I just collected a roll of Fuji 400 H from the lab, and looking at the prints I can't believe the quality of this film, I've been using Fuji neg films for more than twenty years I rarely use fast film,and try to use the slowest film I can, I normally shoot pro160S or Reala, but I had some portraits to shoot by window light, and my local friendly pro dealer gave me a sample roll to try, and I'm astounded at the colour quality and lack of grain of this film, and will certainly keep a few rolls in stock in future, and would highly recommend it.
Fuji pro 400 H
-
A
- Thread starter benjiboy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Expired Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 - 120
- Started by Adam W
-
For Sale FS: 3x4 Pacemaker Speed Graphic Camera with 4x5 Cambo Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Black Nikon fm2n
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale 3 boxes of 4x5 Acros
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Mistake
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I was similarly astounded by Kodak's Portra 400VC. Incredibly fine grain for ISO 400 film.
I think it's fair to say that film technology has come a long way.
I think it's fair to say that film technology has come a long way.
I'm going to try some Portra 400 VC Thomas, I've been shooting colour film for more than fifty years and IMHO the biggest real advances in film photography hasn't been in the hardware, but in the materials, both Kodak and Fuji Films are superb.
Try going all the way and sampling Portra 800 or some remaining stock of the sadly discontinued Fuji 800z. Both are incredible for 800 speed color.
Hi Ben,
You've been shooting color film longer than I've been alive.
But I've seen a fair amount of color prints from ye olden days, and the difference in color, contrast, detail, and grain is startling between now and then.
Then we pick up a Hasselblad camera from the 1960s and make perfect pictures with it, and I doubt their modern lenses are noticeably better to the naked eye.
Very true statement.
- Thomas
You've been shooting color film longer than I've been alive.
But I've seen a fair amount of color prints from ye olden days, and the difference in color, contrast, detail, and grain is startling between now and then.Then we pick up a Hasselblad camera from the 1960s and make perfect pictures with it, and I doubt their modern lenses are noticeably better to the naked eye.
Very true statement.
- Thomas
If I weren't so addicted to Portra 400NC/VC, I'd shoot just as mugh 400h.
its one bitchin film, to say the least! Sc@ns well too, oops
.
here's two shots from a shoot a while back. Got some test rolls from the Fuji rep @ the store I used to work at, shot on an RZ@2.8(110mm) on both. Stupid good film!!!!
-Dan
its one bitchin film, to say the least! Sc@ns well too, oops
.here's two shots from a shoot a while back. Got some test rolls from the Fuji rep @ the store I used to work at, shot on an RZ@2.8(110mm) on both. Stupid good film!!!!
-Dan
MattKing
Moderator
That's reassuring Matt! Awesome to know that. I wonder if the 800 would last the same 3 years at room temperature.
I'm a big 400H fan as well. Often I like the color rendition better than 160S and grain-wise, the difference is hardly visible.
As for the 800Z...I have shot some at 2 years expired, room temp and it was fine.
However, my experiences with expired 800NPZ--actually refridgerated--was not nearly so good. Much more visible grain, seeming loss of speed (underexposed when shot at 800).
As for the 800Z...I have shot some at 2 years expired, room temp and it was fine.
However, my experiences with expired 800NPZ--actually refridgerated--was not nearly so good. Much more visible grain, seeming loss of speed (underexposed when shot at 800).
MattKing
Moderator
The film was refrigerated until the last 6 months (it would have been refrigerated almost the whole time if I hadn't forgotten to take it out of my backup camera bag
).
By the way, it was 220, shot at ISO 250 with a Mamiya 645 Pro and a 55mm f/2.8 N lens. The flash was a ceiling bounced Olympus T32 in auto mode, with high-tech (
) catchlight card.
).By the way, it was 220, shot at ISO 250 with a Mamiya 645 Pro and a 55mm f/2.8 N lens. The flash was a ceiling bounced Olympus T32 in auto mode, with high-tech (
) catchlight card.I have used Fuji 400H in the past and really like it. Gonna have to use some soon.
Jeff
Jeff
I like that 400H and 800Z print on almost the same filter pack, in fact, often the exact same filter pack. Makes life a little easier.
Twenty or thirty years ago 400 I.S.O Colour neg film had grain like golf balls, and Sarah Moon shot the Pirelli calendar with Anscochrome 500 because of it's increadable grain for creative effect in those days Thomas. I have revised my ideas about using 400 ISO film today and am going to buy a stock of 400 H and a few rolls 800Z, because I'm a big fan of window light portraiture and these films will be ideal.Hi Ben,
You've been shooting color film longer than I've been alive.
Then we pick up a Hasselblad camera from the 1960s and make perfect pictures with it, and I doubt their modern lenses are noticeably better to the naked eye.
Very true statement.
- Thomas
Those sample pics look really nice. I've not used this film before but now I'm feeling inspired to try it. (It's funny--when I was a young'n, I had the impression that Fuji film was second-rate--maybe because I was mainly seeing the drugstore-quality film. But the products I've used in recent years have been really nice! Is it just me or are they really a lot better now?)
This is Portra 400VC as well. I love that film!
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
What impresses me A.M. being a long time portrait enthusiast about these portrait films both Kodak and Fuji as clearly demonstrated on this shot is their ability to render beautiful accurate skin tones and strong vibrant colours and clean whites at the same time on the same film, I've been shooting colour film all my adult life, this is to me science fiction . I bought a five pack of 35mm Portra 400 VC last week to try but haven't used any yet, I'm looking forward to it now.
. I bought a five pack of 35mm Portra 400 VC last week to try but haven't used any yet, I'm looking forward to it now.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are really going to like the results with the 400VC. I've never shot this Fuji Pro 400H so I'll try some side by side one of these days. I've never shot the Portra 400NC either so I might as well throw that in there too.
It is sadly ironic that films are "better" than they have ever been, yet they are fighting harder than they ever have just to exist at all. BUY FILM, people!
Last edited by a moderator:
Ain't that the truth 2F/2/F, I bought some Fuji 800Z last week even though I've never used a film so fast in my life because I read it's going to be discontinued and you have written how good it is.
Fuji 400H is a remarkable portrait film that has a fourth layer that makes it give truer colours in mixed lighting conditions, handles contrast very well,and has a pleasant colour pallet, try a roll I think you'll like it.
I've found that that Portra corrects pretty easily (at least in a scanning workflow) for tungsten lighting. Fluorescents can be a bit hard on it, depending on the quality of the fluorescents. It sounds as if Fuji handles that a bit better.
I'm so analogue I don't have a scanner,or photo-shop although I might get one to put my work on APUG, I get my pictures processed at a local pro lab and all I can say is Iv'e had some surprisingly good results much better than I expected in mixed light, and I'm going to try Fuji Pro 800Z next that also has the fourth layer.
400H and 800Z are my main color films these days.
400H:
M7 / 28/2.0 ASPH
800Z:
M5 / 50/2.0
(lab scans)
400H:
M7 / 28/2.0 ASPH
800Z:
M5 / 50/2.0
(lab scans)
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |