to no? Otherwise the sky would be white!

 

Alex

[eric friedemann]

Alex-

 

In order for Fuji to have rated NPZ at ISO 800, they must have been photographing a chrome car bumper in the noonday sun during a nuclear test blast. NPZ is not an 800 speed film.

 

Shooting NPZ at 400 I get negatives of normal density with no color cross curves. In a high-key lighting situation (e.g. bright sunlight), you could shoot the film at 500 or maybe 640, but not 800.

 

I don't have any samples with me. I'll see if I have a cd at home with some NPZ stuff on it.

 

Regards,

[alex_tudor]

Eric that's pretty friggin' hillarious! Yeah I agree it's not 800 by any means.

 

What I meant was when printing do you tell your lab to print as is w/o exposure corrections? I guess your answer was yes (?).

 

Alex

[bill_tuthill]

Interesting ideas! Makes me want to try NPZ below EI 640, where I

usually shoot it (unless push2 processing, when I set EI 2000).

 

However I disagree that NPZ is not an 800 speed film. My exposure

sequence tests showed it has more underexposure latitude than

even Supra 800 and Reala, -3.5 versus -3. It's true that grain is

reduced when overexposed, and skin tones are improved, but NPZ is an extremely efficient emulsion that compares well to all others at

that speed.

[eric friedemann]

"What I meant was when printing do you tell your lab to print as is w/o exposure corrections? I guess your answer was yes (?)."

 

No:

 

1. Both of the printing machines at our store (optical and digital) are auto exposure, but the images pop up one by one for the printer to make fine density adjustments. That having been said, NPZ shot at 400 exposes normally, without density correction, as the negatives are of normal density.

 

2. The NPZ "channels" on both machines favor NPZ exposed at 400. And I've never had a roll a printer has had to remake because of color balance issues.

[eric friedemann]

"However I disagree that NPZ is not an 800 speed film. My exposure sequence tests showed it has more underexposure latitude than even Supra 800 and Reala, -3.5 versus -3."

 

Bill, I use your film page as a reference. So, if you say that you can get a printable image shooting NPZ at 800, I'll have to defer to you.

 

Buttttt, when NPZ came out, I had been shooting NHG-II at 800 in all but the flatest lighting situations, where I'd drop to 640. Arguably, NHG-II was an 800 film.

 

I shot a test roll of NPZ when we first got it at 800 and got unacceptably thin and flat negatives in all sorts of lighting situations. At 400, I got superb results in all sorts of lighting.

 

You note the film's underexposure latitude, which is interesting, but I don't predicate my shooting on how thin a negative I can make and still have an image I can rescue. I need to get images that look GREAT in 4x6 or 5x5 proof prints.

 

Put another way, I can shoot 35mm NPZ at 400, enlarge to 10x14 and get superb shadow detail while still maintaining texture in the highlights. Shooting NPZ at 800 I got unacceptably flat 4x6 prints with muddy, detailess shadows.

[bryan_thrall]

What about when using flash?

[emaxxman]

I probably use flash more often than not. That's because I tend to shoot alot of moving subjects (kids), indoors, and then outdoors during those bright noon hours.

 

I've never had any issues with flash. I shoot Reala@80, NPH@320, and NPZ@640. Never had a problem. Take a look at the flower shots in my portfolio. All these shots had fill flash at -1 flash compensation. No diffuser on the flash (i.e. Omnibounce). Also, I've never had better prints since I switched to Fuji and the frontier machines. Absolutely incredible. I just use an Omnibounce on the flash and also bounce the flash off of something.

[eric friedemann]

Especially when using direct flash. Direct flash is a very flat light source.

[emaxxman]

This line...

 

"I just use an Omnibounce on the flash and also bounce the flash off of something."

 

 

should read

 

 

When I shoot flash indoors, I just use an Omnibounce on the flash and also bounce the flash off of something.

[harry_akiyoshi]

Hmm. I typically expose at 640, or 1000 with push1. Maybe I'll give 400 a try.

[emaxxman]

Andrew, your email address is hilarious!!! :-)

[eric friedemann]

"I shoot ... NPZ@640. ... I've never had better prints since I switched to Fuji and the frontier machines."

 

Alright, let me throw one last thing into the mix. Typically, Frontier machines are found in drug stores, Wal-Marts and storefront one hour labs. Because these operations receive a significant percentage of underexposed images, they mostly use higher contrast papers. (Also, most of their customers, who don't know how a good print should look, like eye-popping contrast.)

 

What? Yes, Kodak and other roll paper manufacturers make papers of different contrast:

 

http://wwwca.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020715-02.shtml

 

If you've printed B&W, you know that, very generally, a negative of normal density and contrast will print properly on a Grade 2 paper. If the negative is flat, you may use Grade 3 or 4 paper to boost contrast.

 

Sticking with the Kodak analogy, a properly exposed color negative will generally print best on the Portra paper (equal to Grade 2). A flat negative will print best on the Supra paper (equal to Grade 3).

 

At my store, we use normal contrast Konica papers as most of our customers are advanced ametuers, prosumers or professionals. As such, I shoot NPZ @ 400, get negatives of perfect density and get prints of correct density.

 

If I were taking my film to a drug store or other lab that used a higher contrast paper, I'd probably shoot my NPZ at 500 in flat lighting and perhaps 640 in high contrast lighting. This would allow me to compensate for the overly contrasty papers used in most Fuji Frontier machines.

[bill_tuthill]

I found my NPZ latitude test. It was done in winter, making

sun/shade less contrasty, so I really should repeat to verify. <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=6480484">

But here is a scan</A> of the -4 EI 12800 shot. The corresponding

Agfa minilab print is marginally unacceptable. Bigger problems occur

on the overexposure side, where prints and scans are too magenta

by +5 EI 25.

