# Fuji Pro 400H



## a_spaceman (Feb 15, 2010)

Just a quick question about the film.

I bought some 15 rolls of 35mm for discounted price as was due to expire (october 2009) and only recently started shooting it but am not liking the results so far. What i get are dull photos with no snap to them.

What I was wandering is then what could be the problem. As I don't think it's the films' age (they've been stored n the fridge for a while, and in a dry pretty cold closet afterwards) I am imagining is the low contrast nature of it, which would probably make it more suitable for studio situations for istance, when you have more control on the lights and shadows.

That said, mosto of the photos i took were taken under the rather overcast skies of wintery England, which I'm sure doesn't help.

What's you take on it? Have any experience with the film? I'm trying to experiment with different films and try to spot those i like the most, so I guess a bit of discussion of this nature could be useful for me (and other members) to learn to know your films and spot their qualities/best use.


----------



## compur (Feb 15, 2010)

Hard to answer without seeing an example.


----------



## kreuzberg (Feb 15, 2010)

I've used 400NPH which I think is the older name for the same thing.  It is designed to have a lower contrast like you said and I've noticed that it really doesn't like overcast skies or dull lighting.  Try it on a day with blue skies and it should be much better.

One thing you didn't say was if you were looking at prints or the scanned negatives?  I've had prints back that were terrible, but when I looked at the scans I couldn't believe how better they looked.


----------



## a_spaceman (Feb 15, 2010)

kreuzberg said:


> I've used 400NPH which I think is the older name for the same thing.  It is designed to have a lower contrast like you said and I've noticed that it really doesn't like overcast skies or dull lighting.  Try it on a day with blue skies and it should be much better.
> 
> One thing you didn't say was if you were looking at prints or the scanned negatives?  I've had prints back that were terrible, but when I looked at the scans I couldn't believe how better they looked.


that's good news as i'm talking about prints. i'll be scanning some of them tomorrow as i'll be needing them so hopefully it will be the same for me... will let you know


----------



## Sjixxxy (Feb 16, 2010)

a_spaceman said:


> that's good news as i'm talking about prints.



Machine prints can make film quite unflattering. If i ever bother getting them, I use them for nothing more than a proof to analyze the composition. Here is an example from 400H that I shot a few weeks ago.

[Machine Print]  [My Interpretation]

The whole set of prints that I got back from the lab were just gross, unsharp and depressing.


----------



## a_spaceman (Feb 17, 2010)

Sjixxxy said:


> a_spaceman said:
> 
> 
> > that's good news as i'm talking about prints.
> ...


your example is perfect, it's THAT kind of flatness i'm talking about.
i barely ever get prints done in the lab, just did this time as i need to archive/reinstall my powerbook and am relying on my girlfriend's pc, which means very little will to deal with it.
still wanted to scan them yesterday but my i'm pretty usless at making nice and tidy archives, so i haven't found the negs yet...


----------

