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

[kevin m]

Fuji 1600 has an almost Tri-X look, I think, when you convert it to B&W...

 

[davidbivins]

Good times with Fuji 800 Press

Good times with Fuji 800 Press

I love Fuji 800 Press. Here are some night shots I took. I usually use b/w, but NYC at night has too much wonderfully garish color to ignore it.

http://static.flickr.com/8/12390046_2ddf0a4230_b.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/10/12389959_b3f089bbb1_b.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/7/12389981_06a153963d_b.jpg

These were taken with a Yashica Electro 35 GSN.

Take care,

David.

 

[raid]

I love Fuji 800 Press. Here are some night shots I took. I usually use b/w, but NYC at night has too much wonderfully garish color to ignore it.

http://static.flickr.com/8/12390046_2ddf0a4230_b.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/10/12389959_b3f089bbb1_b.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/7/12389981_06a153963d_b.jpg

These were taken with a Yashica Electro 35 GSN.

Take care,

David.

David: This is the same type of cameras as I used here. Do you set the ASA at 800 or lower as many seem to do here?

Raid

 

[raid]

Fuji 1600 has an almost Tri-X look, I think, when you convert it to B&W...

Kevin: You have posted a wonderful photo.
I got the Fuji Press 800 film with the intention of using it as C41
B&W film. It is less expensive and it can developed anywhere.


Raid

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Raid: you have been given enough evidence this is a good film. Fuji X-tra 800 is good (far far better than Kodak Crapmax 800, not that I'm biased), and Fuji Press 800 is slightly better. Just don't underexpose it by more than a stop.

 

[kevin m]

I got the Fuji Press 800 film with the intention of using it as C41
B&W film. It is less expensive and it can developed anywhere.

Thanks, Raid. PS B&W conversion via "gradient map" gives really good results, so I don't usually shoot with B&W film anymore, except for either XP2 or BW400CN. I find those two films have an almost grainless look and a unique tonality that can't be matched by converting a color film image.

 

[raid]

Raid: you have been given enough evidence this is a good film. Fuji X-tra 800 is good (far far better than Kodak Crapmax 800, not that I'm biased), and Fuji Press 800 is slightly better. Just don't underexpose it by more than a stop.

Gabriel:

Yes, I certainly have obtained sufficient evidence that this film can be used effectively for great looking images.

Raid

 

[raid]

Thanks, Raid. PS B&W conversion via "gradient map" gives really good results, so I don't usually shoot with B&W film anymore, except for either XP2 or BW400CN. I find those two films have an almost grainless look and a unique tonality that can't be matched by converting a color film image.

Kevin:

I am also biased to using XP2 Super film, and I feel that its tonality is absolutely great for viewing images onscreen. I got the Fuji Press 800 film to get grainy effect photos in place of the Kodak TMZ3200 film.


Raid

 

[GeneW]

I usually shoot Superia Xtra 800 mainly because I find it at large supermarkets where the price is reasonable. I've had very good luck with it in my Olympus XA, rating it at 800. It tends to make complexions somewhat ruddy so it's not the nicest film for faces, though that can be toned down a bit in Photoshop. As has already been said, it looks a lot like Tri-X when converted to B&W.

Gene

 

[thafred]

I just bought a 20 pack of press 800 (exp. 05) and find the film very nice! but I have to agree that you should overexpose it a little. nevertheless something must be wrong with ether your GSN or the Lab since at 800 doesn´t look as bad! (1.st picture)
with room lightning @ 800 the film takes has a strong yellow saturation (1.st pic) wich you can battle with overexposing (2nd 3rd)

have fun in the dark 🙂

 

[IGMeanwell]

Raid I have had issues with Fuji 800 when underexposed with my Yashica

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=364312&postcount=215

 

[Trius]

Oh crap. I shot a roll of Superia 800 Xtra @ 640 in my XA. I'll get it processed and scanned next week, but I'm not hopeful now. When I shot Superia 1600 this past summer, I rated it at 800 and found it overexposed a bit, maybe 1/3 - 1/2 stop, so I figured that for the 1600, 1200 should be about right. It didn't even enter my mind to set the ASA on the XA any lower.

 

[raid]

I just bought a 20 pack of press 800 (exp. 05) and find the film very nice! but I have to agree that you should overexpose it a little. nevertheless something must be wrong with ether your GSN or the Lab since at 800 doesn´t look as bad! (1.st picture)
with room lightning @ 800 the film takes has a strong yellow saturation (1.st pic) wich you can battle with overexposing (2nd 3rd)

have fun in the dark 🙂

My images look as in your first photo. Isn't it grainy?

Raid

 

[Russ]

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

It's an excellent film. I burn it @ 640 and get very good results.

Russ

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

This is a b/w conversion of shot on 120 Fuji 800 made with a Fujica BLG 690 + 100/3.5 lens

the attachment is the original colour version

 

[jan normandale]

800 Iso

800 Iso

Simon thats amazing detail from the 800, I'm impressed. Usually I shoot 400 ISO and when I've shot 800 even tho it's only one full stop it seems to go off colour or grainy or some horrible stew of colours... I went back to 400 because of that. Your shot makes me think I'd better look again.

FWIW here's a shot using the same setup as you except the film is 120 Kodak BW 400 ISO the c41 film

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Thanks Jan
120 format on a 6x9 frame shows very little grain and this shot was handheld.
I have to say i prefer it when converted to b/w as it seems less grainy than 120 Neopan 400 pushed 1 stop.

I didn't know you could still get it in 220 rolls. I'll have to see if my dealer here in Bangkok can get me some.

 

[jan normandale]

Simon, that's one reason I got the Fuji BL G690. It was a bit of an anchor to haul around but the image was a good trade off against 4x5 and all the logistic issues LF cameras bring.

I assume you came to a similar conclusion due to your need for portability when travelling. I don't shoot 220 because I seldom see enough images to justify. Usually 120 takes me a day or two to use up.

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

Jan
Portability was an issue and in the end i sold this model and got the GW690 III
which is lighter and easier to handhold. For sheer portability though the Plaubel Makina 67 and 670's win hands down.

 

[FrankS]

This is a b/w conversion of shot on 120 Fuji 800 made with a Fujica BLG 690 + 100/3.5 lens

the attachment is the original colour version

Simon, all I can say is wow! Love this image. Bet you're glad that you didn't have just a 35mm camera with you.