Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Question on Fuji Press 800 performance

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    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.

    Sorry bro.. acutance?? Speak English..... thanks!

  2. #22

    Default

    Acutance => Edge-definition/sharpness.

    Anyway here's a sample of Press 800@1600 and pushed 1 stop dev.
    Last edited by Zerstorer; 25th October 2003 at 07:35 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    Edge-definition or sharpness.
    Then it would mean that people shots would look less artificial?? As ssubject would not "stand" out so much compared to the background? I see that as a advantage if the loss of edge definition is not too acute.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Then it would mean that people shots would look less artificial?? As ssubject would not "stand" out so much compared to the background? I see that as a advantage if the loss of edge definition is not too acute.
    No no..acutance is edge definition at the micro level. It is acutance that gives you the impression of general sharpness. Something like the contrast between 2 sides of a line detail. If you know how USM works in photoshop you should get the idea.

    Sharpness is not equal to resolution. Do a search on the net on how these 2 terms regard to film.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Just a little OT here but related to film type still.

    I just developed a roll of ISO400 Kodak MAX. I shot using A priority f/5.6 with a Dynax 7 +0.5EV no flash of outdoor sports events (basically my school's interclass games). The shots all turned out well exposed except that there seems to be a fuzzy grainy look to every single shot! None of the subjects look particularly sharp at the edges and this covers both subjects in motion and stationary. BTW, my shutter speed was always between 1/500 and 1/1000,it was very bright and sunny that day. Why? Is that a characteristic of Kodak film? I have experienced this in the past but I put that down to my inexperience then. But this time, the ambient light was very good and so non of the shots were underexposed - I checked the negatives. So my gut feeling is that it is the film.

    This lack of sharpness generally, u can also see graininess. Would that be low accutance? Cos if the Konica is going to be like that I won't like it. I prefer the Fuji type of output.

    Thanks!

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Just a little OT here but related to film type still.

    I just developed a roll of ISO400 Kodak MAX. I shot using A priority f/5.6 with a Dynax 7 +0.5EV no flash of outdoor sports events (basically my school's interclass games). The shots all turned out well exposed except that there seems to be a fuzzy grainy look to every single shot! None of the subjects look particularly sharp at the edges and this covers both subjects in motion and stationary. BTW, my shutter speed was always between 1/500 and 1/1000,it was very bright and sunny that day. Why? Is that a characteristic of Kodak film? I have experienced this in the past but I put that down to my inexperience then. But this time, the ambient light was very good and so non of the shots were underexposed - I checked the negatives. So my gut feeling is that it is the film.

    This lack of sharpness generally, u can also see graininess. Would that be low accutance? Cos if the Konica is going to be like that I won't like it. I prefer the Fuji type of output.

    Thanks!

    Kodak Max 400 is very grainy, as you've found out. It's not particularly sharp either, compared to the Fuji negs. Apparently the "New and Improved" Max 400s aren't any better.

    Regards
    CK

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ckiang
    Kodak Max 400 is very grainy, as you've found out. It's not particularly sharp either, compared to the Fuji negs. Apparently the "New and Improved" Max 400s aren't any better.

    Regards
    CK
    Either that or you have under-exposed your shots/ or some parts of your shots, so the developer pushed the printing of your pictures. Check the print data to find out. The ideal should be zeros for most of the values.

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    I shot using A priority f/5.6 with a Dynax 7 +0.5EV no flash of outdoor sports events (basically my school's interclass games). The shots all turned out well exposed except that there seems to be a fuzzy grainy look to every single shot!
    Hmm... +0.5EV seems a little excessive here.

    4 possibilities:

    1)Its the film.
    2)Its the developing lab.
    3)Your camera metering is waaaayyy off
    4)You are overexposing too much. Though overexposing film slightly may help reduce shadow grain and lower contrast, going overboard with it also reduces image quality. Normally +0.5EV should be ok, but if coupled with metering that already overexposes, it may prove too much.

    I really think you should stop using +EV as so often as a safety net. It may work well now to avoid underexposure errors for difficult metering situations, but it's bad habit in the long run. Try shooting film(and slides) without compensation for a change to see how your camera really behaves.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    This lack of sharpness generally, u can also see graininess. Would that be low accutance? Cos if the Konica is going to be like that I won't like it. I prefer the Fuji type of output.

    Thanks!
    No, low acutance just gives a smooth grain free look, but not sharp in the usual sense.

    I'm tempted to try the whole Konica range after seeing some of my friends travel shots taken on Konica film....the colours were nice and understated and pleasing. If you want snap and sharpness, Fuji might be preferable but it doesn't hurt to try.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    Hmm... +0.5EV seems a little excessive here.

    4 possibilities:

    1)Its the film.
    2)Its the developing lab.
    3)Your camera metering is waaaayyy off
    4)You are overexposing too much. Though overexposing film slightly may help reduce shadow grain and lower contrast, going overboard with it also reduces image quality. Normally +0.5EV should be ok, but if coupled with metering that already overexposes, it may prove too much.

    I really think you should stop using +EV as so often as a safety net. It may work well now to avoid underexposure errors for difficult metering situations, but it's bad habit in the long run. Try shooting film(and slides) without compensation for a change to see how your camera really behaves.

    Sorry, it was +0.3EV actually....... I just checked my Dynax 7 data. I usually dial in some overexposure when shooting without flash on human subjects cos the face tends to get a little underexpose with centre-weighted metering to my eyes.

    I dun think it is the lab cos all this while I have no problems with them over many rolls and usually in Fuji. I am quite pleased with the results. BTW, I use Standard Colour Centre and they have been pretty ok as far as I am concerned. I'm not sure if it's overexposure, the negatives look pretty well-developed. At any rate, with an aperture of f/5.6 on A priority, I dun see how underexposure can occur in bright sunshine. In all shots, my subject fills at least 1/2 the frame and is usually in the centre of the frame. I used the centre focus spot all the time.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismatic
    Either that or you have under-exposed your shots/ or some parts of your shots, so the developer pushed the printing of your pictures. Check the print data to find out. The ideal should be zeros for most of the values.

    Which part of the data indicates that??

    What is printed behind my prints: (It's very blur and I can't quite make out some stuff)

    CMT25.10.03 016 NNNN 35A 036

    The data is the same for every single shot except for the last 2 sets of digit which I think refer to the frame number since they run sequentially from shot to shot.

    So I guess the printing data would be 016 or NNNN?? Would that pushing the prints?

    Thanks!

    Edit: I think CMT stands for Clementi (the branch I send the film to), and of course 25.10.03 is the date of print. The rest I dun know......
    Last edited by TME; 26th October 2003 at 11:49 PM.

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zerstorer
    Acutance => Edge-definition/sharpness.

    Anyway here's a sample of Press 800@1600 and pushed 1 stop dev.

    Hmm.. I notice that your shot has something that I want to get rid off but have not been able to find out how to. The foreground which is the guy hitting the tiles...... he's a lot brighter than the rest of the picture..... in fact, he looks like a hotspot in the frame (i.e. it seems that the flash pulse is all concentrated on him) or another way of looking at is like there is light fall off at the edges or the flash cannot reach the edges to light up...

    Is it possible to light up the rest of the frame more evenly so that the difference in lighting between the subject and the background is not so obvious? Or is this an effect that u wanted to achieve?? I understand that these kind of shots are pretty hard to capture. My own shots (mentioned in an earlier post) tend to be a little blur cos my shutter speeds were not high enough (should have S mode)..... were u using 800 to freeze the motion? I was on 400 bright environment.

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    Hmm.. I notice that your shot has something that I want to get rid off but have not been able to find out how to. The foreground which is the guy hitting the tiles...... he's a lot brighter than the rest of the picture..... in fact, he looks like a hotspot in the frame (i.e. it seems that the flash pulse is all concentrated on him) or another way of looking at is like there is light fall off at the edges or the flash cannot reach the edges to light up...

    Is it possible to light up the rest of the frame more evenly so that the difference in lighting between the subject and the background is not so obvious? Or is this an effect that u wanted to achieve?? I understand that these kind of shots are pretty hard to capture.
    Actually the reason why the rest of the frame is darker is that everything else is further away from the camera/flash. Flash coverage falls quickly with distance, if they were all at the same distance there wouldn't be such an effect with my combo as my flash is more than capable of lighting the frame evenly.


    My own shots (mentioned in an earlier post) tend to be a little blur cos my shutter speeds were not high enough (should have S mode)..... were u using 800 to freeze the motion? I was on 400 bright environment.
    I was shooting at ISO1600 because the previous event was sparring in which flash is not allowed. I only switched on my flash to capture this event. I could have easily shot this with ISO100 film and gotten a similar shot with just a darker background. The shutter speed used here was 1/160 rear sync. In retrospect, I think I should have either used 1/80+ rear sync to capture motion trails or raised it to 1/250 to totally freeze the shot instead.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    But it's a pretty good shot given the circumstances. I mean I would really just crop off the rest to focus on the main guy.

    Anyway, the fineness of the grain ISO1600 is really pretty amazing..... u can't really see any grains even granted the fact that is scanned from a negative (I believe?).

    Anyway, why do u want to up the shutter speed? At least on the screen, the motion looks totally frozen at your current shutter speed. Upping the shutter speed would really make the background dark... especially 1/250.

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TME
    But it's a pretty good shot given the circumstances. I mean I would really just crop off the rest to focus on the main guy.
    Just showing the whole thing to give an idea of the films characteristics when pushed.

    Anyway, the fineness of the grain ISO1600 is really pretty amazing..... u can't really see any grains even granted the fact that is scanned from a negative (I believe?).
    Yep, its a scan from a negative, there is actually some grain visible in the shadow areas, but its pretty grain free in the brighter segments.

    Anyway, why do u want to up the shutter speed? At least on the screen, the motion looks totally frozen at your current shutter speed. Upping the shutter speed would really make the background dark... especially 1/250.
    It's frozen but not totally sharp yet...(can be a bit sharper). Anyway, lowering the shutter would have been the preferable choice.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Clementi
    Posts
    6,580

    Default

    Well can't think of everything when shooting..... just capture the shot as best as possible....... some more must "siam" the other photographers and spectators when shooting.....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •