Fujifilm Superia X-Tra 800

I usually find it for $2-ish per roll in the 4-packs.

Regular C41 chemistry. The magic thing about the C41 process is that the single color developer will form about any color dye under the right circumstances.
 
yeah... companies are basically made to engineer their film according to the chemistry with C41, unlike black and white, were the film is engineered and then people have to figure out how to develop it with the available chemicals :)
 
I couldn't resist trying out a roll with the Hexar AF..

4251781219_3f89484452.jpg


4251781003_7a927e4b19.jpg


4251780817_e3f7a5bb5e.jpg


4251780567_e0b98674a1.jpg


I'm really impressed with the colours (and the Hexar), the prints aren't very grainy looking at all (at 7x5)
 










With good development like the shots posted in this thread I think S-800 looks great. Better than most Kodak films half the speed.
 
These are with Fuji Pro 800, the El Serioso version of Superia (or so they say):

jeslyn1a.jpg

Jeslyn, Greenpoint, Brooklyn, c. 2003

(Technical: Konica Hexar RF, 28 f/2.8 M-Hexanon, Fuji Pro 800)

34thstreetsm.jpg

West 34th Street, Manhattan, February 2002

(Technical: Konica Hexar RF, 28 f/2.8 M-Hexanon, Fuji Pro 800; this was possibly the first shot I took with my first Hexar RF)


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
silent1,

I really like your great looking pictures, great job! Do you remember the setting you used on your lens/camera combo by any chance?

My personal experience with Fuji Pro 800Z (I know it's different film, but still iSO800) isn't so great and I wonder what I did wrong - feel free to criticize, your input is very much welcome:

3855084052_6695eb5173_b.jpg
 
Arthur, my bet is that you used some [semi]automated mode for this, meter got fooled by bright lights in background so it came out a bit underexposed.
 
Yeah even the slightest underexposure with 800 speed film will result in nastiness in my experience.
 
Both btgc and TWoK - thank you very much for your prompt comments and yes, I used AE mode plus some x2 compensation against multiple background lights - my external light meter was giving me some unacceptable readings (or so I thought:() and I had to go with in-camera meter. That is why I would like to know what typical settings would be (using similar Fuji iSO800 film) under similar lighting conditions with similar "straight-into-your-eyes" background lights...

I'm looking forward for your friendly suggestions:)!

p.s.: I really like everybody's pics uploaded here so far, please keep them coming!
 
Can't offer typical settings, I'd just bang a stop or two (depending on real lightning of scene) over what meter would see there. With SLR I'd finally have a chance to try spot metering.
 
arthur sadowsky said:
silent1, by any chance do you remember the settings you used to take this pic and did you post-process it in any software? I really like the subdued tone (on all four of them) and lighting is great as well.
Click to expand...

Hi Arthur, I took it at f2 with my Summicron lens. After scanning it, I adjusted exposure in Lightroom by half a stop, but didn't change the colours in any way, what you see comes straight out of the scanner - which might have done something to the colours, probably, but I'm pretty sure I used the 'no white balance' setting on this roll, since the colours came out just right.
 
arthur sadowsky said:
My personal experience with Fuji Pro 800Z (I know it's different film, but still iSO800) isn't so great and I wonder what I did wrong - feel free to criticize, your input is very much welcome:
Click to expand...

that looks extremely underexposed. about 2-3 stops.
in that case I would meter on the table-area in front of her.
with any negative film (especially 800 or faster) it's better to slightly overexpose.
 
For color negative incident metering: 1 2/3 stops more (Ektar100 at 25ASA with warming filter)
For color negative TTL in camera reflective metering: 1 stop more (Portra800 at 400ASA)

That's the way to get the smallest grain and the richest color.

Cheers,

Juan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom