Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36

Thread: Question on Fuji Press 800 performance

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    222

    Default Question on Fuji Press 800 performance

    I have been getting quite a bit of recommendations on fuji press 800 for low light shooting. Read reviews, and did thread searches on it too. But i have never actually tried this film before or seen the pics being produced by it in real life. Wanna know the grain issues for this film if i were to push it to ISO1600. Most probably the pics printed will be only 4R or 5R but if i wanna blow it up to 8x10 will i be able to still get pics that is still relatively smooth? Or should i forget about pushing it and stick to ISO800? Wat about the colour rendition? Will be shooting under low light conditions, most probably tungsten lighting as its a graduation ceremony.

    Thank U for ur advises

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    The grains for Press 800 is still pretty good if you are only pushing it 1 stop.
    But at 8R size, you will start seeing the grains IF you are viewing closely.
    (It's not really an issue, unless you really like to view your pictures at 10cm.

    The colour rendition is quite well-controlled due to Fuji 4th Layer technology, but a slight yellow cast will be present for tungsten lights.

    Here's a scanned picture for reference. Only cropping was applied.


  3. #3
    Senior Member wormz777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    2,577

    Default

    Is this shot pushed to asa1600 or taken at asa800?

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Taken at ISO 800, not much difference if the film were to be pushed to 1600.
    The colours may be a bit off at 1600 though, and contrast will be increased.
    Press 800 is quite okay for skin tones, but NPZ 800 will be better, if you can get
    your hands on it. The grain, colour and contrast are superb on NPZ800.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Press 800 is a very good ISO 800 negative film. Relatively fine grain like prismatic mentioned (Kodak Max 400 is a lot grainier than this) and has pretty good latitude. Can't remember but you can probably underexpose 2 stops and still get a useable pic. On the overexposure side you can probably get +3 without problems. Rate it at 640 if you want 800, 1250 if you want 1600. I've only used it at 1600 2-3 times, results were pretty good, but I have not printed beyond 4R for them.

    They are now my film of choice for wedding shots.

    Regards
    CK

  6. #6

    Default

    I tried to push to 3200. And the grain is quite acceptable for my taste. But then, I only print 4R.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Oh i see. Hmm somehow i knew ckiang would reply to this thread,

    So i guess i should use press800. But if i were to get my hands on the npz800, wats its like compared to the press800 in terms of pushing and performance? What would be a better choice if both films are easily available?

    Thank u for ur advises.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alloy
    Oh i see. Hmm somehow i knew ckiang would reply to this thread,

    So i guess i should use press800. But if i were to get my hands on the npz800, wats its like compared to the press800 in terms of pushing and performance? What would be a better choice if both films are easily available?

    Thank u for ur advises.
    The last I checked, NPZ isn't available in the stores here. It might be now, and might be worth a try. Just don't use your actual shoot to try.

    Regards
    CK

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    222

    Default

    yeah i guess too. Nothing beats putting the film under actual test before going for the real thing. Jus hope i will be able to find similar low light locations under tungsten lighting.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckiang
    Press 800 is a very good ISO 800 negative film. Relatively fine grain like prismatic mentioned (Kodak Max 400 is a lot grainier than this) and has pretty good latitude. Can't remember but you can probably underexpose 2 stops and still get a useable pic. On the overexposure side you can probably get +3 without problems. Rate it at 640 if you want 800, 1250 if you want 1600. I've only used it at 1600 2-3 times, results were pretty good, but I have not printed beyond 4R for them.

    They are now my film of choice for wedding shots.

    Regards
    CK


    Would Fuji Superia 400 be good enough for wedding shoots? I'm trying to keep costs down cos Fuji Superia Extra 800 or Press 800 is about 3-6 times more expensive than 400?

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Would Fuji Superia 400 be good enough for wedding shoots? I'm trying to keep costs down cos Fuji Superia Extra 800 or Press 800 is about 3-6 times more expensive than 400?
    400 works well (I used to use NPH 400 before I switched). It doesn't cost 3-6 times as much though. The last I remembered, CP sells XTRA 400 @ $10 for 3 rolls. So that's $3.33 per roll. Press 800 is like $6.50, about twice the cost, but definitely worth it.

