Fujifilm 400H Pro - what is it for?

[Bormental]

I have only shot two rolls of this film, but I developed it at the same lab that's been reliably delivering excellent results with Portra and Ektar before.

I do not like the results. At all. Film is not cheap these days, so I figured I'll ask here before I order more and try again.

What I get is barely-saturated, greenish-grayish "swampy"/underwater look regardless of light. I do not think the problem is scanning, because I ordered lab scans and did my own. Yes, there are differences, but they share the same traits described above.

Is it possible I got my roll from a defective / expired batch? I do not have the packaging anymore so I don't know what the expiration date was. Or is THIS the look people love when they buy this (not exactly cheap) film?

I only have one sample to share here, the rest are family photos I don't want posting online:

This one isn't even that bad, there are some others that are much worse: with heavier green cast. This is sunset, BTW. The scene was much warmer, with orange everywhere, but this looks like the light is coming from a distant nuclear blast.

Should I try it again, or it's more or less how it looks like?

 

[wyofilm]

I've wondered the same things as my results with it are always cold. I never reach for it when I have kodak portras at hand at any speed.

 

[wyofilm]

According to the FindLab, overexpose if 2-stops for best results. Maybe I'll try this because I don't care for it when I shoot it at box speed.

https://thefindlab.com/2018/08/16/film-spotlight-fuji-400h/

 

[Aviv]

What ASA did you shoot the film at? Perhaps this is from a bad batch, as I haven't had this kind of experience with 400H. I find it to be slightly cooler compared to Portra 400, but not with this green cast that's shown in your scan. I see this shot appears to be near the water in the Bay Area - here are some photos I shot in golden hour light earlier this month in the Outer Sunset at ASA 400.



FWIW, 400H just loves overexposure. You can easily blow out some highlights if you're not careful, but the colors can be quite pleasing. I shoot often at ASA 100 and it looks quite beautiful, but as these are often portraits of family I don't feel comfortable sharing on here. I wouldn't give up on this film. Give it another shot and consider overexposing by 1/2 a stop or more.

 

[MattKing]

Try it with a UV filter - this looks llike the results you would expect to obtain with lots of UV light around, and the scanning software trying to compensate but not being appropriately profiled.
Here is what I get when I adjust - actually over-adjust - your image:

 

[Bormental]

I used box speed. @MattKing your rough edit brings it much closer to what I remember it looked like.

 

[Bormental]

https://thefindlab.com/2018/08/16/film-spotlight-fuji-400h/

Well... the samples on that review are a bit better than what I have, but still too cold/green/grey with anemic reds without depth (wood and skin look lifeless). I'm putting it into "not my cup of tea" category and moving on.

 

[pentaxuser]

Aviv, I have examined both your photos and frankly there is a nasty streak of natural colours in both

Bormental what was the actual colours of the walls which do appear to have a hint of creamy-green? Is the concrete on which the person is sitting grey? I think Matt is probably close to explaining what has happened. The dreaded scanning introduces another element unfortunately. I suspect that under an enlarger the right colour balance is achievable with RA4 processing but the print would look better than your example but it may be that Fuji just produces a less saturated look which is not to your taste

What do you think of Aviv's photos? Your reaction to them will tell you where your taste lies. I always preferred Deluxe to Technicolor. The colours looked more natural to me but slightly blueish and less saturated to my eye. In the Magnificent Seven the cowboys all look less likely to end up with skin cancer in old age

pentaxuser

 

[cramej]

Should I try it again, or it's more or less how it looks like?

Your image is not typical of 400H. I would probably blame it on automated scanning that isn't set up to color correct 400H. 400H has always been a touch cooler than Portra for me but still very nice and easily correctable for my preferences.

 

[Bormental]

What do you think of Aviv's photos? Your reaction to them will tell you where your taste lies.

His photos look great, but they're 100% filled with artificial color i.e. without seeing those houses and cars and not knowing which color they were painted with, I have no frame of reference. The samples from the blog post have people, wooden furniture and greenery, and I am not a fan of the way they look.

For some reason when I google for 400H Pro samples I get a lot of wedding shots with blown out nearly-white, flat, age-hiding skintone... I know women find that flattering and maybe that's the intended audience.

