dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm looking to buy some fast film.
A quick check of B&H shows my 1600 ISO film choice is limited to Fuji Superia.
At 800 iso I see:
Superia 800
Fujicolor Press 800
Fujicolor 800 Professional
Kodak Porta 800
Is there a stand-out in this crowd? One I should avoid? Another choice for 1600 ISO?
Thanks,
A quick check of B&H shows my 1600 ISO film choice is limited to Fuji Superia.
At 800 iso I see:
Superia 800
Fujicolor Press 800
Fujicolor 800 Professional
Kodak Porta 800
Is there a stand-out in this crowd? One I should avoid? Another choice for 1600 ISO?
Thanks,
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Steve, I like the results I'm getting with Fujicolor Press 800. The Kodak Portra should yeild fine results as well.
Cheers.
Cheers.
kully
Happy Snapper
I bought ten rolls of Centuria 1600 early this year for a beer festival - it disgusted me (even at 6x4).
I've not tried Superia 1600, but for colour digital seems the best way to go.
I've not tried Superia 1600, but for colour digital seems the best way to go.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
kully said:
Well, the digital back for my Bessa R is in the shop at the moment...
alexz
Well-known
I used to use Fuji Press 800 for rock concert work (albeit in Canon SLR) and often have pushed to 1600 to keep shutter speeds if not safe the at least as reasonable as they can be. The lighting is really crazy at such events, someties extremely dynamic colorful spots just burn you eyes through the finder. The film prodices excellent results, solid color performance thought doesn't particularily likes to beb underexposed (especially ehen pushed to 1600).
Did not try other films though...
You may want to check the galleries on my personal site: www.zabrovsky.com - there are several rock shows covered, all by Press 800.
Alex
Did not try other films though...
You may want to check the galleries on my personal site: www.zabrovsky.com - there are several rock shows covered, all by Press 800.
Alex
willie_901
Veteran
Hi,
All the Fuji 800s are nice. There are differences but they are subjective. In my view Superia 1600 is an emergency-use film. The 1600 is for those occasions where a strobe is not possible or practical.
I didn't like the old Porta 800 and I have not tried the new formulation. I do not know of another ISO 1600 color negative film. Kodak used to have a fast color film, but it might be discontinued.
The key to pleasing results with the Fuji 800s is to avoid under exposure. The shadow grain can be really bad. I usually expose Fuji 800 film @ ISO 640. The 1600 is even more sensitive to under exposure.
Automated negative scans of these films (and automated prints) can make the grain appear much worse than it has to be. The proper treatment of shadow areas with post-processing software (PS and others) really pays off.
There are many examples of lovely ISO 800 negative film images on FLICKR. I haven't looked for Superia 1600 images in a while. But I have some decent ones in my FLICKR stream.
willie
All the Fuji 800s are nice. There are differences but they are subjective. In my view Superia 1600 is an emergency-use film. The 1600 is for those occasions where a strobe is not possible or practical.
I didn't like the old Porta 800 and I have not tried the new formulation. I do not know of another ISO 1600 color negative film. Kodak used to have a fast color film, but it might be discontinued.
The key to pleasing results with the Fuji 800s is to avoid under exposure. The shadow grain can be really bad. I usually expose Fuji 800 film @ ISO 640. The 1600 is even more sensitive to under exposure.
Automated negative scans of these films (and automated prints) can make the grain appear much worse than it has to be. The proper treatment of shadow areas with post-processing software (PS and others) really pays off.
There are many examples of lovely ISO 800 negative film images on FLICKR. I haven't looked for Superia 1600 images in a while. But I have some decent ones in my FLICKR stream.
willie
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I received one roll of Natura 1600 with the Natura S
it was pretty good, the grain was tighter than most 1600s I have used.
Although I don't believe I got its full impact as the local lab screwed up the negatives royally
it was pretty good, the grain was tighter than most 1600s I have used.
Although I don't believe I got its full impact as the local lab screwed up the negatives royally
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Well, I ordered the fuji 1600 to play with, plus rolls of Porta and Fuji professional 800.
I'll put them to the test sometime soon.
I'll put them to the test sometime soon.
danwilly
Established
I used the Fuji 1600 at a recent wedding. The interior of the church was poorly lit and they wanted shots during the ceremony. I was surprised at the excellent results. I would note that I used a pro shop for processing and they adjusted for the tungsten lights which saved me a lot of post-production work. I had shot some test rolls prior to the wedding and took them to Walgreens. They did not come out that well, very grainy. Again, never underestimate the difference a good lab can make.
kully
Happy Snapper
He, I'm waiting for the CV digiback too.
I was driving home from work when I remembered slide film.
If you can, I'd recommend Provia 400F pushed to 1600 (or even 3200) - the results are grainy but nice.
The only problem I had with these was scanning them with my Nikon V ED - the grain was considerably increased. Projection was much better (I'm thinking having Cibachromes / Ilfrachromes done and then scanning would also be OK).
I was driving home from work when I remembered slide film.
If you can, I'd recommend Provia 400F pushed to 1600 (or even 3200) - the results are grainy but nice.
The only problem I had with these was scanning them with my Nikon V ED - the grain was considerably increased. Projection was much better (I'm thinking having Cibachromes / Ilfrachromes done and then scanning would also be OK).
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Fuji Superia 1600, shot at 800. 800 was too heavy, so in the future I will rate it at 1000 or 1250. Consumer lab & scan to TIFF, sized and a bit of sharpening. I also brought up the shadows a bit.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Kully: Some (most?) scanner software has problems with grain when scanning chromes, so results can be weird unless you tweak settings for slide work.
jody
Broke User
The 1600 works for me.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
kully said:
I'm just using the quicky lab...I won't be push processing anything.
This is where shooting b&w and souping your own comes in handy I guess.
amateriat
We're all light!
Fuji Press 800 is quite capable in many low-light situations. While I agree that pulling it slightly (EI 640) helps a bit, it's worked fine for be at box-rated speed. I'm eager to try Kodak's reformulated Portra 800 (I have a roll each of the new 160 and 400 to try – big shout and thanks to Jason for swapping his 35mm samples for my 120). As far as ISO 1600 goes, I've seen and tried Konica Superia 1600, Fuji Press 1600, Fuji Press 800 pushed 1 stop, Kodak Supra 800 pushed 1 stop, and Kodak Portra 800 (old) pushed 1 stop. Of the above, Fuji 800 pushed fared the best to my eyes (and, at the time, the eyes of the agency I handled and scanned the film for). The ususal disclamers apply.
- Barrett
- Barrett
Attachments
Last edited:
furcafe
Veteran
Which Fuji 1600 are you referring to? There are 2: Fuji Superia 1600 & Natura 1600. Only the Superia 1600 is available in the U.S., whereas you have to order the Natura from Japan. I may be imagining things, as they may be the same emulsion, but I think the Natura is better than the Superia (finer grain).
dazedgonebye said:
Dougg
Seasoned Member
I use a lot of Fuji Professional NPZ 800, now renamed 800Z, mostly in 120/220 size. The results are excellent if you avoid underexposure; to that end I set my meter to 500 for this film. Smooth low grain and exc color saturation. Then I tried it in 35mm too and was surprised that it held up extremely well in the smaller size. Very impressive film, and very capable of dealing with odd or mixed lighting.
I have used Kodak Portra 800 as well, and it's fine too but picks up more color casts in those mixed lighting situations. My lab says they do better with Fuji films, so that sealed my choice. I like the whole Fuji Professional line. I did not have a good experience with Fuji 1600 when I tried it once in 35mm (grain, low saturation), but that was years ago and I'm sure it's been improved since.
I have used Kodak Portra 800 as well, and it's fine too but picks up more color casts in those mixed lighting situations. My lab says they do better with Fuji films, so that sealed my choice. I like the whole Fuji Professional line. I did not have a good experience with Fuji 1600 when I tried it once in 35mm (grain, low saturation), but that was years ago and I'm sure it's been improved since.