Fujifilm 400H Pro - what is it for?

[MattKing]

My concern isn't with Bormental's needs - I think he has available to him the tools to reach his own conclusions.
I'm concerned about how incredibly misleading reliance on something like flickr searches can be.
How many people are there out there who don't have any history with film, but make decisions based on those searches? What options are they closing for themselves that might, indeed, be perfect for them.
Personally I have non-Fuji preferences. I think, however, that Fujifilm 400H Pro is much more capable than the search results linked to above would indicate.

 

[dourbalistar]

My concern isn't with Bormental's needs - I think he has available to him the tools to reach his own conclusions.
I'm concerned about how incredibly misleading reliance on something like flickr searches can be.
How many people are there out there who don't have any history with film, but make decisions based on those searches? What options are they closing for themselves that might, indeed, be perfect for them.
Personally I have non-Fuji preferences. I think, however, that Fujifilm 400H Pro is much more capable than the search results linked to above would indicate.

Fair enough, and certainly no arguments from me! I think I and others have already noted that the OP's initial swampy results are somewhat atypical.

 

[Bormental]

Agreed! I was pleasantly surprised by the variety of color negative film available in 35mm format. The Portras, ColorPlus, Gold, ProImage, several non-pro Fujis and even Lomo has a couple of interesting emulsions. My fridge door is quite colorful on the inside

 

[lantau]

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.

What about a systemic error in the results? Scanning is done with a few widely available models. And apparently there are profiles for certain films, which doesn't make sense to me. The film itself should be the profile, yielding its character. The scanner should only need a film independent profile to get correct tones out of it. So even with 'Big Data' it's still an exercise in Garbage In, Garbage Out.

I used a popular lab in Germany, people who love film. They use Fuji frontier scanners, and their results, while nice, look nothing like my RA4 wet prints. Granted, I do find it difficult to do the colour filtration because my visual cortex runs on auto correction all the time. That makes it difficult to judge the test strips. I can see fine differences between prints (relative seeing), but deciding what is 'right' (absolute seeing) isn't easy. Still, I think I got a bit better after a few weeks and buying Kodak view filters. After more than a year of colour break I hope to continue again this year, in my darkroom quest to find out what C41 film actually looks like. Slide is so much easier...

 

[StepheKoontz]

This just looks like a scan WB issue. Very minor edit, it looks like this.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Granted, I do find it difficult to do the colour filtration because my visual cortex runs on auto correction all the time. That makes it difficult to judge the test strips.

I have the same problem. What I would have to do is print a bunch of test strips, write on them the settings and let them dry overnight. The next day I would spread them all out in daylight with my eyes closed. Then when I opened my eyes, the one with the right color balancer would jump out of the group.

 

[Bormental]

What about a systemic error in the results? Scanning is done with a few widely available models. And apparently there are profiles for certain films, which doesn't make sense to me. The film itself should be the profile, yielding its character. The scanner should only need a film independent profile to get correct tones out of it. So even with 'Big Data' it's still an exercise in Garbage In, Garbage Out.

This is a great point. A botched Silverfast film profile can screw up half the Internet. I asked this very question in the "Scanning" section. The answer was (I am not an expert on color science & optics) that scanners indeed would not need film color profiles if the their light source matched what film designers had in mind (an enlarger for C-41 wet printing). But apparently film scanners must share the same light source for C-41, E6 and Kodachrome film. Flatbeds have to support paper as well, and this leads to the need for profiles.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This is a great point. A botched Silverfast film profile can screw up half the Internet. I asked this very question in the "Scanning" section. The answer was (I am not an expert on color science & optics) that scanners indeed would not need film color profiles if the their light source matched what film designers had in mind (an enlarger for C-41 wet printing). But apparently film scanners must share the same light source for C-41, E6 and Kodachrome film. Flatbeds have to support paper as well, and this leads to the need for profiles.

Just to add to this fun and games, you also need to consider that Fuji's Frontier software is attempting to use a kinda-sorta-maybe AI-ish approach via their 'Image Intelligence' which seeks out skin tones & lops off whole chunks of gamut & information from the film in the interests of bringing the necessary colour correction within the skillset of a semi-skilled operator. The Noritsu is less 'clever', but again is aimed at delivering a set of menus with fixed options for the operator to choose from.
Light source colour is less of an issue as long as it's white balanced appropriately and adequately full spectrum. More problematic is how the mask is understood & corrected for - and how that inter-relates to subsequent image colour correction.