<P>

Let me add that I'm in total agreement with Eric that NPZ density

(thus grain and color) gets improved by slight overexposure.

[emaxxman]

Eric,

 

That's pretty interesting. Gee, I hope I'm not one of those that are underexposing their shots. To be honest, my scans of my shots look pretty dead on and not much different from the prints. I hope that means I'm exposing correctly. :-p

 

Anyway, with regards to the eye popping contrast, I personally prefer Reala for its extreme low contrast look. And this is definitely what I get when I do get Reala printed on the Frontier. I get nice but accurate color saturation with very good shadow detail. My daught is one of my most common subjects. With Reala in bright sunlight or Supra in open shade, I can get great detail in the shadows and especially her hair. The contrastier films (Supra in contrasty light, or NPZ) tend to make her hair a big black blob, even when exposed @640.

 

I'm not a big fan of the contrastier prints. If anything, I sometimes feel that my NPZ shots are too contrasty. However, I just suck it up because they are mostly flash shots taken in low lighting where I can't use a tripod. Contrast is one of the reasons that I don't use Supra or 400UC as much despite the fact that I do enjoy the warmer pallete of those two films.

 

I'll see if I can scan in some prints of NPZ, Reala, and Supra for comparison and post them.

[eric friedemann]

"Let me add that I'm in total agreement with Eric that NPZ density (thus grain and color) gets improved by slight overexposure."

 

Great minds think alike. ;-)

 

"Bigger problems occur on the overexposure side, where prints and scans are too magenta by +5 EI 25."

 

Well, at best, I expect color print film to give me a 7 stop tonal range. That's 3.5 stops either side of the zero line. Exposing NPZ at 400 would still bring me half a stop under your +5 mark. Then too, if need be, I can correct in printing for a slight magenta cast. I can't drag shadow detail out of a clear area on a negative.

 

But this brings up the reason why I stopped shooting NPS 160. NPS 160 has a little longer tonal range than Reala and the colors are a bit more subtle. So I started shooting it. The problem was that I couldn't get acceptable contrast with indoor flash shots (e.g. wedding receptions) at 125 or even 100. So, I dropped the NPS to 80 and got perfect contrast; but, I ran into slightly magenta images of the sort described. At that point, I said, "screw this," and went back to shooting Reala at 80 in flat lighting and 100 in contrasty lighting.

[eric friedemann]

"With Reala in bright sunlight or Supra in open shade, I can get great detail in the shadows and especially her hair. The contrastier films (Supra in contrasty light, or NPZ) tend to make her hair a big black blob, even when exposed @640."

 

Since I don't have kids, I'll drag out the dreaded cat shot again. Yes, a subject with pale skin and black hair is difficult. With the cat, you just can't pour enough light into the dark furry areas on her face and ears and still get texture in her light gray wiskers.

 

For your daughter, it may be a matter of putting her with her back to the sun and adding a lot of fill flash. The strong sunlight would add some hair light and make her head appear to have more depth.<div></div>

[alex_tudor]

"If I were taking my film to a drug store or other lab that used a higher contrast paper, I'd probably shoot my NPZ at 500 in flat lighting and perhaps 640 in high contrast lighting. This would allow me to compensate for the overly contrasty papers used in most Fuji Frontier machines."

 

Eric, all the labs around here use Fuji Crystal Archive paper. Now I don't know if there are different types of Crystal Archive. How can I find out? Based on this and what you say, I may need to rate higher than 400.

 

Alex

[rokkor fan]

Hi all,

 

I have only ever used NPZ pushed one stop for night photography in bars etc. For a standard 400 speed film I use 400UC rated at 400. Am I to understand that NPZ rated at say 500 compares well to 400UC in terms of sharpness and grain? I will be scanning at 5400 dpi and printing to A3+ so this is critical for my purposes.

[alex_tudor]

Antony, I've been also using 400UC but on a Frontier lab since that's all I have that's good here. But at someone's suggestion I tried NPZ at 640/500/400. I'll tell you it looks amazing. Better clarity in prints and scans (due to Fuji processing), same grain, etc. I'm waiting more test results with flash, etc. but I think I will switch to NPZ @ 500 since my lab uses somewhat contrastier paper - see Eric's note.

 

Give it a try and see for yourself! I was amazed to be honest.

 

Alex

[bill_tuthill]

In HP-S10 scans at 2400 dpi, NPZ @ 640 is significantly grainier

than Portra 400UC, especially grays. In 4x6 prints this added

grainyness is imperceptible, but you'd see it in 8x12 enlargements.

It would be interesting to test NPZ at EI 500 and 400 to measure the

differences.

[scott_eaton]

<I>Am I to understand that NPZ rated at say 500 compares well to 400UC in terms of sharpness and grain</i><P>Uh, no. UC 400 is dramamatically finer grained and sharper than NPZ rated at anything. Over-exposing print films helps the grain clouds build density and smooth out by over-lapping. Over-exposing also *reduces* the actual sharpness of print films. Given this tradeoff, most of us will take the over-exposed film becuase it basically looks better.<P>I agree that neither NPZ nor NHG are optimum at EI 800, but I won't agree that NPZ is slower than NHG when in fact NPZ is a bit faster, and has greater under exposure lattitude.<P>NPZ should beat UC 400 on the Frontier and look much more natural. UC 400 is the better over-all film in my opinion, especially with dedicated scanning, but NPZ is stunning on a Frontier and won't be challenged by the Kodak film in that role.<P>