Question on Fuji Press 800 performance


Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 30, 2002
222
0
16
39
Singapore
Visit site
#1
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 :)
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#2
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.

 

wormz777

Senior Member
Nov 3, 2002
2,577
1
0
39
N/A
#3
Is this shot pushed to asa1600 or taken at asa800?
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#4
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
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
 

Feb 24, 2003
119
0
0
Visit site
#6
I tried to push to 3200. And the grain is quite acceptable for my taste. But then, I only print 4R.
 

Nov 30, 2002
222
0
16
39
Singapore
Visit site
#7
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
alloy said:
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. :D

Regards
CK
 

Nov 30, 2002
222
0
16
39
Singapore
Visit site
#9
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.
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#10
ckiang said:
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
TME said:
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
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#12
ckiang said:
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.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#13
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
TME said:
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
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#16
That's why some photographers prefer using NPH or NPZ.... they are less contrasty and they give smooth, natural skin-tones.
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#17
ckiang said:
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
TME said:
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
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#19
TME said:
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.:)
 

TME

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
6,580
0
0
41
Clementi
#20
ckiang said:
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.......
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom