Fujifilm discontinues its Pro 400H color negative film in 35mm, 120 formats

How are you applying grain to a digital photo to make it look like the film?

I think your response is a case of TLDR on your part, but I may be wrong. The issue is the sourcing of materials for production.

@themountainphotographer

3 stops overexpose on negative film is like 3 stops underexpose on your digital sensor. And yes, with good sensors you can pull 3 stops from the shadows. It's a *negative* color film.

@vscd: I have never seen a full format sensor which shows identical detail and noise in shadows if you underexpose by 3 stops...it might be usable, but definitely not for Fineart prints.

In contrast there is zero progress of CMOS Bayer sensors with respect to highlight recovery since nearly ten years.

Magnumdarkstar, The reason to shoot film for what it looks like, because it stamps its character all over the image.

@Stujomo, that’s the best comment and spot on accurate..

@vscd, be my guest and shoot at -3 stops then try and recover the shadows to where they should be if exposing normally. Good luck on that, especially if using Canon sensors!

With medium format sensors @low iso it was no problem. But I guess you got me wrong, I shoot film and know the advantages very well... I just wanted to state that overexpose on negative films is too compare to digital *shadows*

@vscd, yes, technically you are right. In practise it depends what sensor one uses. I know from experience that an accidental 3 stop over-exposure on film is fully recoverable when scanned. I did even try a 4 stop over exposure but that introduced a cast and other colour shifts that I couldn’t correct right away. I also know that if I shoot under exposing by -3 using my 5DS R and then pull the files back to their correct exposure I end up with a huge bladdy mess. I’ll have to try that with my Sony A7 next weekend.

Do you shoot digital? What film and camera do you use?

Digital I mostly shoot 5D Mark III, but this cam is not very good at pushing shadows. I borrow the fuji gfx50 if I shoot difficult scenes. With film I mostly use my fuji gx680 or the Eos 1 line... Portra or b/w

"Pulling" 3 stops of overexposure? Why bother?
Go back and shoot it right.

I did.

Well, to be fair, some negative film is easier to scan than others. For example, Ektar 100 I find it hard to get the color right. However, I found Portra to be pretty easy. I used an Epson V600 with Epsonscan software.

The other advantage with chromes is you know immediately whether you got the exposure right. Since I often would bracket, I could tell immediately which shot was right. With negative film, you really don't know until you scan or print. On the other hand, it has more latitude for exposure errors. There are tradeoffs.

Added to which, once the camera manufacturers started to tame their digital highlights a little, a process I'd say began with the D300 and reached maturity with the D800 in Nikon, there wasn't a whole lot to choose between digital and slide, other than that the digital was generally more tolerant of lost shadows.

There remains a huge gap between digital and print film with the print film bringing more to the table on highlights than the digital brings on shadows. Digital keeps up to a point bringing in more and more tonal gradation with increased light and then boom, highlight clipping. Film eases much more gently into that area of highlight clipping, admittedly within certain limits of digital scanning in the event of taking a scan, but with relatively little headache for traditional printing. Perhaps if someone wants to update the concept of Fujifilm's S5 Pro sensor with its additional highlight capture, maybe then the playing field can be truly leveled?

@panther
"And people tend to favor the "pastel" color negative look over everything else these days."

1. only *a few* people
2. Fuji advertises the film simulations available in their digital cameras, so there should be zero problem to get any Fujifilm film type look, if so desired. No?

Jonathan - "for a start there's no slide film faster than 100"

That surprises me, as when I shot on slide film there were numerous options available from ISO 25 (Kodachrome) all the way up to ISO 500 (GAF).

Times have clearly changed, as a few years ago serious amateurs and pros shot almost exclusively on slide film, and the market for colour negative was confined mainly to snapshooters.

Yeah I agree with the above, Negative film is way more popular for reemerging film users, Slide film almost competes with digital via colors and shooting style, so we definitely see more folks heading to color and BW negative for a different capture medium vice slide.

xeppelin, actually film use is on the rise, with Kodak's sales doubling in the last few years and numerous companies, such as Kodak and Ilford, bringing back or out new films. New labs are opening up again in many places. The film photography market is at the latter stage of it's transformation and will grow more before it stabilises.

I shoot positive and negative film. Seeing another negative film go, is never a good thing to me.

and also Velvia and Provia are Fuji professional films, but otherwise....

(agree on 160NS)

My order got canceled even though they said they have some left in stock. Seems I was too late

hahahha... ja that's right. Film negatives and even modern digital cameras last much longer then any love between humans

You can still get across, provia, classic chrome, etc.

Wasn't it announced like two years ago that Superia (100/200 at least) was stopping?

They are still producing Superia X-TRA 400. All they would need is to cut and package it in 120. In my experience this film is not that far from Pro 400H, when I use both in small format.

Pro Image 100 is nice, I shoot with it a lot. But it has far less exposure latitude and the speed can be sometimes a bit difficult depending on the lighting situation.

Also they price has increased quite a bit over the last year

Those alternatives aren’t in 120 tho

To that newbie here, it's pretty much clear, that it doesn't look like 400H, it was about Alternatives, and Kodak is much more a Name for Color into the Film Business, than Fujifilm. As much, as i do like Acros, which is b&w, as you might know.

panther: price here is way stable +/- 2-3 EUR during the past 2 years, its a typical film to shoot on sunny days, but not only.

No need to insult. I'm just clarifying that your "low cost alternative" has both a completely different film speed and a completely different look. Not even close an alternative imo.

@marc
Where are you located? A year ago I could buy a 5 pack at 21€, now it is hard (but possible) to find it under 30€

At 4€ per roll, the money savings were substantial over Portra or Pro 400h. But at 6€ per roll, it is dangerously close to Portra once you factor in the expense of developing and scanning

@Jessie, it's not in insult, it's a fact. And few ppl are flaming here really along, without getting noticed by DPR Staff, that is a real insult for the Community, and others.

@Panther: a 5-Pack here costs between 28.xx to 30.xx EUR, usually, so very little variation during 2018 to now.

@marc Petzold
Well at 30€ it is too close to Portra for my taste. 21€ was a good price 30€ is not. What are you paying for your development to make it worth it?

Around 5 EUR. I dont know, about all that Price talk for Portra, it's a different league. FYI, a Roll of Portra 160, 135-36 costs me around 9 EUR, whileas a 5x Pack ProImage 100 is ~30 EUR, so it's ~6 EUR per Roll, and thus way cheaper.

I don't shoot much Color via Film, seldom. And i shoot 95% b&w, XP2 Super, HP5+, TriX 400, APX 100, mostly. Got 5 Rolls active currently, into 5 different SLR, Lens Setups. Film is mostly a B&W thing for myself.

Good Light.

@marc petzold
In Germany, many "premium" film labs like MeinfilmLab take 15€ for development + a basic scan and 24€ for a high res scan.

My personal favorite lab takes 7.99€ for a basic development + scan and 17.99€ for development and a very high res scan.

So since the price for development doesn't change based on film it can be a very small total price difference. So even for MY lowest possible development cost the difference is between Portra 160 17€ per roll (9+8) or Pro image 14€ per roll (6+8€) is only 18% in savings. For more expensive development that price shrinks even further.

Panther, untrue. Pure Development of one 35mm Film via meinfilmlab.de is 7.99 EUR, without Scanning. Just do your Homework better, thank you, you're welcome.

Good Light.

I go out three days a week with my GR. I can take 200 photos each outing. That same in analog is economically unfeasible ... unless you keep the reels undisclosed, as Vivian Maier did.