Fujifilm 400H Pro - what is it for?

[Henning Serger]

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

pentaxuser

Thanks.
It is often very difficult for me to underline my text explanations with scanned examples. Simply because I prefer my photographs being real, physical and tactile pictures: Slides and silver-halide prints.
Probably only 0.0001 % of all my pictures are scanned.
In this case I luckily had some scans to demonstrate.

Maybe that may change a bit in the future if the new Plustek 120 Pro offers the quality I am hoping for.......

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

I am very sorry for being too late.........

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.

+1.
I am not a friend of that trend at all either. For several reasons. I am thinking about writing an a bit longer article about it here on photrio. Hope I find the time for it.......

But if E.I. 200 only saturates without breaking the curves I would have tried it. There was certainly enough sun.

Yes, that is my experience over all the years with Pro 400H: Exposing at EI 250/25° or 200/24° results in a bit, but definitely very well visible higher saturation. But keeping the natural general color rendition. The film also reacts very well and positively to properly used (manually reduced) fill-in flash (results also in a bit more brillant colors).

Are there any tricks with 160NS? I still have a pro pack and a pack of 4x5.

I have generally used it at box speed, or with a +1/3 stop exposure if a bit more shodow detail was wanted. Got always very good results.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[dourbalistar]

Just for fun, here's a somewhat silly YouTube comparison between Kodak Portra 400 and Fujifilm Pro 400H:

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, dourbalistar. I liked the "shoot-out and the guitar. However I'd have preferred a sign saying Hadleyville and the guitar to have been in the hands of Tex. To change the analogy it looked to be a draw at Madison Square Garden so a rematch is called for in Detroit

I hope this will be the definitive bout otherwise we are all in danger of becoming raging bulls before the end of this thread

The only interesting thing that was really said in terms of his narrative was a bit of a throw-away line and not really explained as it might have been. It was the comment that the level playing field for the contest involved rating Fuji at half box speed whereas this allegedly was not needed for Portra. I think this was the sake of depth of colour rendition but I am not sure. He needed to expand on this comment I feel

Watchers of the video and especially newcomers to colour film may see this a major Kodak advantage which I am not sure was what he meant to say.

pentaxuser

 

[grat]

How about a rematch in the Lake District in the UK?



Personally, I like 400H for foliage. I've found it to be highly variable with blue skies (although Henning's post on how 400H performs at different exposures might explain why, as I was practicing sunny 16 that particular day).

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the video, grat. The great thing about it was that he was able to substantiate his conclusions with the pictures. So Fuji for his landscapes and Portra for his urban + people shots was his conclusion and while not everyone might agree it seemed to me to be a conclusion that should get a lot of consensus It was interesting how close the two could be made to look with a bit of scanning manipulation

pentaxuser

 

[Athiril]

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?

The colour balance is just way too cyan. Would have been in scanning.

And something more like what you described

 

[grat]

Here's an interesting video that might help explain why some people have problems with 400H:



The short form is that when overexposed, 400H apparently experiences a color shift towards cooler greens and blues. Paying close attention, he shot the "normal" exposure at 1/250 @ f/16, which is technically one stop over for a full sunny day.

That would match my personal experience. EI 100 or lower results in "squirrelly" colors, especially the blues for me.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for that, grat. He went through his narrative at full speed so I wonder whether he risks the 1/250th as the normal shot as opposed to 1/400th being missed by those watching. It was fascinating how the colours yo-yoed a bit instead of what intuitively you expect to be a straight trend line.
For action shots and where required I'd certainly risk his 2 stops under at 1/1000th It held up well in the over exposure sequence but as the over exposure sequence below the 1/250th speed did not confer any real advantage I could see I don't think I'd bother with over exposure

All round this film seems to behave very well at box speed or one and a half stops under box speed Those who see problems with the colours of this film anyway may remain unconvinced that it gives them what they need at any exposure

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

@grat interesting video, thank you for posting. I prefer +1 stop overexposed shot in the video by a mile. It becomes "normal" to my eye. The EI400 exposed shot is slightly swampy and underexposed ones go towards green even more. I will get a roll and set my meter to ISO200 to see how I like it.

 

[koraks]

The problem with tests like those are really the uncertainties that come with the scanning process. At the start of the evaluation, the author says he reached out to the lab (that apparently did the processing + scanning) and asked if what he saw on screen was actually truthful to the negatives themselves and not the result of differences in scanning, to which the lab apparently replied that it really was the film. That, for one thing, simply cannot be true. All the images show roughly the same brightness range, which means that the under- and the overexposed shots are compensated somehow to bring them back to a convenient viewing range. If they had really been scanned identically to the normally exposed frame, the underexposed frames would be significantly darker and the overexposed frames would be significantly lighter, obviously. Hence, there are differences between the frames in the digital process. And that immediately sheds doubt on the accuracy of this test. Apart from brightness and contrast, what other tonal changes have entered the digital processing, either on purpose or by accident? We don't know, and probably never will, as likely, some of those changes will have occurred 'under the hood' of the digital equipment used.

Then there's another issue. This comparison attempts to show a sort of 'ceteris paribus' comparison: it tries to show differences in color rendering between different frames. While I don't dispute that some color shift can occur as exposure is changed (at least if it is changed significantly), the real question is: can it be compensated in printing or post processing? In other words: a color shift isn't necessarily problematic as long as you can fix it. So the real question is: is there any crossover? So far, I mostly see some shifts on Y/B and M/G between the frames and most of those would be fairly easy to remove during e.g. optical printing. Generally, such shifts are also much more dominant than crossover and need to be fixed before you can visually judge any crossover issues.

Finally, another problem pops up: if there is such a big color shift between box speed exposure and +1 stop exposure, how come the lighter values in a normally exposed frame (i.e. everything above middle gray) don't shift to significantly cooler hues while the shadows remain warm? This, again, brings questions and concerns about the methodology used in this test.

So all considered, I don't doubt the good intentions of the maker of this video, but I do doubt the methodology and in any case, by handing the most crucial part of the process to an external party apparently without sitting together with them to develop a methodologically sound approach, the results are very difficult to interpret and to me, they seem rather doubtful.

What I do take from this entire threat, however, is that I really need to get me some of this film. I have a feeling I'd like it a lot.

 

[Bormental]

@koraks agreed, however... every color shift is a problem because a color gamut of any medium always has boundaries and if the white point moves, you're losing something. Forever. Post-processing only corrects what remained but doesn't bring what's been clipped.

Also, you bring up scanning in every thread about color. Every. Single. Time. Why stop there? You may as well entertain us about monitor calibration, film development temperature, sRGB color space or even light. They all affect color. If we halt every conversation because of variables involved we will never be able to discuss anything at all.

 

[koraks]

@koraks agreed, however... every color shift is a problem because a color gamut of any medium always has boundaries and if the white point moves, you're losing something. Forever. Post-processing only corrects what remained but doesn't bring what's been clipped.

A shift does not automatically mean that information is lost. Only once you start going outside the gamut of the materials involved, problems arise. Since reality has a larger gamut than any medium, it's kind of an empty argument though, as you'll inherently lose information by capturing a scene. This doesn't mean that a color shift in a film stock means that more or less information is necessarily lost. Obviously information is always lost at the extremes of the exposure range of the film, which in practice with C41 film means anything more than about half a stop of underexposure and a few stops overexposure for most films (Ektar of course excepted).

Also, you bring up scanning in every thread about color. Every. Single. Time. Why stop there? You may as well entertain us about monitor calibration, film development temperature, sRGB color space or even light. They all affect color. If we halt every conversation because of variables involved we will never be able to discuss anything at all.

I bring it up every time not because it's an end-all, but because scanning brings methodological issues that are difficult to control for, and that makes drawing conclusions on the basis of scanned images very risky. Yes, of course, color profiling etc. is relevant, and so are development parameters. If you want to isolate the effect of exposure from all the other variables, it's necessary to control those variables tightly. For most variables there's not a huge issue - development temperature will be the same across the same roll, and as long as you compare the images side by side on the same display, no variation as a result will arise there. But once you start scanning individual frames with different settings, or you post-process individual frames differently, then you *are* introducing variables that are non-identical across the frames you want to compare. Exactly that has happened here, and like in virtually all tests, reports and user experiences, crucial information about the (lack of) control of such variables is missing.
A better approach would be to scan the entire film in one go on a good flatbed scanner and then evaluate the results, or contact print the entire roll onto a single sheet of RA4 paper. You'll still have the exposure differences to 'look through', but at least the color processing will be more or less guaranteed to be the same for all images.

 

[pentaxuser]

I must admit that I did wonder about how little some shots appeared to change for 1 and 2 stop differences and the fact is that the photographer could not test the veracity of his lab's statement that nothing had changed. We have no means of knowing what level of knowledge about true ceteris paribus situations and how to arrange them the source at the lab had, nor knowledge of how much about the lab set up the photographer knew in order to ask the right questions . .

I could not see what Bormental sees nor have I been able to see the same each time this subject of Fuji 400H arises but neither of us can change what we are sure we see.

The real test would be from a photographer who knows a lot about colour film and had experience of scientific analysis and could produce RA4 prints in a darkroom. I fear that amongst our YouTube video makers that person may not exist or chooses not to make videos of film comparisons.

The whole business can so easily get close to what I call the "Leica glow" situation in which the "Leica glow" photographer sets up what he thinks is a scientific experiment to demonstrate this glow. He takes the same scene on the same day with the same type of film and with several different cameras including his favourite Leica glow camera and presents the evidence. There are inevitably a few differences but he knows which camera took which scenes and while he thinks he has used the equivalent of a RCT (Randomised Control Trial) and entered the experiment believing that he would be impartial he is viscerally convinced that the glow is there and points out to the watchers that neg X (taken on a Leica with Leica lens) is different and has that glow

Others may say they cannot see it so he attempts to point it out again believing all he has to do is to tell the watchers what he is referring to . This story has a sad ending. Eventually he suggests that maybe their vision needs checking. Some come back and say that incidentally they had just been for a check up at their optometrist and were rated A1 All he can then say is that possibly some people's vision is just not as good as others in which case they have his sympathy. Some still persist in asking questions and quickly it deteriorates into what is a bar room brawl where eventually one is prepared to slug it out the longest. He "wins" as the rest go home

But has the winner( usually the Leica glow protagonist) won anything? The needle as they say has not been moved or should I say "needles " plural" as the Leica glow needle is still reading full to the Leica glow proponent and the non Leica glow needle being watched by the opponents has not moved from empty

So there you are. A sad ending

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I bring it up every time not because it's an end-all, but because scanning brings methodological issues that are difficult to control for, and that makes drawing conclusions on the basis of scanned images very risky. Yes, of course, color profiling etc. is relevant, and so are development parameters. If you want to isolate the effect of exposure from all the other variables, it's necessary to control those variables tightly.

+1

 

[Bormental]

I bring it up every time not because it's an end-all, but because scanning brings methodological issues that are difficult to control for, and that makes drawing conclusions on the basis of scanned images very risky. Yes, of course, color profiling etc. is relevant, and so are development parameters. If you want to isolate the effect of exposure from all the other variables, it's necessary to control those variables tightly.

You cannot, sitting in your home, control someone else's variables "tightly".

If you decide to respond, then be kind and trust the other party to isolate a variable before bringing it up for discussion. When you go with your usual "you can't use your scans" comments in color threads, what you're doing is implicitly saying that the other party is a moron. One possible outcome of that is to eventually be explicitly called a toxic a-hole.

 

[MattKing]

You cannot, sitting in your home, control someone else's variables "tightly".

If you decide to respond, then be kind and trust the other party to isolate a variable before bringing it up for discussion. When you go with your usual "you can't use your scans" comments in color threads, what you're doing is implicitly saying that the other party is a moron. One possible outcome of that is to eventually be explicitly called a toxic a-hole.

Seems a little abrupt, considering how much of this discussion is about methodologies and how they may impact conclusions.
Particularly in relation to systems that involve optical, chemical, electronic and software variables.

 

[Bormental]

Bad case of Monday morning, @koraks, my apologies.

 

[pentaxuser]

Bad case of Monday morning, @koraks, my apologies.

Now that Monday morning feeling is one I appreciate as I used to experience it before being able to retire. Retirement has its downsides of course such as seeing more frequently, as the years pass, a guy in a black cloak on my countryside walks whom I assume is a wheat farmer. I say that because I have never seen him without his scythe. His expression is always grim - well scything is, after all, hard work

The upside is that no-one in Britain has that Monday morning feeling today. It's what is called here a Bank Holiday and everyone, yes, even him to whom I have referred has a day's holiday

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Bad case of Monday morning, @koraks, my apologies.

No worries, it's all good.
I understand it may seem boring to hear me (and perhaps some others)say the same things about scanning over and over again - but the issues associated are systematic and all too often overlooked.
I don't think the maker of that video is a moron or anything like that. It's just that he did point out (somewhat indirectly) that a lab did the scanning for him. The lab may have done a great job in terms of consistency, or maybe they didn't. Point is that we just don't know, but what they did is in any case crucial for the validity of the conclusions drawn.
The whole thing does make me want to give this film a try, though. If I do, maybe I'll do some exposure tests and contact print those to see for myself what I get from it. In the end, i think that's always a good idea - regardless of what others report and like/dislike, what matters is what you can do with a material and if it suits your purpose. It's always tempting to look for confirmation elsewhere, just as it's easy to criticize someone else's work from the comfort of the armchair. Rest assured that I realize both of those things very well myself.

 

[Paul Manuell]

I loaded a roll of this into my Pentax 645NII today cos the shop had run out of Portra 400. Dreading what results I'll get back now after reading this thread

 

[pentaxuser]

I loaded a roll of this into my Pentax 645NII today cos the shop had run out of Portra 400. Dreading what results I'll get back now after reading this thread

Well looking at the various videos with examples from 400H and other contributions from the likes of Henning and macfred I'd say that while the Fuji colour palette is different( to only a marginal degree in my eyes) from say Portra or Fuji Superior there is no need to dread the results of what you will get.

pentaxuser

 

[grat]

I don't think the maker of that video is a moron or anything like that. It's just that he did point out (somewhat indirectly) that a lab did the scanning for him. The lab may have done a great job in terms of consistency, or maybe they didn't.

Anecdotally, the first roll of color medium format I shot happened to be 400H, and the first two photos I decided to shoot with ye olde sunny-16 rule-- only, being a novice, I forgot to compensate for the film speed being 400 instead of 100, and I exposed the first few frames as EI 100. They came out with a distinctly odd color shift that I was able to correct by editing the blue channel of the histogram.

I then grabbed my spot meter, did some actual proper metering (and that's when I realized the mistake I'd been making), and the rest of my shots on that roll came out nicely exposed, with the colors being generally "correct", although the greens were fairly vivid, which seems to be a trait of all things Fuji.

Should the bloke in the cloak get too close, I suggest the Rimmer Strategem.

 

[Paul Manuell]

Well looking at the various videos with examples from 400H and other contributions from the likes of Henning and macfred I'd say that while the Fuji colour palette is different( to only a marginal degree in my eyes) from say Portra or Fuji Superior there is no need to dread the results of what you will get.

pentaxuser

Thank you

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank you

Thanks, I am only here to spread harmony where there is dissent and hope where there is despair

pentaxuser