 

[MattKing]

A long time ago, in a photographic galaxy far away, I worked as a colour printer, doing machine enlargements and proofs for wedding, portrait and commercial photographers who used 120 negative film.
Most of the film was Kodak Vericolour. Some of the film was Fuji. I believe that I encountered some Agfa as well.
Each of the films incorporated an appropriate orange mask, the effect of which meant that the colour response was made more linear. Each required a different, base magenta and yellow correction in order to print as "neutral".
In addition, of course, individual frames might require further correction, due to variation in lighting.
Even under the same lighting (sometimes with the same scenes - wedding parties in the quarry gardens at Queen Elizabeth Park come to mind) you could compare and contrast how the films performed. That was because we were running a completely within spec RA4 printing processor monitored with at least daily control strips, we were using well maintained, voltage stabilized professional printers and enlargers, we were using fresh high quality paper of the same type from day to day and we were printing from negatives that, with one notable exception, were processed by the competing professional labs in our town who also maintained totally within spec C41 dip and dunk lines designed to give top quality to their professional photography customers.
The exception I referred to above was a photographer who, in the interest of cutting costs, was trying to develop his own film. The machinery he had on hand was capable of high quality results, but his knowledge and skills were not. The negatives we received from him were badly processed, resulting in poor contrast, colour casts and, most importantly, real problems with colour crossover. Eventually we ended up refusing to work on any negatives he processed himself.
I bring all this up because it illustrates what you need to reliably evaluate films. If you have consistent, in spec film processing, consistent, in spec printing (or post processing and digital display) and consistent, in spec viewing conditions and you do your comparison under those consistent conditions, you can come to reliable conclusions about the film itself.
The internet display resources provide a very different type of consistency.

 

[foc]

I bring all this up because it illustrates what you need to reliably evaluate films. If you have consistent, in spec film processing, consistent, in spec printing (or post processing and digital display) and consistent, in spec viewing conditions and you do your comparison under those consistent conditions, you can come to reliable conclusions about the film itself.

+1
Judging colour by eye can be very subjective unless the eye is trained to evaluate it. No matter how good the eye is, the densitometer never lies.

There was a company years ago that made "bulls eye" negatives, for all the different brands and speeds of film, for commercial optical printing. The bulls eye was basically a negative strip of normal exposure, under, over and very over negs that had been processed by a tightly controlled processor and a reference print (with densitometer spot).

So the negative was, as Matt said above, consistent.

You machine printed and processed your prints from the bulls eye negatives, in your controlled paper chemicals (another consistent).
You made the densitometer readings and made the adjustments and so now your machine printer was correct (another consistent)
Any print you made from that negative type or speed should be correct.

When digital scanners/printers like the Frontier arrived, the scanner read the film barcode and used programed settings,(consistent) and so the bulls eye neg was no longer necessary.

Of course, all this doesn't take into consideration people's colour balance preference. (just look at how some people have their Tv or Pc screen adjusted, not consistent)

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

Exactly.
In the whole color negative imaging chain you have so much different variables which all play a significant role concerning the final result.
By the way, that was one major reason why during the film era in professional photography for most applications in advertizing (catalogs, posters, billboards), for books and magazines color reversal film was used (and CN film was avoided). In some areas like professional nature and wildlife photography for example the professional market was about 100% color reversal film.
You have only the film processing step, and getting consistent results is very easy. And the transparency as the original is the perfect benchmark and orientation if further processes (e.g. for printing) are needed.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

This just looks like a scan WB issue. Very minor edit, it looks like this.

Best adjustment I have seen yet, Stephe. Is Doraville anywhere near the Bay to pop over and tweak Bormental's scanner

pentaxuser

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

Fujifilm Pro 400H has been my "workhorse" film for all my wedding photography (as the hired, main photographer) during the last decade. I have never had any problems with it. And I have never got such results as yours.
But I have also worked together with my local professional lab for that work. They are delivering very good work with scanning and RA-4 prints (my main end result).

Pro 400 H is a "four-trick-pony":
1. Exposed at box speed and sligthly underexposed you get very natural, neutral and a bit subdued (in color) results. Less color saturation in comaparison to Portra 400, and more near to Portra 160 (which has less saturation than Portra 400).
Portra 400 has a significant and very visible bias to warmer / more yellowish tones. For my taste that is often a bit too much, as I outdoors prefer to shoot in the morning and evening light, which is already warmer. With Portra 400 then it is too much of it, too enhanced. Pro 400H works better for my taste in such situations (Portra 160 and Fuji 160 NS as well).
If you expose at box speed and use a fill-in flash, color saturation is already becoming a bit higher with Pro 400H.

2. If you expose Pro 400H at EI 200/24° you get a visible increase in color saturation. But still with very natural, neutral colors. It is even enhanced by using a fill-in flash.

