Using 800 ISO Color film

[kshapero]

How do folks feel about using 800 ISO Color film? When I use it, I mainly shoot it at 400 ISO except when I really need the higher ISO like at night. What I am losing over a 400 ISO film? Any thoughts on this? Also any preference between Fuji, Kodak Gold or Portra?

[mabelsound]

When I was shooting film, Fuji's Pro800Z was one of my absolute favorites. It might actually be my favorite color film ever. Here are some pics:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mabelso...s/fujipro800z/


Hot dog truck by mabel.sound, on Flickr

[Doug]

Akiva, I'm with you in setting the EI lower than box speed; I treat Fuji Pro 800Z as a 500 speed film. As a result, I'm seeing better contrast and color in the darker areas, and a slightly richer look. It also gives me a bit of safety margin for accidental underexposure. Really nice results under mixed lighting too...

[photogdave]

I just shoot everything at box speed and deal with the contrast etc. in scanning.
I always use the cheap Fuji 800.

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by photogdave

I just shoot everything at box speed and deal with the contrast etc. in scanning.
I always use the cheap Fuji 800.

It's not possible to recover under-exposed shadows in post-processing. That's why many of us bump up the exposure a bit.

[thegman]

Portra 800 is nice, it surprised me with how good the colour is, not washed out or anything. Also Portra 400 has some pretty good latitude that you can get away with it shot at higher speeds.

[Photo_Smith]

I like Portra 800 rate it at box and it seems to print well, scans OK too.



Amazing how well it does in dull light, the above was shot under a canopy of trees 1/15 at ƒ3,5

[kshapero]

thanks folks

[Aristophanes]

Portra 400 shot at 800, no push in processing, but careful exposure for the shadows is what works for me.

I tried the Superia 800 and Natura 1600. Not so good. I'd rather use a flash.

[kshapero]

Anyone tried Kodak Ultramax 400 color?

[bitfeng]

I don't have the pic with me. Huge grain. Too warm therefore good for fluorescent light. Seems to be about half stop faster than Xtra400.

Originally Posted by kshapero

Anyone tried Kodak Ultramax 400 color?

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by bitfeng

I don't have the pic with me. Huge grain. Too warm therefore good for fluorescent light. Seems to be about half stop faster than Xtra400.

Too warm? Sounds like a color correction problem. I've printed Pro 800Z in a color darkroom and the colors are fantastic.

[ray*j*gun]

Originally Posted by kshapero

Anyone tried Kodak Ultramax 400 color?

I have and I was surprised at the nice results. Natural and a little less saturation than Fuji.

[HoodedOne]

Most of the time I use e.i. 640 for the 800 film.

Shot with Fuji 800Z

F135-030.jpg by HoodedOne, on Flickr

I find the results from the 800Z better then the superia and portra versions.

[Jaans]

Originally Posted by HoodedOne

Most of the time I use e.i. 640 for the 800 film.

Shot with Fuji 800Z

F135-030.jpg by HoodedOne, on Flickr

I find the results from the 800Z better then the superia and portra versions.

I love that photo - it is certainly a surreal shot.

[LeicaFoReVer]

I have used fuji pro400 and was amazed by its sharpness and fine grain. Above example from pro800 tells us that it must be similar. I would give it a shot. Are those still produced?

fuji 400pro:

[dcsang]

Hmm.. that Portra800 shot gives me hope for this weekend's wedding. I wonder what I can produce with it.. we'll see I'm sure.

Thanks for posting this Akiva as it's been on my mind lately.

Cheers,
Dave

[Keith]

Fuji 800Z was a great film without the slight 'Disney' look of Portra IMO!

[venchka]

I like 120 Portra 800 so much, if I had to pick 1 film it would be Portra 800. In the gloom, doom or rain it really shines. I will really miss it when it when my stash is gone.

Wayne

[umcelinho]

I shot Fuji Superia 800 (slightly expired) for a whole year. Not gonna discuss here which 800 iso color film is better... portra, superia, 800z.. haven't tried all options, but Superia 800 surely delivered well.

having iso 800 as your default film allows you to shoot in pretty much any light condition. really sunny day? 1/1000 and f16. dark street at night? 1/30 and f1.4.

i've shot 2 portra 400 and pushing it 2 stops or 1.5 stop. well metered, the results are really impressive, the grain is better than the fuji superia 800 i used. really clean night shots and great tones. new portra 400 might be the most versatile film i've ever used (not that i've used too many, but still...).

superia 800


bisou by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

portra 400 @ 1250


hangman by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

[froyd]

Originally Posted by umcelinho

portra 400 @ 1250


hangman by Marcelo Colmenero, on Flickr

Is this a scan of a print or of the negative? Does the image reflect what's on the negative or did you have to fix it during the scan or print?

I'm trying to understand how people are getting good results underxposing Portra400 as much as EI1600. I read good reports from photographers who have shot images metered at box speed and then +1 and +2 on the same roll, and developed it normally. I would imagine the "normal" exposure would yield a nice negative, with thinner and thinner negative for +1 and +2. In that case, do the underexposed frame ger recovered during scanning? When I have sent rolls to NCPS with similarly exposed images, I have receivd scans that looked great for box speed exposure and progressively worse for each stop of underexposure. I could tweak the underexposed scans in PS a little bit, but the images were not great.

[umcelinho]

Originally Posted by froyd

Is this a scan of a print or of the negative? Does the image reflect what's on the negative or did you have to fix it during the scan or print?

I'm trying to understand how people are getting good results underxposing Portra400 as much as EI1600. I read good reports from photographers who have shot images metered at box speed and then +1 and +2 on the same roll, and developed it normally. I would imagine the "normal" exposure would yield a nice negative, with thinner and thinner negative for +1 and +2. In that case, do the underexposed frame ger recovered during scanning? When I have sent rolls to NCPS with similarly exposed images, I have receivd scans that looked great for box speed exposure and progressively worse for each stop of underexposure. I could tweak the underexposed scans in PS a little bit, but the images were not great.

In this case I've exposed as 800 and had it pushed +1.5 stops in development. What I do is to just scan the negatives and adjust the best I can to be as close as the image I saw, so I confess I'm not 100% sure on how different it would be vs a printed image directly from the negative. I've once shot portra 400 @ 800 and didn't push, results were fine, but the thing is, I estimate metering by eye, so sometimes I might miss it by a stop or so under light situations I'm not so familiarised with, so I can't tell for sure if they came out nice because of the film dealing well with underexposure or because I ended up estimating an exposure fitting for 400 instead of 800 iso... I haven't done any controlled test with a metered camera so far.

[Nikon Bob]

Plain old Fuji 800 Superia used to be my favourite travel film for it's flexibility in allowing me to shoot in varied light conditions while only carrying on film type. Add an ND filter and you are good to go. If possible I always erred to overexposure by as much as one stop. If I could not over expose needing all I could in shutter speed then I just shot it at 800 or 1600 and lived with the extra grainy appearance. You can add contrast and saturation in post if you like. It is in some ways flexible like the Kodak and Ilford C41 B&W films as far as over and under exposing is concerned.

Bob