Thoughts on exposing Fuji Pro 400h?

[Tanner Gill]

Hey there (new to the forum)
Just wanted to get some opinions on how you all expose and process Fuji Pro400h.
Personally, I just picked up my first few rolls of the stuff. I shot through a roll shooting it at 800, and pushing it in processing one stop as well. I'm not sure how unconventional that is, being as I am the only film shooter amongst my friends, which is the reason I am on this forum today- to learn. As previously mentioned in another post over in the 'portrait sharing' portion of the site, I'll link below a few shots from a recent trip to Chicago. https://imgur.com/a/NqSHl

You may also find some of my other work on my Instagram if you are interested, i'd love to hear your thoughts. https://www.instagram.com/tanner.gill/

 

[ericdan]

Like any other color negative film.
Handles over exposure quite well.
Just keep in mind that overexposure will create denser negatives.
Denser negatives mean more exposure in the enlarger required.

 

[benjiboy]

It's best rated at the box speed of I.S.O. 400.

 

[pale_blue_is]

It's best rated at the box speed of I.S.O. 400.

This. I think if you want a higher speed film Portra looks better pushed IMO.

 

[ericdan]

If the OP likes the 400H look he's probably not into the Portra look.
I like Fuji's Superia Premium 400 much better. If you need higher, they have Venus 800 and Natura 1600.
Natura is really sweet, and you can actually shoot it at 1600 and get good results.

 

[Tanner Gill]

If the OP likes the 400H look he's probably not into the Portra look.
I like Fuji's Superia Premium 400 much better. If you need higher, they have Venus 800 and Natura 1600.
Natura is really sweet, and you can actually shoot it at 1600 and get good results.

I am not familiar with Superia or the others you've mentioned, I'll be sure to check those out next time a paycheck rolls through.

I am however familiar with Portra. In fact, for nearly my entire film photography career (only consisting of 10 months and about 45 rolls) I have shot a significant portion of my work on Portra and only recently have ventured out into other options. I'm really looking forward to trying the ones you mentioned above! Thank you for taking the time and interest to reply. Very much appreciated.

 

[Tanner Gill]

It's best rated at the box speed of I.S.O. 400.

I will do that. Thank you!

 

[ericdan]

Probably not that easy getting all the fuji films in the US. If you like Portra why not just stick with that? It's really nice.

 

[pale_blue_is]

To be fair Fuji Pro is my favorite color stock definitely; it has great skin tones, but also interesting "film like" saturation that portra does have, but to me it's more of a "soft glow". It's just it looks best at 400 ISO

 

[mynewcolour]

400H is great and yeah it does look different to Portra 400.

I've never pushed it because I have stocks of Superia 800 and 1600 (although it's a dwindling supply).

From what I've seen of Portra underexposed it acually has a ton of latitude. In fact underexposed is another aesthetic to be utilised. Try it and see perhaps.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think it was PE but I cannot be certain who posted scans from two 160, I think, films at several stops below box speed and several stops above box speed. To my eye in both cases the scans looked fine at one stop under. However and just as a matter of interest at two and I think three stops underexposure i.e. at their limits the Kodak film seemed to come out much better

Sorry to be this vague but maybe someone here will be able to pinpoint the thread and post. If it was PE then he will be ideal Well worth a look if it can be found

pentaxuser

 

[dourbalistar]

Canadian Film Lab (formerly UK Film Lab) posted an over/underexposure comparison of Fuji 400H, Portra 160, Portra 400 & Portra 800:
http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

 

[MattKing]

Canadian Film Lab (formerly UK Film Lab) posted an over/underexposure comparison of Fuji 400H, Portra 160, Portra 400 & Portra 800:
http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Thanks for this link. They are based in Hope BC, which if you don't know the area, is absolutely amazing.

 

[pentaxuser]

Canadian Film Lab (formerly UK Film Lab) posted an over/underexposure comparison of Fuji 400H, Portra 160, Portra 400 & Portra 800:
http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Thanks for the excellent link. I knew it had something to do with PE . This wasn't the post I was thinking of but this link is much better. This has to be one of the most comprehensive tests I have seen.

My ability to discern between films and speeds may be poor but the impression I am left with is that there is very little to distinguish between them. Both Fuji and Kodak sets of films do a superb job

OK there is a caveat in the article about this being the ideal light conditions which when not available might result in poorer results from appreciable under-exposure but I was heartened by how good both 800 films were at one and two stops under.

Still leaves the mystery of what post/link I was thinking of.

pentaxuser

 

[RattyMouse]

Probably not that easy getting all the fuji films in the US. If you like Portra why not just stick with that? It's really nice.

I bought 3 rolls of Fuji Natura via Amazon (US, not JP). Arrived very quickly.

 

[dourbalistar]

Still not PE-sourced, but here are two more tests. I think the conclusions are similar, but it may be interesting to see the image samples:
http://carmencitafilmlab.com/how-exposure-affects-film/
http://retrocamerareview.tumblr.com/post/126349855205/how-much-can-you-overexpose-film

 

[macfred]

Another interesting read about FUJI Pro 400H (and Porta 400) by The Brothers Wright : http://www.twinlenslife.com/2010/12/its-our-favorite-time-of-light-new.html

 

[ericdan]

all of the above 'tests' are based on scans only.

 

[pentaxuser]

all of the above 'tests' are based on scans only.

Thanks for the links, macfred and dourbalistar. I think it was one of dourbalistar's links that I had seen. These would seem to indicate that if underexposure has to be used then Kodak is the one to go for and macfred's link and the article author's comments in that link seem to confirm to me to an even me greater extent the Kodak film's superiority in terms of underexposure.

Yes, they are all scans but there isn't any other way to do it short of sending each of us the prints from the negs, is there.

In all articles such as these as long as the scans represent the actual prints then it still reflects reality of the two films. doesn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[TSSPro]

Wedding shooters who follow Jose Villa, honestly some of them act more like acolytes than just followers, sometimes , tend to gravitate toward Villa's methodology for the 400H: Always overexpose and shift the color pallet to a more pastel (see: overexposed) feeling. I have not been a fan of that process, but I think that it is worth a try. Are you optically printing? Mini lab? Hybrid? No matter which way you're going it'll take a little trial and error. Best luck shooting and look forward to seeing some of your work!

 

[wiltw]

Canadian Film Lab (formerly UK Film Lab) posted an over/underexposure comparison of Fuji 400H, Portra 160, Portra 400 & Portra 800:
http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

I have not shot weddings for about 20 years now, but my film preference for color neg was the Fuji professional emulsions. I used to prefer Fuji Pro 400 NPH for available light wedding and reception coverage; but Fuji 160 NPS for bridal portraiture sessions, for slightly lower contrast and its color palette.
It was really beneficial to see the more recent comparisons in the Canadian Film Lab tests, and to see that my conclusions of 20+ years ago are still well based. As for exposure, the results are still consistent with what I found 20+ years ago, too...color neg simply does not do well with underexposure, not only for shadow detail but also for color rendition, so I would err on the side of rating ISO 160 film at EI 100-125, and ISO 400 film at EI 250-320.
I still would pick Fuji 400H, but Portra 800 is a close second...Portra 800 really does well even in the -2EV shot although color rendition is still as good as when properly exposed; -3EV was significantly less salvageable than the other films, though.

 

[pentaxuser]

The OP said he shot the Fuji at 800 so one stop underexposed. I had assumed that he was looking for advice on getting the best look at one stop under and it looked to me as if Kodak 400 was better than Fuji 400 based on the articles for which links were supplied.

If he shoots normally at 800 then there might be a tendency to extend this to 1600( only my assumption of course) and then Kodak 400 becomes even suitable compared to Fuji 400.

It would be helpful if the OP were to respond now and say if he has reached a conclusion.

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

The OP said he shot the Fuji at 800 so one stop underexposed. I had assumed that he was looking for advice on getting the best look at one stop under and it looked to me as if Kodak 400 was better than Fuji 400 based on the articles for which links were supplied.

If he shoots normally at 800 then there might be a tendency to extend this to 1600( only my assumption of course) and then Kodak 400 becomes even suitable compared to Fuji 400.

It would be helpful if the OP were to respond now and say if he has reached a conclusion.

pentaxuser

One variable is whether OP exposed to EI 800, but then has a lab which push processes. We haven't see tests with push processing, only standard processing and offsetting the density differences during print exposure.