Fujifilm 400H Pro - what is it for?

[GarageBoy]

Most people who shoot 400H do so to get the "wedding photo" style that thefindlab show cases. It's not a warm film, so definitely don't expect that - if you want warm, portra 400 is the one for you. It's not that weird green cast you're getting either - definitely a scanning/color management thing

 

[Bormental]

@GarageBoy yes, the mystery has been solved. I have found troves of wedding photographer portfolios with endless green/magenta tinted wedding shots. They basically look black/white to me, except green/magenta. My wife (who is a way better photographer than me, and used to do it professionally, but never used film) uses words like "gentle", "soft", "pastel" and "amazing" to describe them.

But I am not a fan, to put it gently. TBH I am shocked.

 

[GLS]

I agree the results in the OP don't look right at all. I would suspect the issue is incorrect scanning/converting. I have never had results from 400H like this. It is slightly cooler than Portra (and more grainy) so I don't use it very much, but here is one example (shot at EI 250):

The colours are faithful to the original scene.

 

[pentaxuser]

GLS, I have been looking at your 400H example for about 5 hours now and I know that eventually I will find all the faults apparently associated with this film sooner or later. It may have to be later. Judging by my lack of success so far, possibly a lot later. I tried to find the problems with the others such as halfaman, dourbalistar and Truzi but they were no better in terms of faults to be discovered

pentaxuser

 

[GLS]

GLS, I have been looking at your 400H example for about 5 hours now and I know that eventually I will find all the faults apparently associated with this film sooner or later. It may have to be later. Judging by my lack of success so far, possibly a lot later. I tried to find the problems with the others such as halfaman, dourbalistar and Truzi but they were no better in terms of faults to be discovered

pentaxuser

Here is another. Foggy night scene this time, shot at EI 200. Nothing untoward I can see. The different casts in the sky are just from light pollution.

If you compare this with another shot from the same night made of a different part of this building, but shot on Portra 160 this time, you can see the same casts in the sky:

 

[dourbalistar]

GLS, I have been looking at your 400H example for about 5 hours now and I know that eventually I will find all the faults apparently associated with this film sooner or later. It may have to be later. Judging by my lack of success so far, possibly a lot later. I tried to find the problems with the others such as halfaman, dourbalistar and Truzi but they were no better in terms of faults to be discovered

pentaxuser

Here is an example with a lot of green tones, but not the same strong green cast as @Bormental . This film was expired in 2008, of unknown storage when I purchased it, so I shot it at E.I. 100. Developed normally and scanned by Precision Camera in Austin.


2018.04.14 Roll #149-000919570010.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[pentaxuser]

Here is an example with a lot of green tones, but not the same strong green cast as @Bormental . This film was expired in 2008, of unknown storage when I purchased it, so I shot it at E.I. 100. Developed normally and scanned by Precision Camera in Austin.


2018.04.14 Roll #149-000919570010.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

Thanks and this looks fine and is good enough to distinguish between several shades of green but frankly the only reason, I suspect, that his face does not have a green cast given the predominance of green in the picture is that this man is immune to green casts as he is a lifelong teetotaller( this may explain the happy look). I, on the other hand, am not a teetotaller and never fail to exhibit a green cast on my face until at least lunchtime the next day. Ektar with its alleged high saturation give me a kind of a satisfying saturated greeness,.Portra mutes the greeness but gives me a deathly look that I never allow onto facebook

Why? Am I ashamed of the look? Not at all but I can't have every funeral director for a hundred miles around bothering the wife for more business .Be happy like your friend and enjoy a cast-less future

pentaxuser

 

[dourbalistar]

Thanks and this looks fine and is good enough to distinguish between several shades of green but frankly the only reason, I suspect, that his face does not have a green cast given the predominance of green in the picture is that this man is immune to green casts as he is a lifelong teetotaller( this may explain the happy look). I, on the other hand, am not a teetotaller and never fail to exhibit a green cast on my face until at least lunchtime the next day. Ektar with its alleged high saturation give me a kind of a satisfying saturated greeness,.Portra mutes the greeness but gives me a deathly look that I never allow onto facebook

Why? Am I ashamed of the look? Not at all but I can't have every funeral director for a hundred miles around bothering the wife for more business .Be happy like your friend and enjoy a cast-less future

pentaxuser

Haha, my friend is part German, so your teetotaller explanation is not far off!

