1600 iso Fuji film

digiconvert · Dec 21, 2008

Managed to get a decent image from a scan - the lab work was pretty awful hence my original comments . The image is at (there was a url link here which no longer exists). On this basis and from the comments above the film needs pretty careful use. I did bracket +- a stop so I have photos effectively taken at iso 800 so I can investigate this idea further. I just need the time to get some prints rather than scans done .
Thanks for the advice

df cardwell · Dec 21, 2008

tiberiustibz said:
I understand that all consumer films have a higher contrast to compensate for crappy lenses on point and shoot cameras, so they should be overexposed 2/3 stop. That doesn't help people who want a fast film though.

That isn't the case, and you can look at the published curves to see for yourself.

What IS true is that most photofinishers use a contrastier paper than wedding labs to satisfy the appeal of snappy colors. Same reason most landscape shooters love Velvia.

Probably the most important thing is that the images we tend to use really fast film for are extremely contrasty, have deep shadows, and - often - mixed light sources. Demanding even for an experienced professional !

onnect17 · Dec 21, 2008

I used the 1600 for indoors but always with color meter and filters if available. The pics were taken with a Canon eos3 . Scanned with Nikon V and color noise removed using Noiseware.

24mm + Blue filter

200mm - no filter

I don't use flash any longer. I got decent 12x18 prints from Costco.

df cardwell · Dec 22, 2008

onnect17 said:
I used the 1600 for indoors but always with color meter and filters if available.....24mm + Blue filter...

... worth a thousand words. Lovely.

Just HOW MANY kinds of lamps do we have ?

When we shoot, or when we print, we can use a filter to reduce the overexposure caused by too much red. But we only can balance a given density if there was enough exposure through EACH of the three layers.

The reason this picture is so important is that it has well exposed blue layer in the shadows. The blue filter reduces the overabundance of red,
allowing onnect17 to give enough exposure to the BLUE layer to be able to print a clean image.

Just as we can't fix underexposure in B&W, we can't fix underexposure in a single layer in color. With ANY filter !

And 3 cheers for Costco.

markbarendt · Dec 22, 2008

This may seem silly, but as a self taught guy who got most of his photographic schooling in the digital world, then in slides, I'm amazed by the concept and the utility of "overexposure" in C-41 and now in the practical use of filters.

The narrow exposure range of the media I was using, being able to adjust WB, and having to protect the highlights has been reinforced so much that it has been hard for me to wrap my head around why anybody would cut the speed of a film on purpose or even use filters.

The thought that one color could be underexposed had never crossed my mind as the reason for problems in noise and color casts. Don't get me wrong, I KNEW that was a problem, I could see the problem, I just didn't get it.

Viva film, viva APUG. Thanks all.

2F/2F · Dec 22, 2008

markbarendt said:
This may seem silly, but as a self taught guy who got most of his photographic schooling in the digital world, then in slides, I'm amazed by the concept and the utility of "overexposure" in C-41 and now in the practical use of filters.

The narrow exposure range of the media I was using, being able to adjust WB, and having to protect the highlights has been reinforced so much that it has been hard for me to wrap my head around why anybody would cut the speed of a film on purpose or even use filters.

The thought that one color could be underexposed had never crossed my mind as the reason for problems in noise and color casts. Don't get me wrong, I KNEW that was a problem, I could see the problem, I just didn't get it.

Viva film, viva APUG. Thanks all.

Viva film, but don't fool yourself. You can learn just as much using either one, if you are an apt student. Digital is a much "better" medium than color negative film for low light pix in warm lighting, for a variety of reasons...and this is coming from someone who "hates" the idea of digital and the photographers it breeds, and who has a Canon 10D; a going-on-six-year-old camera known and despised for its filthy high ISOs and sluggishness.

I have not shot a digital picture in quite some time, because the only time I really use the medium is as a Kodak 320T replacement, and I have not done much of that sort of shooting this year. I do like and use Press 800 and 1600 for these situations, because I enjoy the process and I know these materials very well. Despite their drawbacks, I can get decent results from them. However, there is no denying that you learn plenty about color with digital, or that you can't achieve your purpose with either medium.

df cardwell · Dec 22, 2008

However, there is no denying that you learn plenty about color with digital

AMEN !

An RGB Histogram on a little d*g*t*l camera can give you a Master Class in color if you want to make the trip !
An 80A is every bit as useful in d*g*t*l as it is with film !

dwainthomas · Dec 22, 2008

good thread. I picked up some fuji ISO 1600 film a couple of weeks ago. Haven't figured out what to use it on but I wondered what people thought of it.

nsouto · Dec 22, 2008

obelix said:
@nsouto i find your pictures very rich in contrast which normally you won't find in this type of film. Did you do something special with it.

Nothing special. Lens was an Ultron 35/1.7, which I find quite contrasty with daylight. Maybe that was it?
I do recall I had to "balance" the colour curves with the 9000 scanner, as they were all over the place. Grain was reduced with NeatImage and that was about it. Ah yes: Focus Magic sharpening.

Definitely needs more trials. Particularly after DF's great piece of info on the blue layer underexposure. I've got a blue filter somewhere, gonna give it a go with the next roll on incandescent light shots. And the 800 iso rating is also something to try.

markbarendt · Dec 22, 2008

2F/2F said:
Viva film, but don't fool yourself. You can learn just as much using either one, if you are an apt student. Digital is a much "better" medium than color negative film for low light pix in warm lighting, for a variety of reasons...and this is coming from someone who "hates" the idea of digital and the photographers it breeds, and who has a Canon 10D; a going-on-six-year-old camera known and despised for its filthy high ISOs and sluggishness.

I don't know if I'm an "apt" student or not. It is really cool though, when all the pieces come together like in this thread.

I'm hopefully not fooling myself, digital has taught me a lot 2F/2F and I'm not afraid of shooting it. I do think though that I'm probably going to push Delta 3200 where color won't work so hot.

One thing that I have learned about my clients is that most don't really know what they want, other than to look great. If I show B&W for the dark situations, I'll probably sell it.

2F/2F said:
I have not shot a digital picture in quite some time, because the only time I really use the medium is as a Kodak 320T replacement, and I have not done much of that sort of shooting this year. I do like and use Press 800 and 1600 for these situations, because I enjoy the process and I know these materials very well. Despite their drawbacks, I can get decent results from them. However, there is no denying that you learn plenty about color with digital, or that you can't achieve your purpose with either medium.

I've been playing with some Superia 800 this week because nobody in town had any 1600. Fun stuff, just whetting my appetite for the 1600.

1600 iso Fuji film

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency