Fuji Pro 400H is not NPH 400?

[freddie.rios]

2F/2F Thanks for the info, which fully backs up others claim that NPH with the 4th layer at least is the same to 400H. You are right, scans and automated prints is not an accurate way to judge films, done almost a decade a part. However, that is the tricky part with Negative films. It's very difficult to get the colors just right, between different labs, different processing machines, and scanners. Each item has its own take or representation of what a color should look, and we're not even adding the technician variable. All these variables is what makes some people only shoot color on E-6, and even that's not perfect. I'm afraid I'm not going to do as you suggest with the gray cards and such, perhaps if you'd like to, but it's not an endeavor I'm willing to partake in. You see my control was as a typical user, and not in a lab setting with controlled variables. If I did do it an a lab setting and made errors, I can see why your suggestions might make sense, but as I only used it for vernacular photographs, I don't see the expense in doing that. I hope my image from the previous page is enough that at least the 2002 NPH is not the same. That's about it.

BTW, as you live in Los Angeles, what lab do you use most often?

 

[2F/2F]

Hi,

I used A and I until I found out about Samy's Santa Barbara. It is the same machines, same quality, but lower prices. They have a mail-in special that is $5 a roll for 135, 120, or 220. It is a very good deal on the 220 processing, which is mostly what I shoot in color. I hear that Swan is good too. My friend, who is working on a master's degree at Cal Arts, uses them for everything. (Cal Arts has a nice printing lab, but it is not set up for color film processing.)

The grey card test only makes sense if you have NPH to begin with, of course. I would say that the variation you see is coming from perhaps a different lab's processing, but probably more so a different printing process and materials than you were using 10 years ago. If you were to get custom enlargements made instead of automated ones, I'll bet the film would look better to you.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

May be 10 years ago , automatic printers were not scanning the prints which they will print. All new automatic machines are transforming the print bad digital one for to able to correct for printing and for write to the cd.

 

[Mark Antony]

I can't see any massive difference between the two based on the curves:

I think the biggest difference will be in the printing, years ago it would have been optical, now that's rare. I'm not saying the film hasn't changed just that other things in the image chain have change more.

 

[2F/2F]

BTW, the $5 a roll price at Samy's Santa Barbara is for E-6 only. My mistake.

C-41 is $5 for 135, $5.25 for 120, and $7.95 for 220. By comparison, A and I, which uses the same machines and has way more Hollywood attitude, is $8 for 135 or 120, and $14 for 220.

I just sent in a batch of 87 rolls to Samy's. It cost me $588.34. If I had taken the same batch to A and I, it would have cost me $971.29.

 

[Athiril]

Tried the new Portra 400? I just processed my first roll last night.

 

[freddie.rios]

2F/2F Wow, those are good prices. I usually use A&I, but recently I started going to Richard Photo Lab, but it really wasn't much cheaper. I had some 120 film processed at Samy's at their Los Angeles, Fairfax location back in 2001 and it cost me around $7 US, so it's not bad at all! I live really close to their Pasadena Location, but I haven't asked if they process it there, or if they send it out. I'll check with them, as driving to Santa Monica from Eagle Rock, so I can save a couple of dollars isn't really worth it.

Mark Antony I don't see any differences in those curves either and it is inline with the announcement and claims that PRO400H is in fact the latest NPH. I haven't really looked at the prints, obviously they are going to be way different. I do notice printing technology has gotten way better, most of my old stuff tends to have darker shadows with less information in them, and the photos have a reddish rusty tone to them. The latest prints I got from 400H are awesome. I'm mostly comparing with what I see on the negatives with a loupe and scans from different machines and scanners.

Athiril Yes the "New" Portra 400 is next on my list of films to try. I can't wait! However, I still have some films here I'd like to load up, like some Kodak Professional EKTAR 100 I have, and some Natura 1600 I bought in Japan, and I still have three cameras loaded with B&W films, one of them a 120 Kuribayashi folder. Film is fun!

 

[hpulley]

Processing it yourself would have cost you $87 or less of course... with the amount you shoot you might want to look into it! With a big Paterson 8-roll tank it wouldn't even take a week to get through it all ;-)

 

[2F/2F]

Hi,

I normally do process myself when I will be needing the images to print straight away. When the Kodak 1 gallon kit was discontinued, I bought 16 of them, and have been inching my way through them.

However, when I am this backlogged, the task just seems far too daunting. I just want it done and done now, all at once, and with perfectly matching qualities roll to roll. I just got a tax return, so this is where part of it went. A few of these rolls were over three years old! You are right, it was a big splurge. But I don't have a lot of time with my two jobs and school. I just wanted to get it done. It's under a dollar a roll at home, but my time is also worth at least $0.25 per hour!

I pulled aside all the push processing to do at home, as it's an additional charge per stop at a lab, and much of the film needs plus 2 or plus 3 development.

 

[Athiril]

2F/2F
Athiril Yes the "New" Portra 400 is next on my list of films to try. I can't wait! However, I still have some films here I'd like to load up, like some Kodak Professional EKTAR 100 I have, and some Natura 1600 I bought in Japan, and I still have three cameras loaded with B&W films, one of them a 120 Kuribayashi folder. Film is fun!

IMHO, it is the best 400 speed I've ever used, apart from sharpness and grain which is amazing, the colour is superb. It has good saturation, and handles high contrast very well, and it has exceptional local contrast. Oh, and the mask appears thinner/lighter than most usual C-41 films

 

[Tim Gray]

Athiril, did you use Portra previously? The Portra 400 I've gotten developed has pretty much the exact same mask density as rolls of 400VC-3, 400NC-3, and 800-3 that I got developed at the same time. The roll of Ektar is about the same density, maybe a teeny bit darker, but a slightly different color.

I don't shoot much Fuji, but I seem to recall a much denser mask with Fuji films.

 

[Athiril]

Athiril, did you use Portra previously? The Portra 400 I've gotten developed has pretty much the exact same mask density as rolls of 400VC-3, 400NC-3, and 800-3 that I got developed at the same time. The roll of Ektar is about the same density, maybe a teeny bit darker, but a slightly different color.

I don't shoot much Fuji, but I seem to recall a much denser mask with Fuji films.

Yes, but thats what I was referring to.. the OP didn't like the mask density of the new or 'new' Fuji 400H.

 

[Tim Gray]

Oh ok. Thanks for the clarification. Since I shoot mostly Kodak, the base didn't look any different than all the other films I use.

 

[Athiril]

I shoot mostly Fuji (for colour), but the new Portra 400 is def my film for that category now

Have you shot Ektacolor Pro 160?

 

[Tim Gray]

Nope. Don't think they sell that in the US. If they used to, I didn't shoot film then.

 

[Athiril]

Ah, I import it from Asia.. I wonder if that'll get the cut too..

 

[hrst]

Fuji Pro 400H indeed has a considerably denser orange mask than most films. I've wondered why. It is so dense that when combined with slight overexposure, it has caused me some minor problems with sc**nning.

Of course it can also be higher fog, not just the mask, but anyway it's normal for the film in question because it happens for everyone and with every batch.