Pro 400H, thoughts and shots

spiralout462 · Apr 29, 2016

I received a roll of Fuji Pro 400H back from Dwayne's today. I'm not quite as pleased as I have been with other films, but it very well could be conditions and the person pushing the shutter release

. I still struggle with composition, but you can't say I'm not trying!

It seems like a decent option when I need a "faster" color negative film. I would probably reach for the Vista or Porta first though.

timor · Apr 30, 2016

It doesn't look like Fuji. Everywhere green cast and not very pretty grain in shadows and sky. Conditions seems right for very good color so I think it is a bad development.

Derrel · Apr 30, 2016

These have a very prominent green cast to them, and it looks like there was insufficient exposure in the shadow areas. I am assuming that we're being shown scans made for the film, right? Not sure what actually happened...it could be a little bit of more than one thing: I suspect under-exposure, but I also see a troubling green cast on every single frame, and a very high amount of grain--but when I click on the shots and look at them full-size,. I think I see crappy scanning: not film grain, but very mechanical, repeating, digital artifacts.

cgw · Apr 30, 2016

Fuji 400H is the descendant of NPH, a somewhat bland, chalky film that didn't handle greens exceptionally well. Agree that a mix of under-exposure/duff processing/sloppy scanning could be at work. You could try 1/3--2/3 stop over-exposure, once common with NPH. If it's 35mm, try plain vanilla Superia 200 or Portra for 120--and maybe another lab?

spiralout462 · Apr 30, 2016

Thanks for the comments! The scans were also "hazy" and lacked good contrast. I've had good results using the same equipment and lab. I think I'll stick with slide film for color with the occasional Vista200.