BTW these shots look very similar to mine (extreme green cast in the shade, etc):
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/05/29/film-review-fujifilm-pro-400h-35mm-and-120/

 

[MattKing]

BTW these shots look very similar to mine (extreme green cast in the shade, etc):
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2017/05/29/film-review-fujifilm-pro-400h-35mm-and-120/

According to the article those were taken with mixed daylight and fluorescent light. No wonder you see green!
Other than a possible increased sensitivity to UV, it isn't the film.
It is the scanning or printing plus the post-processing and digital display.
When you use the internet to survey colour response of films, all you really see is the preferences of those who post colour photographs on the internet.

 

[Truzi]

For 400H Pro I get this from lab developing and scans. It's a small rock on the side of my drive, and the film was fairly accurate.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the very straight, honest to goodness reply to my post,Bormental. I like a man who can make up his mind.

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

For 400H Pro I get this from lab developing and scans. It's a small rock on the side of my drive, and the film was fairly accurate.

Truzi, this looks fantastic. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Lachlan Young]

400H is pretty accurate if sometimes a bit cold and hinging around the green/ magenta axis. Like all colour films this is however dependent on the processing being on target and the scanning/ optical printing being done competently (and/ or the scanner's management system being run sensibly in the case of minilabs).

 

[laser]

Use PORTRA 400 Film if it provided EXCELLENT results. .

 

[Bormental]

hinging around the green/ magenta axis.

What a perfect explanation of what I'm seeing/feeling!

 

[dourbalistar]

Your results don't mirror my experience with the film. I have some more examples here in an album on my Flickr. The album includes scans from several different labs, and I like the results from certain labs more than others.


2018.09.16 Roll #182-69860005.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

That said, color casts and color "correction" are some of the reasons why I don't shoot much color film. There's too much subjectivity, and everybody sees and interprets color a bit differently. Also, I'm pretty sure that my color post processing skills are severely lacking...

 

[Lachlan Young]

What a perfect explanation of what I'm seeing/feeling!

Your image looks an awful lot like an off-key auto-white-balance was done in scanning (making subsequent correction harder in many cases) rather than the immediate case of what I was describing where I've found that a small adjustment of green/ magenta adjustment can be needed under manual inversion methods to land neutrals where they should be, within the parameters of the aesthetic of the film - ie what will look 'right' rather than what might be assumed to be 'correct'.

 

[Bormental]

Lachlan, I have long moved on past my own (limited) experience, and spent half a day googling for portfolios with 400H images. You've wrapped my feeling into words just perfectly: they all share this green/magenta look, just like Hollywood movies look blue/orange.

And going back to my sample, here's another lab scan of the same frame:

Out of curiosity, I am going to try one more time, using another lab and not just for scanning but also for developing.

 

[pentaxuser]

Lachlan, I have long moved on past my own (limited) experience, and spent half a day googling for portfolios with 400H images. You've wrapped my feeling into words just perfectly: they all share this green/magenta look, just like Hollywood movies look blue/orange.

And going back to my sample, here's another lab scan of the same frame:
View attachment 251472

Out of curiosity, I am going to try one more time, using another lab and not just for scanning but also for developing.

Let us know as I am sure you will, whether Fuji earns a reprieve after this. The chief warden is waiting by the phone ready to nod or shake his head to the three execution wardens poised to throw the levers. I fear the lights may still dim but I await with bated breath

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

just like Hollywood movies look blue/orange.

Which I am led to believe owes its origin to the behaviour of Eastman 5254 or 5247 pushed a stop or thereabouts & the subsequent print struck from the camera negative - though obviously much more exaggerated today.

 

[MattKing]

hinging around the green/ magenta axis

they all share this green/magenta look,

These are two different things.
The "hinge" reference is to the parts of the colour wheel where the film is most responsive to change - not a tendency to acquire a colour cast.
That lab scan looks very close to being accurate - just a little light and slightly low in saturation.
That is green paint on the walls, after all.

 

[halfaman]

I don't recognize either the example as 400H. It is excellent for caucasian skin tones, with natural or artificial lightning, so I use it mainly for portraits. Grainier and cooler than Portra 400. Find bellow a photo with 400H in a Mamiya RZ67 and a cast day.

 

[Bormental]

@halfaman gorgeous portrait, thank you for sharing!