I ve started using Fuji Press 800 (as it is called here in the UK) for a number of press jobs. Like the film very much - nice speed, nice latitude, nice colours and nice to scan from the negs. The prblem is that when using with my M4P the finished roll tends to jam in the camera somthing I have never encountered with my usual stock, Kodachrome, Kodak E100SW and E200 and TriX The cassette seems to be of a slightly different diameter than the Kodak ones and is very frustrating when you have to reload fast. Shame as it is v good film. Anybody had similar problems and can anybody recomend a similar 800 Kodak neg product

-- Frank Smith (frankies531@aol.com), January 20, 2002

Answers

Greetings Frank- I've used the Fuji 800 Press, and I used to like it, but I have switched to the Kodak Portra 800- I find it's color fidelity and sharpness clearly superior to the Fuji Press. Yeah, it's a more expensive film, but the results, IMO, are just really that much better, which makes it worth it.

As far as the film casette sizes are concerned, I am curious. I've never experienced this problem- anyone else? But switch to the Kodak and don't look back- just charge more for your prints!

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

color fidelity and sharpness clearly superior to the Fuji Press

Sorry, I feel the other way. I tried Portra 800 and the colours were all over the place (after scanning). I also noticed that the film was slightly grainer than P800, so for my needs P800 won, even if it is more contrasty (an advantage anyway when shooting under fluro!).

Another 800 film I've played with is the new Fuji NPZ 800. Nice fine grain and low contrast, but as it costs $AUD 5 more per roll, I've stuck with P800. As to the film jamming a M4P. After shooting 100's of rolls of P800 I've had no such problems with either my M4P (a 1981 vintage) and a M6 TTL. Looks to me like it may be time to CLA your camera.

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), January 20, 2002.

This is one of the things I love about photography, or any art form- it's al subjective. If there really were one superior film, wouldn't we all use it?

Besides, a good deal of the difference in out experience with the films is based on how we use it- conditions, rating, etc. and of course let's not forget differences in labs.

As for scanning, I've scanned both these films and many others (with a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000) and found that using SilverFast and custom settings, I can get scans I like which really have totally different color signatures than the film.

As far as the cassette jaming Frank is experiencing, I aggree with Andrew N.- get it checked out.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

I've used Fuji 800 in my M's but it was only a couple of rolls. Never found them to stick in the chamber, but was unimpressed with the film. Portra 800 is beautiful, although a tad grainier than the 400 version. I've never tried scanning it. Portra was made so all the various speeds including the B&W will print well on a single "channel" on an automated processor. My local pro lab has theirs set up and adjusted to perfection. I scan as little as possible...really detest anything resembling darkroom work.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 20, 2002.

I use Fuji colour neg film all the time and I should imagine they use exactly the same cannister dimensions for all 36 exp rolls regardless of the actual emulsion inside.

No problems to report with my M4-P with Fuji, Ilford or Kodak in this respect.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 20, 2002.

I have the exact same problem using Fuji Press 800 in my M3, Frank. Not every roll, but many of them. I don't have an answer, but the film is so much better than anything Kodak makes that it's worth the extra trouble.

I did an assignment for our local Public Education Foundation in December, shooting Fuji 800 under fluorescents and other mixed lighting in both elementary and high school classrooms, all strictly available light. The Foundation people loved the proofs and ordered seventeen 11x14s to hang in the foyer of their suite of offices, plus possibly five murals. I delivered the (enlarger-made) 11x14s last week, and they were gorgeous -- rich, subtle color and grain almost invisible at normal viewing distance.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 20, 2002.

The Fuji (Press) 800 is by far the best ISO 800 colour neg around: very flexible, friendly to mixed light situations (including fluorescent), very discreet grain, nice colour reproduction (far from the harsh rendering of previous generations).

I use it intensively with the M6, with no jamming ever. It is the only fast colour emulsion I use (b/w being the better solution for adverse indoors shooting of course). The problem must be in your M4P's gears, unfortunately.

The Portra 160NC and 400NC are nice all rounders. The 160NC is not quite as perfect as the Fuji Reala 100, but getting near. Neutral and predictable. But the Portra 400 chromogenic B/W and the ISO 800 colour offer are not on par, and far from being the best solutions in their respective niches. The Portra range and "unified channel" are nice marketing concepts though...

-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), January 21, 2002.

I'm among those that prefer Fuji as well--Kodak colours never look really 'right' to me. After encountering difficulties in loading and/or removing Fuji cassettes with a number of camera models, I've come to suspect the spool top form to somehow 'jam' onto the rewind fork due to the former's size. IPperhaps I'm wrong and it's just coincidence, but should I ever find a Fuji and a Kodak cassette and spare time, I'll measure them both.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), January 21, 2002.

not a problem with the gears, cassette just seems to have a bigger girth than Kodak cassettes. shame it is the best C41 fast film i have used. May be My M was made on a Canadian Friday. will get a service though

-- Frank Smith (frankies531@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

Frank, I've had this same problem with my M-6 and Fuji 800, but I like the film so much I'm willing to put up with it. Good luck. Ron

-- Ronald Wills (youngdeer@earthlink.net), January 22, 2002.