    Only "problem" with XTRA 400 is that they are a bit more saturated and may not be so good for weddings, your mileage may vary.

    Regards
    CK

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckiang
    400 works well (I used to use NPH 400 before I switched). It doesn't cost 3-6 times as much though. The last I remembered, CP sells XTRA 400 @ $10 for 3 rolls. So that's $3.33 per roll. Press 800 is like $6.50, about twice the cost, but definitely worth it.

    Only "problem" with XTRA 400 is that they are a bit more saturated and may not be so good for weddings, your mileage may vary.

    Regards
    CK
    I see...... thanks! BTW< what do u mean by too saturated? I dislike Kodak MAX 400 for its dullness and grainiess under low light...... so if XTra 400 is going to be brighter and more colourful, I'll be most happy..... I usually use XTra 400 as well but not under tungsten light in a restaurant.

  13. #13

    Default

    Xtra 400 is more contrasty and saturated than real life. It might be ok if you like it and if the bride/groom/guests are not going to wear black/white clothing as a contrasty film doesn't hold detail as well in the extremes.

    Also, a contrasty film tends to make the effects of flash as well a bit more obvious.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    I see...... thanks! BTW< what do u mean by too saturated? I dislike Kodak MAX 400 for its dullness and grainiess under low light...... so if XTra 400 is going to be brighter and more colourful, I'll be most happy..... I usually use XTra 400 as well but not under tungsten light in a restaurant.
    Saturated as in "red very red, blue very blue". I tried once and didn't like it for wedding shoots. For general photography, they are fine though. Avoid Max 400 at all costs, even if someone gave you a carton for free.

    Regards
    CK

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On the streets where you live
    Posts
    194

    Default

    Anyone wants kodak max 400 ? I've got a roll free from photo friend .. Sadly can't even exchange it for the gold 200 film

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    That's why some photographers prefer using NPH or NPZ.... they are less contrasty and they give smooth, natural skin-tones.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckiang
    Saturated as in "red very red, blue very blue". I tried once and didn't like it for wedding shoots. For general photography, they are fine though. Avoid Max 400 at all costs, even if someone gave you a carton for free.

    Regards
    CK

    Ahhahaha........ yeah MAX 400, but I have no choice lar...... my dad keeps buying it..... I alwaysuse Fuji on major shoots like a holiday........

    NPH is a little too expensive for uninhibted shooting....... guess I'll stick to Fuji XTra 400.... think that my friend probably can't see the difference........ except that they look better.....

    What about Konica Centuria 400?

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Ahhahaha........ yeah MAX 400, but I have no choice lar...... my dad keeps buying it..... I alwaysuse Fuji on major shoots like a holiday........

    NPH is a little too expensive for uninhibted shooting....... guess I'll stick to Fuji XTra 400.... think that my friend probably can't see the difference........ except that they look better.....

    What about Konica Centuria 400?
    Konica? Not too sure, try then let us know.

    Regards
    CK

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    What about Konica Centuria 400?
    Might be worth a try. Konica has a reputation for really smooth grain but lower acutance compared to Fuji. There are some people on the net who are raving over this(finest grained 400 consumer film?).

    Konica seems to have a more subdued colour though. I've tried some Centuria 200 and they seem to scan pretty well(low grain), haven't tried prints from it.

    Will be checking out the rest of the Konica line when I'm free, especially their 400-1600 and their 50.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckiang
    Konica? Not too sure, try then let us know.

    Regards
    CK
    Haiz... will try for the upcming staff dinner..... low light conditions...... perfect replica for my friend's wedding... get some practise with the new flash and Konica film... think will try Fuji Xtra 400 and Konica Centuria 400 like that...... see which gives better effects..... I personally like Fuji's saturation.......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •