Fuji 800 NPZ, Fuji Pro 400H advice

I use both these films and I like them a lot. I've used more of the Z than the H, they're very close in terms of filter pack when printing. The Z is a little more punchy in colour than H, a bit grainier, but not by that much at all. I like the Z a lot and have recently started using it more than Superia 800 (another fine film). I think the Z handles (light) skin better than superia which can exaggerate a ruddy complexion. I think H is even kinder on skin than Z and has a nice subtle feel about it. Z is rather a good price at the moment, at least in the UK where it's cheaper than Superia 800. It was threatened with extinction last year and it's aggressive pricing may be to encourage sales. They're both nice films, shoot a roll of each under various lighting conditions and see what you think.

 

I use fuji's colour and black and white films exclusively from last year and I have to say that I am pretty happy with terms not relatives to the capture, terms like price and avalaibility, but I am missing the results I had with kodak films.
Kodak portra 160 vc is the best negative colour film I have ever used far better than its fuji competition.
Why not to use kodak films then? Just the things i have said before, price, avalaibility, trix emulsion is not like before, kodak kodachrome has disappeared,...

 

I also use the Fuji shop as their prices are very good and postage is fast. They often have good short-dated bargains. The other shop I use is a tax-free place located in the Channel Islands (www.7dayshop.com), unfortunately they do not ship to the continent. A pity as they're currently selling short-dated 800Z in five packs for £9.95

 

I used some 800Z two months ago to shot my son's graduation from college. I rated it at 800 because the bulk of the shots would be in the university gymnasium. The film handled that lighting very well. And I took a number of shots in winter low-angle sunlight -- you know, the kind that creates a very contrasty look -- and again they came out great. The grain is visible but not in any sense that distracts. I came away very impressed by this film, and would certainly use it again.

 

Both films are simply great.

Neither "need" over-exposure, using good solid no-cheating normal exposure is just fine.

Over-exposure can get you more saturation, if you really want that.

Over-exposure can get you more shadow detail BUT not all shadows are important.

Over-exposure is a tool not a magic bullet and it doesn't always help.

Over-exposure can force you to use longer shutter times than you might like, or open the aperture more than you like, or both. In essence you give away some of the advantage of using a fast film to use this "tool".

So test a little to find out what works for you by "wasting" a few frames on on the first roll of each film type by bracketing. Start at box speed then bump the exposure on the next frame 1-stop and bump shot 3 up 2-stops. There's no need for special processing.

This test very useful, but purely personal, it will tell you more about how you meter than it will about the film's rating.