fuji NPS and kodak 160nc

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

I've been using 160nc in 4x5, rated at 100-125 ( I still find it is thin at 160 despite Kodak's opinion) and like it fine.

But since Fuji has introduced quickloads in NPS I would like to start using it. The films are supposed to be similiar of course, both rated at 160 by their manufacturers and competitive. Any obvious or subtle differences I should know about?? Working Film speed for the fuji??


-- David Goldes (david_goldes@mcad.edu), June 04, 2001


I once knew a guy who always complained about his negatives being thin. Then he had his meter cheched against a known light source and found it to be a stop off. Food for thought. Kevin

-- Kevin Kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), June 04, 2001.


Subtle differences are personal preferences. One way to find out is to experiment by yourself with Fuji NPS. Shoot a few exposures and you will know which film is better for you, since no one can reproduce your metering technique/habits. I personally like NPS. I rate the film, as the factory suggested, at 160 and use older barrel lenses (Voigtlander Heliar 300/4.5 and 360/4.5, and Fujinon 420/5.6 SF) for location protraits. Have fun! Cheers,

-- Geoffrey Chen (DB45TEK@AOL.COM), June 04, 2001.

NPS and 160 NC are very different films. Kodak 160 NC is great for any daylight situation where mixed lighting is not a big concern. It is a three emulsion layer film and provides a sharper image than NPS/NPL. I also find that Kodak 160NC is correctly rated at 160 while NPS is best exposed at ISO 64. So why do I often use NPS (and NPL?) They are four emulsion layer films that have properties previously relegated to science fiction. They do things which were never before possible with any film. They were created by Fuji as wedding photographer's films, but have been adopted by architectural and interior photographers because of their ability to handle mixed lighting conditions. They allow you to shoot in a combination of sunlight and fluorescent light, or sunlight and HID light or HID and fluorescent. If you use NPL (which is my primary film) you can shoot all of the above plus combinations of tungsten/fluorescent, Tungsten/HID/fluorescent, etc. This incredible flexibility means that you no longer have to filter separately for each light source,and really tough subjects like large public spaces are now easy! Don't forget that these are negative films, so you do all color manipulation in the enlarger. NPL in daylight is no problem,just dial out the blue later.(Don't be tempted to shoot through filters the way you normally do because printing will be made much more difficult.) For short exposures use NPS, for long, NPL. You can mix these films with strobe light too, but use a 1/2 green filter over each head to avoid a magenta cast. In short,the Kodak and Fuji films are both great,but different. John Bartelstone, NYC

-- John Bartelstone (Jbartelstone@telocity.com), September 03, 2001.

I have only used these films in rollfilm, but with that provisio here goes.

I switched from NPS to Portra 160 NC for portraits because NPS gives a definite blush to caucasian skin. With many people this can be flattering, but the very pale skinned people in my family tended to come out looking par-boiled. Portra also has the advantage of a faster emulsion with a matched look. I don't like the VC films, but the two NCs and the 800 speed mix well in a single presentation.

On the other hand, when conventionally printed NPS gave a more dramatic look to old stone buildings and foliage, so were I juggling films I would use it there.

Over exposing a half or full stop helped both films, but was more of a necessity with NPS.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), September 04, 2001.

thanks to all for the responses to film differences between 160nc and nps.

-- David Goldes (david_goldes@mcad.edu), September 04, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