3. If you expose at EI 100/21° and use a Fuji SP 3000 or Noritsu HS 1800 scanner, operated by a skilled scanner operator, you can get these "airy" or "pastel-like" colors lots of portrait and wedding photographers are offering to their customers.This look has been very popular in the last years, promoted by many photographers and labs using these scanners.

4. If you expose at EI 800/30° and push process one stop, you also get quite good results.

Below one example of a sligthly underexposed Pro 400H shot delivering natural, neutral, and a bit subdued colors. Low resolution scan from 35mm. I will post further examples in new postings:

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

And now at box speed with a fill-in flash, which already results in a bit higher color saturation (low-res 35mm scan):

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

And the last one shot at EI 200/24°, and with fill-in flash. Visible higher color saturation compared to sample one:

So, in the end:
Pro 400H can deliver many different looks. A very versatile and flexible film. It just needs some knowledge about its characteristics to get just that out of it what you want or need.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[lantau]

I wish you would have told us two weeks earlier. Last week I took a spontaneous trip to Florence, by train, and used a roll of 400H in my Rolleicord. And of course a few other films.

Normally I don't like this general social media trend for pushing the shit out of any given b/w film and overexposing, by several stops, cn film. But if E.I. 200 only saturates without breaking the curves I would have tried it. There was certainly enough sun. Are there any tricks with 160NS? I still have a pro pack and a pack of 4x5.

 

[pentaxuser]

Henning, a series of great examples to demonstrate exactly what you were saying about Pro 400H. Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[macfred]

I like to share a few ...

FUJI GA645 - EBC Fujinon 60mm f/4 - FUJI Pro 400H (@ISO320 - UV-Filter)

FUJI GA645 - EBC Fujinon 60mm f/4 - FUJI Pro 400H (@Iso 200 - Tiffen Gold Diffusion FX Filter *1)

FUJI GA645 Wi - EBC Fujinon 45mm f/4 - FUJI Pro 400H (@ISO200 - UV-Filter)

Nikon F4 - Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8 - FUJI Pro400H (@ box speed - Skylight Filter KR1.5)

 

[pentaxuser]

Macfred, these pictures do show a kind of coolness that may not be present in Portra but it is only a small difference. Both films look very good to me. In the top photo I assume you got permission from all three mechanics to show the picture. I presume these three repair and service your car

pentaxuser

 

[macfred]

Macfred, these pictures do show a kind of coolness that may not be present in Portra but it is only a small difference. Both films look very good to me.
In the top photo I assume you got permission from all three mechanics to show the picture. I presume these three repair and service your car
pentaxuser

I totally agree with you - in these days I prefer Portra 400 and Ektar for colour.
The there girls aren't mechanics but milkmaids ... And yes, I got the permisson from Maria, Anna and Eva to share their photograph.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks , macfred. Yes I was only joking. Their protective clothing is too clean for a car mechanic. Just one more question. Which one of them owns the Harley Davidson?

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

@Henning Serger thank you for jumping in, but it's the same look to me. Not natural at all (green/magenta bias, especially noticeable under high-saturation) and it's the same look as seen on the Flickr group. The skin is too magenta, the reds and yellows are either absent or acidic: "all or nothing" kind of reproduction: there's no subtlety around yellow/red part of the color wheel. This reminds me of older Nikon DSLRs in mid 2000s, and that's why I went the Canon route then.

I guess my brain is wired to the Kodak palette.

@macfred lovely photos, you're talented.

 

[pentaxuser]

To inject a bit of harmless whimsy, Bormental, have you considered changing the title to Fuji Pro 400H - What is it good for - absolutely nothing! A bit like the Edwin Starr record I fail to see what you see in terms of the comparison between the two films but it was clear to me many posts ago that you had made up your mind as I said in #13

Time we recognised that you have made your choice and it's fine by me

pentaxuser

 

[macfred]

... Just one more question. Which one of them owns the Harley Davidson?

pentaxuser

Should be Maria - she always has a thing for exclusive street machines ...

Bronica ETRSi - Zenzanon PE 75mm f/2.8 - FUJI Superia Xtra 400 (@Iso 200) - A colour film I really miss in 120 !!

 

[Henning Serger]

@Henning Serger thank you for jumping in, but it's the same look to me. ........

But not for me.........
Your different reaction and description of the colors again show that people very often see and judge colors very differently. It is really often an individual thing and a matter of personal taste.
Nothing wrong with that at all.

I guess my brain is wired to the Kodak palette.

Possible.
If you like the Kodak rendition more, just use Kodak. Because we all have different tastes and needs, it is so good and important that we have different manufacturers offering different products with visible different characteristics.
We need variety on the market, as it gives us more forms of photographic / artistic expressions. And as customers we should also support that variety.

Best regards,
Henning