 

[Bormental]

Here's all I needed to see to realize this film is just not for me. To my, apparently defective eye, this is black&white film where green=black and magenta=white. And my original sample is no more green/magenta than any.

 

[dourbalistar]

Here's all I needed to see to realize this film is just not for me. To my, apparently defective eye, this is black&white film where green=black and magenta=white. And my original sample is no more green/magenta than any.

Fair enough, everyone has their own tastes and preferences. Like @GarageBoy noted, there's certainly a strong bias toward that "wedding style" when you search for samples on the web, but I agree that Pro 400H tends toward cool and green tones compared to Kodak Portra. And I don't think your eye is defective, though I do think the initial samples you posted are atypical. In any case, everyone interprets color a bit differently, so it's great that we still have at least a few choices when it comes to color film stocks.

 

[MattKing]

Here's all I needed to see to realize this film is just not for me. To my, apparently defective eye, this is black&white film where green=black and magenta=white. And my original sample is no more green/magenta than any.

I clicked on a few of those linked samples.
At least some of them are digital presets designed to make digital files emulate scanned film.
One of the blurbs:
"The Fujicolor Original style pack is comprised of four Fujifilm styles that were created using heaps of actual film scans to create the closest match to real film you can find. They are Pro 400H Neutral, Pro 400H Blue, 160NS, and Fujicolor 800Z.".
In short, they are examples of what people want the film to look like.

 

[Bormental]

And I don't think your eye is defective.

well, my spouse thinks I'm color blind. She sees "gentle pastel" and "air". I see "swamps" and "mold". But she's the one in the family who gets paid for photographs, so I trust her judgement

 

[dourbalistar]

well, my spouse thinks I'm color blind. She sees "gentle pastel" and "air". I see "swamps" and "mold". But she's the one in the family who gets paid for photographs, so I trust her judgement

Even if she didn't get paid for photographs, I'd say it's wise to trust her judgement. But maybe you can tell her that your eyes are not defective, they are selective.

 

[wyofilm]

well, my spouse thinks I'm color blind. She sees "gentle pastel" and "air". I see "swamps" and "mold". But she's the one in the family who gets paid for photographs, so I trust her judgement

The page looks like a way to desensitize non-committal men into semi-forced matrimony. Run, Forrest, Run!

 

[pentaxuser]

The page looks like a way to desensitize non-committal men into semi-forced matrimony. Run, Forrest, Run!

Do have any seaside in Wyoming with end-of-the-pier comedians or have you just inherited the peculiarly British genes that are needed to spot this stuff

pentaxuser

 

[halfaman]

Here's all I needed to see to realize this film is just not for me.

That is not Fuji 400H either, just a very special use of it where scaninng and editing play a very important role. It is "Richard Photo Lab" look, they can do it with any color film.

Check below Portra 160 processed and scanned in the same lab.

http://annawu.com/blog/2011/03/color-kodak-portra-shooting-film/

 

[MattKing]

That is not Fuji 400H either, just a very special use of it where scaninng and editing play a very important role. It is "Richard Photo Lab" look, they can do it with any color film.

Check below Portra 160 processed and scanned in the same lab.

http://annawu.com/blog/2011/03/color-kodak-portra-shooting-film/

+1
You can't trust an internet scan for this type of analysis. All you will really see is how people want their photos to look (after they manipulate them).

 

[Bormental]

That's odd. Why wouldn't I trust internet scans? Internet is vast, it's a huge data set. Large data sets are a valid research tool, that's primarily how drugs are developed. You do not have to be a genius to run a search, look at hundreds of photos from various sources and come to reasonable conclusions. Besides, I've gone through two rolls myself and got the "swampy" look, I asked on photrio and got several swampy samples in comments, seemingly liked by others. Then I've gone through internet data set and 99% of samples had the same swampy look. Then I had experienced people discover post-processing pre-sets that simulate the swampy look. Apparently green/magenta tint is well liked, as evidenced by my wife's reaction.

I have no reason to believe in existence of some "true" Fuji 400H color profile, which the entire internet conspired to hide from me. A more plausible explanation is that my preference for color deviates from the majority here and I'm OK with that.

 

[Joseph Bell]

If you will permit another chimer-in, I will tell you that I've been pleased with Fuji Pro 400H in 120. I like its color fidelity, grain, and tone. However, if Portra 400 was the same price, I would never buy another roll of the Fuji again!

here is a recent example of the Fuji with the Mamiya 645 150mm.

 

[wyofilm]

That's odd. Why wouldn't I trust internet scans? Internet is vast, it's a huge data set. Large data sets are a valid research tool, that's primarily how drugs are developed. You do not have to be a genius to run a search, look at hundreds of photos from various sources and come to reasonable conclusions. Besides, I've gone through two rolls myself and got the "swampy" look, I asked on photrio and got several swampy samples in comments, seemingly liked by others. Then I've gone through internet data set and 99% of samples had the same swampy look. Then I had experienced people discover post-processing pre-sets that simulate the swampy look. Apparently green/magenta tint is well liked, as evidenced by my wife's reaction.

I have no reason to believe in existence of some "true" Fuji 400H color profile, which the entire internet conspired to hide from me. A more plausible explanation is that my preference for color deviates from the majority here and I'm OK with that.

Bormental - I was agnostic to your mint/magenta swamp analysis, but in the spirit of true investigation I went to the Fuji pro 400H group on Flickr (not stone uncovered!). Well ... you are right. Most pics have the mint/magenta swamp look that you find oh, so pleasing. What has me baffled is that 20% or so of the photographs have beautiful colors (to my eyes).

 

[dourbalistar]

Drain the Fuji swamp! Use Kodak instead! Oh wait, Kodak is under investigation by the SEC, you say...?

All joking aside, OP tried Pro 400H and it wasn't to his liking. To each their own, no harm, no foul.

 

[MattKing]

That's odd. Why wouldn't I trust internet scans? Internet is vast, it's a huge data set. Large data sets are a valid research tool, that's primarily how drugs are developed. You do not have to be a genius to run a search, look at hundreds of photos from various sources and come to reasonable conclusions.

There is the rub - can those conclusions about the film be reasonable, based on what you are examining?
There are so many film independent variables between the film and the look that you see on the internet that I don't see how you can use that evidence to differentiate between what the film gives people, and what people want to get from the film.
An internet survey tells you a lot about what people like enough to post. Apparently a lot of people like it when their lab or their scanner or their other digitization method plus their post processing gives them a look that looks "swampy", so as a result you see a lot of "swampy" results.
There are no reliable controls, no reliable placebos, no way of isolating the variables in that sort of test.
What you see in your own results could be as much to do with the raw converter in your digital camera or the film profile in your scanner as it is to do with the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the film.
And its fine if you decide to change films because the combination of the film plus your digitization procedure or your lab's digitization procedure doesn't give you what you want "right out of the box". You just need to realize that it is the entire package, not the film alone, that is giving that result.
Back in the day, I can remember labs that were known for optical prints that had a particular character or look. It wasn't the film that led to that look, but rather the combination of the film and the equipment and the choices made by the operators of that equipment.

 

[Bormental]

There is the rub - can those conclusions about the film be reasonable, based on what you are examining?

Yes. When examining your own results, everything you've listed is correct. And that's precisely what "big data" approach (i.e. "the internet") is about. Look at a thousand random 400h photos online. Labs, scanning, operators and even light will be all over the place. Turns out, some are digital pics with film presets! It all doesn't matter. When the only common variable is the film in question, yes you can reason about the film if the data set is large enough.

 

[MattKing]

You have a lot more faith in internet photo posting than I do!
I think the environment creates its own distortions - much like social media.

 

[dourbalistar]

Or do your own exhaustive tests, shooting color checkers and whatnot. But like the OP said, film is expensive. Happy with Kodak Portra/Ektar/Gold, but don't like the Swamp Thing (aka Pro 400h )? Seems like an easy decision to stick with Kodak. Like the old Johnny Mercer song goes:
You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
And latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between