Fuji NPH film


Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 9, 2004
81
0
0
Central
#1
Have heard that this film peforms better if slightly overexpose (eg use DX setting of 320 for ASA400 film) and terribly if underexposed. Is this an accurate guide ?
 

idor

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2004
666
0
0
42
Northern California
#2
redbaron1963 said:
Have heard that this film peforms better if slightly overexpose (eg use DX setting of 320 for ASA400 film) and terribly if underexposed. Is this an accurate guide ?
hmmm.... how you define perform better har?
 

Jemapela

New Member
Feb 20, 2005
791
0
0
Melbourne
www.jemapela.com
#3
redbaron1963 said:
Have heard that this film peforms better if slightly overexpose (eg use DX setting of 320 for ASA400 film) and terribly if underexposed. Is this an accurate guide ?
Some (or maybe many) colour print films benefit from a slight overexposure, by about 1/3 or 1/2 stop. (Personally I feel that it can go higher -- maybe even 1 stop -- due to the wide exposure latitude of such films).

The reasoning, as I have been told many years ago, is that during the printing process, the lab operator would increase the density of the print hence resulting in "richer" colours.

I work in a photo lab myself, and without being too technical or too specific, it generally makes sense and appears true.

With regards to underexposure, I'm sure most (if not all) films suffer from poor image quality when underexposed. In the attempt to "bring out" details or increase the the brightness of an image in print, grain tends to show up.

The same happens with digital, doesn't it? Instead of grain, noise shows up.
 

sORe-EyEz

Senior Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,572
0
0
SGee
#4
Jemapela said:
Some (or maybe many) colour print films benefit from a slight overexposure, by about 1/3 or 1/2 stop. (Personally I feel that it can go higher -- maybe even 1 stop -- due to the wide exposure latitude of such films).

The reasoning, as I have been told many years ago, is that during the printing process, the lab operator would increase the density of the print hence resulting in "richer" colours.

I work in a photo lab myself, and without being too technical or too specific, it generally makes sense and appears true.

With regards to underexposure, I'm sure most (if not all) films suffer from poor image quality when underexposed. In the attempt to "bring out" details or increase the the brightness of an image in print, grain tends to show up.

The same happens with digital, doesn't it? Instead of grain, noise shows up.
very enlighten & insightful. based on past experience i also agree w/ jemapela that most (i hav used different brands w/ different ISOs) underexposed negatives tend 2 b grainier than slightly overexposed 1s...

i don't think my photography course instructor will b willing 2 share such info (if he has any)...:sticktong
 

judeseah

New Member
Jan 20, 2005
474
0
0
51
1 Dalvey Road
#5
with other film,
i am not so sure,
but NPH/NPS got a color tint if exposeure is over.

anyway, the replacement is out,
the PRO series.

treat ur NPH/NPS like slide,
always like it that way.
 

blurblock

Senior Member
May 30, 2003
3,827
0
0
ytphoto.clubsnap.org
#6
sORe-EyEz said:
very enlighten & insightful. based on past experience i also agree w/ jemapela that most (i hav used different brands w/ different ISOs) underexposed negatives tend 2 b grainier than slightly overexposed 1s...

i don't think my photography course instructor will b willing 2 share such info (if he has any)...:sticktong
wow .... who is your photography course instructor?
 

binbeto

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,312
0
0
43
Behind a lens
www.pbase.com
#7
In general, negative perform better when slightly over expose.

When it is over expose, the resultant film is thinner and easier to print.

When under expose, the resultant film is thicker and allow lesser light to pass thru while printing.

All thing being constant, result from overexpose negative will produce better print.
 

sORe-EyEz

Senior Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,572
0
0
SGee
#8
blurblock said:
wow .... who is your photography course instructor?
i dun wanna reveal his name, yap, its a guy lar. its jus unlucky i got him as my course instructor. 1st few lessons were really a yawn manz!!:sticktong

i'll b happier spending d same amount 4 my fees on mags, & flim & developing d film. sigh...;(
 

Dec 9, 2004
81
0
0
Central
#9
Thanks all for all the tips & info.

Just shot a roll at a function without any OE. Will see the results next week.

By the way, which lab provides high quality negative scanning ?
 

Jemapela

New Member
Feb 20, 2005
791
0
0
Melbourne
www.jemapela.com
#10
binbeto said:
In general, negative perform better when slightly over expose.

When it is over expose, the resultant film is thinner and easier to print.

When under expose, the resultant film is thicker and allow lesser light to pass thru while printing.

All thing being constant, result from overexpose negative will produce better print.
Hmm... really? Where did you get this information from? Just for the reason of learning something new and true, I would like to verify this information.

Actually, during the course of my work, I have handled print films of different thickness (which can be felt by our fingers). I didn't pay attention to whether or not they were over or under but generally some films (from start to end) are thinner and softer than others. I thought it was just differences between brands.

If my general (unspecific) observation is correct, Kodak films tend to be thicker than Fuji.
 

binbeto

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,312
0
0
43
Behind a lens
www.pbase.com
#11
Jemapela said:
Hmm... really? Where did you get this information from? Just for the reason of learning something new and true, I would like to verify this information.

Actually, during the course of my work, I have handled print films of different thickness (which can be felt by our fingers). I didn't pay attention to whether or not they were over or under but generally some films (from start to end) are thinner and softer than others. I thought it was just differences between brands.

If my general (unspecific) observation is correct, Kodak films tend to be thicker than Fuji.
Read this from a book which sound logical to me.

Thicker as in more dense and allow lesser light to pass thru.
 

Jemapela

New Member
Feb 20, 2005
791
0
0
Melbourne
www.jemapela.com
#12
judeseah said:
with other film,
i am not so sure,
but NPH/NPS got a color tint if exposeure is over.

anyway, the replacement is out,
the PRO series.

treat ur NPH/NPS like slide,
always like it that way.
Could you tell me the source of your information regarding the colour tint with NPS/NPH overexposure? I would like to check up on that.

Long ago during my younger diaper-wearing thumb-sucking days, I have heard from "professionals" about films having colour tint/cast and just believed them. While I believe some are true, many are untrue.

Anyway, just like a traditional colour enlarger used in a darkroom, I believe mild/slight color tint/cast can be easily correctable on your mini-lab printer.
 

judeseah

New Member
Jan 20, 2005
474
0
0
51
1 Dalvey Road
#13
Jemapela said:
Could you tell me the source of your information regarding the colour tint with NPS/NPH overexposure? I would like to check up on that.

Long ago during my younger diaper-wearing thumb-sucking days, I have heard from "professionals" about films having colour tint/cast and just believed them. While I believe some are true, many are untrue.

Anyway, just like a traditional colour enlarger used in a darkroom, I believe mild/slight color tint/cast can be easily correctable on your mini-lab printer.
the cast is based on my own
experiences and not from 'source'.

it looks as if its shoot under flourencence lighting
with a daylight film.

btw, still like analog print,
so cast is corrected during printing,
but when send to mini lab,
its more obvious.

jude
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom