1600 iso Fuji film

[digiconvert]

Just finished a session in a cathedral with the above film and I have to say I'm disappointed. Actually pinpointing the problem is difficult. I accept that the mix of daylight and tungsten lighting on some items is going to be difficult for any film but even taking that into account the colours just seem 'odd' . It may be the processing (High street lab I've not used before) or the fact that I am so used to Portra but I'd be interested in any comments by others.

Thanks ; CJB

 

[Sanjay Sen]

I shot one roll of this film at the box speed - not a fair assessment, more out of curiosity - and didn't find any reason to go back to it. The roll was shot in daylight and processed by a photo lab - not supermarket, not high-end either. I didn't like results. As you mentioned, I found the colors a little off (for lack of a better word).

I do not shoot color negative film much anymore, just E6. Although when I did, I liked the Fuji Superia 100 & 400 films.

 

[nsouto]

Same problem here. Mine was on the edge of being expired, so maybe it needs a very fresh emulsion?

Biggest problem I found was lack of any saturation on the colours, just pastel all the way. Reds were way too dark while blues seemed to be ok. Greens were a bit "cheap".

I tried it on tungsten light without filter or flash and it worked ok-ish for the level of light it was. At least it scanned fine.

Standard lab c41 processing, standard exposure.

I'm planning to give it a go with 120 format, but with 35mm I don't think so.

Here is a scan from it.
And another.
Last one.

 

[obelix]

I don't know what ypu all had expected but high sensitive films are not as sparkling as the medium type (100-200asa).
The reason to use them is in low light circumstances.

The old ektar 1000 was always advised to use at 800 i'm not familiar with the fuji. But that film was also very bleak.
@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.

 

[df cardwell]

Well, Fuji 1600 Superia DOES hold a linear scale of 14 stops, which is pretty remarkable. And it DOES give brilliant colors if given enough exposure, which is true for any color negative film. One of the problems with mixed light sources (again, the same for any color neg) is that incandescent light often 'fools the meter' and we simply underexpose the blue layer. The color can balance in the highlights but the neg can't be printed to sufficient density to make a nice, eye-popping black.

(which is EXACTLY the same problem as blue-channel-noise in d*g*t*l)

So, if we have to shoot a tungsten & daylight mix, remember the film sees a lot of red, and not much blue, and we have to be sure each layer gets enough light to get the shadows over the threshold to print well.
Which is a different problem from color balance !

Either use a blue filter, or rate the film at 800 (which is a seat of the pants guideline): expose for the shadows in order to get good color balance AND strong blacks/vibrant colors.

MORE: while the ISO 1600 IS real, it assumes a Daylight color balance.
AS the shooting conditions range from blue to red,
we have to expose for whatever color is deficient.

The magic of these new film is that we can do this,
without making it impossible to balance the midtones and highlights .

 

[Larry Bullis]

AS the shooting conditions range from blue to red,
we have to expose for whatever color is deficient.

Great, df, this is exactly the same as the problem that fluorescent lamps bring down on us. The only difference is that visually, we haven't got a clue about how to deal with it, as we do with tungsten.

 

[mabman]

Out of curiousity I bought the last 3 rolls of Superia 1600 from a local retailer almost a couple of years ago now. It wasn't expired, but the results after processing looked odd... Difficult to describe, I think the best way is that the colour tones seemed to render differently than Superia 400 (which I use semi-often), and I didn't care for the way the grain looked.

Actually, I was under the impression Superia 1600 had been discontinued, but it still shows up on the Fujifilm web site, so I guess it hasn't been.

I'd be interested in trying Natura 1600 (different formulation than Superia 1600, seems to get very positive reviews from those who have tried it), but as it's only available in Japan it's cost-prohibitive to get some.

 

[markbarendt]

DF,

I went looking on flickr at this film's results after reading your post. It's absolutely amazing how many people could use this info.

It looks to me like most people simply throw 1600 film in the camera out of out of desperation rather than planning.

It's nice to see some shots done well and nice to know it can be done.

Well, Fuji 1600 Superia DOES hold a linear scale of 14 stops, which is pretty remarkable. And it DOES give brilliant colors if given enough exposure, which is true for any color negative film. One of the problems with mixed light sources (again, the same for any color neg) is that incandescent light often 'fools the meter' and we simply underexpose the blue layer. The color can balance in the highlights but the neg can't be printed to sufficient density to make a nice, eye-popping black.

(which is EXACTLY the same problem as blue-channel-noise in d*g*t*l)

So, if we have to shoot a tungsten & daylight mix, remember the film sees a lot of red, and not much blue, and we have to be sure each layer gets enough light to get the shadows over the threshold to print well.
Which is a different problem from color balance !

Either use a blue filter, or rate the film at 800 (which is a seat of the pants guideline): expose for the shadows in order to get good color balance AND strong blacks/vibrant colors.

MORE: while the ISO 1600 IS real, it assumes a Daylight color balance.
AS the shooting conditions range from blue to red,
we have to expose for whatever color is deficient.

The magic of these new film is that we can do this,
without making it impossible to balance the midtones and highlights .

 

[Larry Bullis]

I'm going to have to try it. I'm always looking for a film that I can use handheld in my pinhole Leica at f/128. This film ought to give me something like 1/20 sec. Plenty.

 

[jd callow]

If you figure tungsten requires around 30 yellow and 15 magenta to be corrected than an exposure compensation of + 2/3 - 1 stop should be enough ~800-1000. First you should find what amount of light the film requires under perfect conditions. I'm a firm believer that you should assume that the box speed is a guide and that your own metering style and equipment should dictate how you rate the film. I'm also a firm believer that almost all c41 films are best used at half thier box speed.

 

[df cardwell]

Here's a snapshot taken 20 years ago, to the day !
Running across Boston Common for a train,
stopping for a second to make a snap with an M4 and 35 Summicron,
and Kodacolor 1000. Printed it for her lovely face.

Fuji 1600 is a thousand times better than old 1000.

When you print color yourself,
you are instantly aware of what has to be done to shoot it !
(and how badly computer imaging conveys a good color print !)

 

[Lee L]

My experience mirrors Don's. I've shot most of a brick (16 of 20?) of Fuji 1600, and learned to rate it at 800 - 1000. Mostly I've shot it at indoor soccer, the reason for the brick purchase in the first place. As Don and PE have said about most (not all) C-41 films, it has better color saturation and appears less grainy at somewhere around 2/3 to a full stop greater exposure than box speed. Fuji 1600 looks very different at 800 compared to 1600, and 1000 gets you most of the way there.

Lee

 

[GraemeMitchell]

I know a guy who loves Fuji 1600. I'm pretty sure these shots with it, here, or here. I don't think he really rates it specifically, but generally overexposes by at least a stop. He told be he enjoyed it b/c of it's great grays...which I think was his way of saying not saturated/contrasty.

 

[Larry Bullis]

If you figure tungsten requires around 30 yellow and 15 magenta to be corrected than an exposure compensation of + 2/3 - 1 stop should be enough ~800-1000. First you should find what amount of light the film requires under perfect conditions. I'm a firm believer that you should assume that the box speed is a guide and that your own metering style and equipment should dictate how you rate the film. I'm also a firm believer that almost all c41 films are best used at half thier box speed.

I certainly agree about the half speed; that has always been my experience too.

I wouldn't probably ever be handholding a pinhole under tungsten (well, who knows; I might) but what you suggest seems about right for a tungsten film in daylight, but isn't this film a daylight balance? If I were shooting under tungsten I guess I'd rather just use an 80a than cobble something together out of cyan/magenta. It would still produce a bit overly warm, because most tungsten lights aren't balanced to 3200°Kelvin. But then it looks like I'd be down in the 1/2 second region. That ought to work. I'm pretty good at handholding, or at least I was, but 1/2 second is a bit long. 1/8, I've done that quite a bit, but below that my probability of success gets a bit risky.

 

[Lee L]

I'm going to have to try it. I'm always looking for a film that I can use handheld in my pinhole Leica at f/128. This film ought to give me something like 1/20 sec. Plenty.

You have one of those too? Mine's in a screw mount so I can use it on M mount bodies with an adapter. I have a C/V mini combo 28/35 finder that I use with it on finderless bodies. Have to admit that I haven't used it a lot, but it's easy to take along.

Lee

 

[jd callow]

I may have worded that badly. When correcting daylight film on the enlarger for tungsten light you'd add 30 yellow and 15 magenta. The thing to do when shooting daylight film under tungsten lighting is to add an 80a (which is approximately inverse of 30y and 15m) or increase exposure by about 2/3 to 1 full stop.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I may have worded that badly. When correcting daylight film on the enlarger for tungsten light you'd add 30 yellow and 15 magenta. The thing to do when shooting daylight film under tungsten lighting is to add an 80a (which is approximately inverse of 30y and 15m) or increase exposure by about 2/3 to 1 full stop.

Sure. I thought you were talking about the camera; I guess I ought to have known since it was yourself writing!!

Actually, I'd much rather NOT correct on the enlarger. I'd sure use the 80a in shooting if I could. (I printed color professionally much of my working life, in commercial labs and my own.)

 

[Larry Bullis]

You have one of those too? Mine's in a screw mount so I can use it on M mount bodies with an adapter. I have a C/V mini combo 28/35 finder that I use with it on finderless bodies. Have to admit that I haven't used it a lot, but it's easy to take along.

Lee

Sure do! Mine's recessed, so I get a good 28mm or even maybe a mm shorter. Actually, I've made a bunch of Leica pinholes for friends. I like to use mine on the iiif but I use it with the adapter as well. I've been doing this since 1975.

A friend of mine who sells cameras in Seattle took one of my E.Leitz pinholes on a visit to Solms. I was so mad at him! He was afraid to show it to the Leica guys. I guess they drank a lot of beer when he was there. I would think that would have been a perfect time to show it. I really wanted them to look at it under a Leica microscope and see how perfect it is.

I'll look for a scan of some dead fish. You might enjoy it. I don't bother with a finder. Just stick in in their face (dead fish, that is).

 

[Lee L]

Sure do! Mine's recessed, so I get a good 28mm or even maybe a mm shorter. Actually, I've made a bunch of Leica pinholes for friends. I like to use mine on the iiif but I use it with the adapter as well. I've been doing this since 1975.

Mine's made with an after-market screw mount body cap and an Eric Renner pinhole from an assortment kit he sells in stainless. Had a machinist friend make a bevelled hole in the body cap and mounted the pinhole on the inside of the cap. I blackened the bevelled hole.

So now I guess I need to pull a roll of Fuji 1600 from the freezer and give it a run. (Gotta stay nominally on topic. )

Lee

 

[Larry Bullis]

Mine's made with an after-market screw mount body cap and an Eric Renner pinhole from an assortment kit he sells in stainless. Had a machinist friend make a bevelled hole in the body cap and mounted the pinhole on the inside of the cap. I blackened the bevelled hole.

So now I guess I need to pull a roll of Fuji 1600 from the freezer and give it a run. (Gotta stay nominally on topic. )

Lee

Mine are better than Eric's. His are drilled. Mine are poked and repouseé, in pure silver and blackened with selenium toner. Eric won't sell mine because he says he'd have to charge more than people would pay. Here's the dead fish, done on Fuji 1600 quite some time ago. Couldn't find the scan I wanted. Had to extract this from a layout.

 

[Lee L]

Very nice Larry. I can almost smell them.

Would love to see one of your pinholes.

Lee

 

[Larry Bullis]

Very nice Larry. I can almost smell them.

Would love to see one of your pinholes.

Lee

Don't you like how they are smiling?

I have a microscopic shot of one of the pinholes to show its shape and interior finish and I believe I have some close up details. I'll have to find them, but I am looking for that stuff anyway, so I should find it soon. Not tonight though, we're driving through the snow and ice, carefully.

I haven't used a lot of the Fuji 1600 and haven't used any for some time now. I do remember liking it a lot, especially with the pinhole. I think the fish shot was probably done at 1/8 second; it was a bright overcast day in Steveston BC, right on the coast - maritime climate. Which I guess might explain the fish.

 

[Lee L]

OK, so now a post about Fuji 1600 without cold happy fish or pinholes.

I think all of the color shots here: http://tinyurl.com/8facc7 were on Fuji 1600. Some of the pano style shots of practice were shot at 1600, and you can see much more grain in the shadows on type C prints with the higher EI. (The web images are all from negative scans.)

Lee

 

[2F/2F]

It's nice film for certain things, but Superia/Press 800 underexposed one stop (or even two) and then pushed one stop (or even two) will give you much finer grain and more punch in both the low and the high end.

It has low contrast and very chunky grain. It's really good for using when you want a very gritty, yet low to medium contrast look, and/or low saturation. It also tames high contrast light like nobody's business, and gives you very very fast shutter speeds in daylight.

However, I use pushed 800 instead in most scenarios.

It also does not keep nearly as well as the Superia/Press 800. It fogs like a MOFO. I have used very old 800 that worked quite well, but 1600 of the same age was not pretty.

For low light shooting, neither one of these films beats 320T (pushed or not), which is gone for good now. 320T was the better film by a long shot, IMO. Even though it was slower, it had a much more suitable color response for most low-light color temps, which made for a better color rendition and more neutral and detailed shadows. Also, since it was a transparency film, it handled about a stop of "too darkness" just fine. It also held accurate color better when pushing. I used it rated up one stop to EI 640 often, but most often I shot it for live bands at EI 1000 to 1600.

It is worth having at least one or two rolls of the 1600 on hand when I go out shooting color. It is a very unique looking film. You should try it.

Also, check out Fuji Natura 1600, which must be imported from Japan. I hear good things about it, but have not tried it myself.

 

[nickandre]

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.