Fuji 800 Film: Good/Bad/????

[raid]

I have read online that the Fuji800 print film is wonderful. Well, I bought several rolls of film based on the rave comments on this film.
I put my first roll of this type of film in a Yashica RF camera, and I took some photos of my daughter.

I got back the scanned images, and I was quite surprised at how grainy they looked and the low contrast/underexposure or whatever it is. I should not have used an automatic camera that I just bought and have no experience with,and I should not have chosen difficult light conditions, and I should not buy many rolls of film based on someone's raving.

Have you had good experiences with this type of film?
Can you post some of the better looking images?

I may use this film as my highspeed B&W film for grainy effect if this is an inherent feature of the ASA 800 film.

I tried to save a few of the images with PS.
Your comments are welcome and requested.


Raid

 

[raid]

Here are two additional images taken with the Fuji800 film with ASA set at 800.
Is the exposure incorrect or is this what I should be expecting at ASA800?


Raid

 

[telenous]

I have used both Fuji 800 Press and Fuji 800 Pro. Fuji Pro is more expensive and it gives more neutral results. I 've never had problems with colour rendition or grain when the lab did the scanning for me but I found Fuji Pro very difficult to work with my scanner (Coolscan 5000). I will dig for a couple of pics to post here later.

 

[LKSC]

Raid

It is an underexposure problem. I find all the Fuji 800 speed emulsions (Press 800, Pro800) need to be shot at about 500 to 640 for the best results.

 

[raid]

Alkis: I had the roll developed and scanned by a Fuji Frontier machine. My film is the Fuji Press and not the Pro.

Raid

 

[raid]

Raid

It is an underexposure problem. I find all the Fuji 800 speed emulsions (Press 800, Pro800) need to be shot at about 500 to 640 for the best results.

Lloyd: I have to agree with you here. Next timeI will shoot this film at
ASA400~ASA500.

Raid

 

[willie_901]

I have shot many rolls of Fuji 800. Loyd's advice is spot on. Fuji 800 can be hideous when underexposed. I shoot it at ISO 640. Outdoors you can use 800 unless there is deep shade.

Look here for many examples (but most of these are NPZ800 or S-800).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/tags/fujis800/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/tags/npz800/

Fuji Iso 1600 films require even more attention to avoiding under exposure.

Good luck with the next roll.

willie

 

[raid]

Willie: Thanks for the flickr link. Your Fuji 800 photos look very nice.
Next time, I will use a camera with manual exposure control.

Raid

 

[IGMeanwell]

Raid I have had tons of luck with Superia 800 ... my avatar was with that film

but to be honest I think I overexposed almost all those shots (on purpose)

 

[dmr]

Fuji 800 is probably my favorite film for night scenes.

When exposed properly it shows no grain on web-size images, and pleasant and expected tolerable grain on 8x10 prints. Even the Fuji 1600 gives quite pleasant results.

An example of one of mine shot on this film is:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=18841&cat=500&ppuser=1182

When exposed properly, the apparent grain in an 8x10 print seems to be about the same as the Walgreens/Agfa 200.

Yes, it seems to show more apparent grain when underexposed, but I disagree with the suggestion to overexpose it intentionally. If shots are consistently underexposed, something is wrong somewhere. I've found that Fuji films give the best results when exposed as they are rated with one exception. I'll sometimes expose 400 film at 800 and lately the 800 film at 1600 when I do such things as high contrast night scenes. These are scenes where there are brightly lit areas, such as neon signs, spots under street lights, shop windows, but a lot of the scene is dark. Doing this helps to avoid overexposing the bright areas and totally blowing out things like neon and bare-bulb signs.

 

[sf]

NPZ800 is a favorite of mine. Our member Dougg uses it rated at 500, and it looks fabulous.

This is NPZ800 http://www.shutterflower.com/street scene gallery/pages/passageRFF.htm. It does well in decent light.

This is it again:

http://www.shutterflower.com/street scene gallery/pages/street-market-at-nightRFF.htm

in much lower light. It is grainy in low light. At least in my experience, but I suppose this would depend on where you rate the film in terms of ISO.

 

[w3rk5]

I don't know if this would help with your question. It's not the same film but here's a shot with Fuji Superia 800. It's actually expired by a couple of months when I used it. There was a weird combo of lighting. Natural sunlight from the left and a floor lamp on the right. Anyway, I rated as 800.

 

[JoeFriday]

I use 800 Press a lot and get excellent results, even at the rated 800 speed.. such as in this shot..

 

[willie_901]

I concur with dmr's comments about night shots. We all meter differently and dmr, shutterflower, w3rk5 and joe all certainly make great exposures (nice phots all, btw).

I often use curves in PS (use LightRoom) to turn the grain in under-exposed areas black. This does work well for night shots. Of course you can loose shadow detail this way too.

In my experience the grain in Fuji 800/1600 negatives is very sensitive to PS adjustments. Sometimes a small change can make the grain look terrible, or it can really reduce the grain.

 

[Abbazz]

Raid,

I use Fuji Pro800z a lot, because it's available in 220 format and I can buy it at a good price from B&H. The results are great, but i'm shooting in 6x9 so issues like grain are much less visible than in 35mm. Here's a couple of pictures from my gallery taken with this film:

Cheers,

Abbazz

 

[Russ]

Fuji 800 is probably my favorite film for night scenes.

When exposed properly it shows no grain on web-size images, and pleasant and expected tolerable grain on 8x10 prints. Even the Fuji 1600 gives quite pleasant results.

An example of one of mine shot on this film is:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=18841&cat=500&ppuser=1182

When exposed properly, the apparent grain in an 8x10 print seems to be about the same as the Walgreens/Agfa 200."


I burn my Superia 800 and Press 800 @ 640, and get very nice results. The grain is fine and colors are quite good.

Russ

 

[LKSC]

If you really need the speed, the best choice is Fuji Natura 1600, rated at 800 to 1000. Its only available in Japan but you can buy it from megaperls. Its only slightly grainier than Pro800/NPZ rated @640.

 

[raid]

Raid,

I use Fuji Pro800z a lot, because it's available in 220 format and I can buy it at a good price from B&H. The results are great, but i'm shooting in 6x9 so issues like grain are much less visible than in 35mm. Here's a couple of pictures from my gallery taken with this film: [images removed here]
Cheers,

Abbazz

=======================

Abbazz:Thanks for reminding us how beautiful MF images can look like.

Raid

 

[raid]

If you really need the speed, the best choice is Fuji Natura 1600, rated at 800 to 1000. Its only available in Japan but you can buy it from megaperls. Its only slightly grainier than Pro800/NPZ rated @640.

Lloyd: I have one roll of unexposed Natura in the fridge.I am still waiting for the right occasion to try it out.

Raid

 

[raid]

I concur with dmr's comments about night shots. We all meter differently and dmr, shutterflower, w3rk5 and joe all certainly make great exposures (nice phots all, btw).

I often use curves in PS (use LightRoom) to turn the grain in under-exposed areas black. This does work well for night shots. Of course you can loose shadow detail this way too.

In my experience the grain in Fuji 800/1600 negatives is very sensitive to PS adjustments. Sometimes a small change can make the grain look terrible, or it can really reduce the grain.

Willie and everybody else who commented here, thanks a lot.
I will try using this film as a colorfilm with relatively low grainy pattern, plus I will use it as B&W film.
It seems that many of my shots were underexposed by the automatic exposure setting of the Yashica, and that FujiPress 800 doesnot look great when underexposed.

I agree with the comment that PS use can result in huge changes in the way the image looks with FujiPress 800. In my case, I started out with underexposed negatives, so I am trying to salvage what I can.


Raid