ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I've got a batch of this new (?) Fuji Superia 1600 to try.
Has anybody else used it?
What should I look out for?
In particular, am I safe rating it at 1600?
Has anybody else used it?
What should I look out for?
In particular, am I safe rating it at 1600?
dmr
Registered Abuser
Jon Claremont said:
Uh-huh, sure have.
Underexposure. Grainy. It can't take a joke with that.
Yes, assuming your meter is accurate and you expose properly. The grain is actually quite tolerable and it has a similar look and feel as the 800.
Let me look and post some examples of shots with it.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I have shot it once and found it very nice. I rated it at EI 800, which was a bit overkill. When I shoot it again, I'll probably rate it at 1000.
OM-1n, Zuiko 100/2.8 f4 @ 1/125 (I think)
OM-1n, Zuiko 100/2.8 f4 @ 1/125 (I think)
dadsm3
Well-known
Earl, do you tell the lab what EI you rated the film at before developing?
dmr
Registered Abuser
Here are three examples, please excuse two of them not being rangefinder.
First is under fluorescent light, Pentax K1000, stock f2.0 lens, probably 1/60, stopped down to something.
Second is a dusk shot showing the interior shop lighting and the remaining daylight outside. This photo makes the scene look brighter (outdoor) than it really appeared in real life. This was with the GIII recalibrated for 1600 at the high end, autoexposure, 1/30 IIRC.
Third is an example of a night scene, Pentax K1000, Sigma 18mm rectilinear superwide. Exposure not recorded or remembered.
These are very typical of what I've got using this film.
First is under fluorescent light, Pentax K1000, stock f2.0 lens, probably 1/60, stopped down to something.
Second is a dusk shot showing the interior shop lighting and the remaining daylight outside. This photo makes the scene look brighter (outdoor) than it really appeared in real life. This was with the GIII recalibrated for 1600 at the high end, autoexposure, 1/30 IIRC.
Third is an example of a night scene, Pentax K1000, Sigma 18mm rectilinear superwide. Exposure not recorded or remembered.
These are very typical of what I've got using this film.
Attachments
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
dadsm3 said:
There's no need nor no point with C41 film. It all gets the same development.
sooner
Well-known
I used this film only once during a visit to Versailles. Don't have pictures to post, sorry, but I was surprised at how good the pictures were in terms of grain and color, like a good 800 speed film. However, that worked only with proper exposure; the few shots that were seriously underexposed were horribly grainy, but that's no big surprise.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Thank you dmr. That's very helpful. I'm planning to use this film for night photography in city streets so your third example is especially useful.
Gerold
Mittagspausenkünstler
mdelevie
Established
I like Superia 1600 a lot
I like Superia 1600 a lot
Yes, Superia 1600 is quite good for the speed. I use it for candids in low light.
I sure wish they made this emulsion in 120 size. Portra 800 and Pro800Z are the fastest color films in medium format. Given the slower lenses in MF, I would really benefit from a faster film -- and grain doesn't matter so much, 'cause big negatives need less enlargement.
To John Claremont's point, there are two ways to push this film. The easy way is just to set your camera to 800 or 1000 ISO, and shoot normally. No sweat.
The hard way is to find a lab that'll actually push process C41 film. That can be a challenge. I'm lucky in that there is a custom lab about a 1/2 hour away that'll do push development for C41. I shot some Pro800Z at 3200 once (in a seriously dark nightclub) and needed a two-stop push. You can imagine the results, but I did get the shots.
Anyway, I usually shoot Superia at 800, then develop normally. At 1600, the shadows get grainy and you start to lose detail.
I like Superia 1600 a lot
Yes, Superia 1600 is quite good for the speed. I use it for candids in low light.
I sure wish they made this emulsion in 120 size. Portra 800 and Pro800Z are the fastest color films in medium format. Given the slower lenses in MF, I would really benefit from a faster film -- and grain doesn't matter so much, 'cause big negatives need less enlargement.
To John Claremont's point, there are two ways to push this film. The easy way is just to set your camera to 800 or 1000 ISO, and shoot normally. No sweat.
The hard way is to find a lab that'll actually push process C41 film. That can be a challenge. I'm lucky in that there is a custom lab about a 1/2 hour away that'll do push development for C41. I shot some Pro800Z at 3200 once (in a seriously dark nightclub) and needed a two-stop push. You can imagine the results, but I did get the shots.
Anyway, I usually shoot Superia at 800, then develop normally. At 1600, the shadows get grainy and you start to lose detail.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Mike: As Jon said, there's no point unless you are processing at a pro lab that can make adjustments in a run.
I rated it at 800 because I knew underexposure could be a problem, PLUS I was shooting outside. While it was quite overcast, I wanted to be able to use wider apertures for DOF isolation, such as with the shot I posted, at reasonable shutter speeds. That was especially important since I was using an SLR, not an RF.
I rated it at 800 because I knew underexposure could be a problem, PLUS I was shooting outside. While it was quite overcast, I wanted to be able to use wider apertures for DOF isolation, such as with the shot I posted, at reasonable shutter speeds. That was especially important since I was using an SLR, not an RF.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
mdelevie said:
Taking a 1600 film and setting the camera to 800 or 1000 is not pushing. Setting the camera to 3200 would be pushing.
In your example 1600 film, camera set to 800 to 1000, you'd need to find somebody to *pull process* the film.
mdelevie
Established
Jon Claremont said:
Ooops, you're right. What I meant to say was "overexpose" rather than "push"
If the question is, "Can C41 film be pushed?" then the answer is yes, but not conveniently. My normal processor (Fuji labs in MD) won't do it, but there is a custom lab that will.
If the question is, "with normal processing, can I depart from box ISO?" then the answer again is yes, that's much simpler.
This is what I was trying to say.
Regards,
Mark
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Mark: Understood.
willie_901
Veteran
Several other have advised to avoid under exposure. The importance of this advice can not be overstated.
Here's some examples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/tags/fuji1600s/
Good Luck,
willie
Here's some examples.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/willie_901/tags/fuji1600s/
Good Luck,
willie
Russ
Well-known
Jon Claremont said:
I rate it @ 1250, with good results. Fuji's newer "Natura 1600", is even better.
Russ
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
OK, no under exposure. But if I trust my meter I'm fine rating it at 1600?
At least, that's what I'll do for the first roll, and then evaluate the results.
I've got a small batch of this film so there's opportunity to learn.
Thank you all.
At least, that's what I'll do for the first roll, and then evaluate the results.
I've got a small batch of this film so there's opportunity to learn.
Thank you all.
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
Russ said:
If this superia 1600 works well for night use with a fast lens and no flash then I'll look out for the Natura film.
(By the way there is a Fuji Natura camera on eBay, just arrived, it's the 'Aqua' one. That would be my color choice anyway rather than 'Rose' or 'Lavender')