Spring on the river Fuji 400 Pro film

[kiev4a]

Because of an unusually high snowpack, the Boise River, one of the primary streams in this area, is flooding some low lying areas (dams keep it from getting entirely out of hand). The first two shots of the river below were shot with my Nikon F4 and a Kiron 28-85 lens, using Fuji Pro 400 film. The photo of the rock chuck is also on the same film with a Tokina 80-200 f2.8 lens. The area shown is about 1/3 of the negative. I think the grain of the Pro film is a little finer than the standard 400 film.

[byuphoto]

excellent photos. i have found that to be very true. i now use the 160, 400 and 800 pro Fuji on that account

[PeterW]

Hi,
Interesting that both Wayne and Rick found the grain on Fuji Pro film to be finer than on the standard film. I must say I haven't really noticed any difference.

I always used to use Fujichrome Pro film which came in packs of 10, mainly to get consistent colour balance - essential if the pictures were going to be used on the same page of a mag. One day at a trade photo exhibition I was having a little moan on the Fuji stand about the harsh grain on Fuji Pro 800. The guy there examined one of my transparencies with a loupe and reckoned it was the development that was at fault. He gave me a voucher to get my next two 800 films from the same batch processed at Fuji UK, and they came back two days later with much finer grain. I took the examples, together with Fuji's letter to me, round to the pro lab I was using for processing at the time. They were full of apologies even though they said they could offer no explanation, gave me four rolls of 120 as a sweetner, and offered to process these free of charge.

This time they were just as fine grained as the ones Fuji processed ... so it pays to have a little moan if you're unsatisfied, particularly if you can get it backed by the manufacturer. I wondered if the E6 developer used for the previous films had been near exhaustion. Either that, or they'd added replenisher too many times.

Peter W

[byuphoto]

I must requalify by stating that I use Fuji Press 800. My Pro Lab does wedding work anfd is very good with fuji film. I always get good tight grain from them. It just seems to scan better on my Epson 4990

[kiev4a]

Peter: I never shoot film faster than 400 speed so I can't speak to the 800. I am certain my first roll of the Fuji 400 Pro, processed at the local drug store, has a finer grain than the standard Fuji 400. Maybe more important, the color is not quite as warm as drug store Fuji -- more neutral--more like Kodak Gold 200 but just slightly warmer (if that makes sense).

I did notice if you have a lot of bright gree in a photo (like a lawn) the Pro 400 does seem to accentuate it somewhat, so you have to be careful.

[byuphoto]

The por series films, from Fuji, reproduce skin tones very accurately. That was their intended usage

[PeterW]

Hi Wayne.

I normally like to use a slower speed film. My normal is 200 ASA, but when I was covering a lot of vintage car rallies the weather was sometimes so overcast and wet that 200 just wouldn't give a fast enough shutter speed to stop movement combined with a small enough stop for depth of field. One pleasing aspect I found with Fujichrome pro 800 was that it gave good saturated colours even in dull conditions.

Peter

[Just Plain Curt]

Just thought I'd share a couple river shots. Both with Pentax ME Super, Pentax 50 f2 Kodak 200.,
,
and .
Other than cropping no photoshop.