Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Fuji Film Uggghhh

This is topic Fuji Film Uggghhh in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001109

Posted by Betsie Beadling (Member # 591) on 08-05-2002, 06:54 PM:

I Got my Picturs today beacause i Finished
my One Time Use Kodak Camera
I Didnt Realise Wal-Mart only does Fuji Film
They Came out Not Vivedly Colorful

Kodak is a Better Film

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2002, 07:13 PM:

Betsie, if you used Kodak film and had it processed at a place like Wal-Mart, they were not using the proper chemicals. Fuji film can look very good when processed with the proper chemicals and Kodak film can look very good when processed with the proper chemicals as well. It is important to take Kodak film to a place that can process it properly.

Also bear in mind that if you were using a disposable camera, you will never get really good pictures just by the sheer nature of a disposable camera. So if you were using a disposable camera AND it has Kodak film in it, that's a double whammy.

When both 35mm still films are processed in their respective chemicals though, I do prefer the look of Kodak film. However I commonly find the look of Fuji motion picture film to be more pleasing, as Kodak film has too much green in it most of the time. The Fuji motion picture film also has better contrast and richer colors in general.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-05-2002, 07:19 PM:

Actually I perfer AgfaChrome for shooting on at home and for motion picture print film Kodak Vision
I have noticed of late that at least in Canada Ferrania is getting a lot of shelf space in many stores.
Maybe John can shed some light on there dye structure in the past I always remember it as being very green and contrasty

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-05-2002, 08:17 PM:

Although proper processing chemistry is important, the setup of the printer is also a factor.

Another cause of "not vividly colorful" pictures may be underexposure. With a single use camera, it is important to not exceed the range of the flash, or to try to use it when there is not enough light for "daylight" exposures. Classic signs of an underexposed negative are "milky" blacks, desaturated colors, and increased graininess.

Kodak has lots of on-line help and tips for taking good pictures:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/nav/takingPics.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/pictureTaking/index.shtml

Here is Kodak information about processing consumer color negative films:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/chemicals/photoChems.jhtml

My favorite film of late is Kodak MAX Zoom (800) film -- lots of versatility and very low grain for such a high speed film:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/film/ex_max.shtml#Max800

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-05-2002, 08:22 PM:

Brad said: "However I commonly find the look of Fuji motion picture film to be more pleasing, as Kodak film has too much green in it most of the time. "

Most cinematographers feel that Fuji negative film has more "green" bias than Kodak film. IMHO, reds tend to go more orange also.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-05-2002, 09:09 PM:

John, I'm not looking at EK and answer prints. I am looking at what appears in the film cans. That is the pattern I see almost every time. The labs are "green freaks" and it only affects prints on Kodak stock.

(Please edit your posts when you post back to back instead of replying again.)

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-06-2002, 03:12 AM:

It seems to me that Fuji prints always look like they have a blue/green tint to them. It's really pretty annoying. I think that Kodak prints tend to look much better (although some, like ROAD TO PERDITION, are also green-ish).

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-06-2002, 04:54 AM:

I used to do my own C-41 and E6 processing and the former is very difficult to get right. The chemistry is very intolerant to slightly wrong concentrations, temperature a degree or two off, agitation intervals not quite right and so on. I can well believe that that a badly maintained autolab machine could make a mess of any C41 film stock.

As for Fuji cinema film stock (both camera neg and release print), the French use it a great deal and I agree with Mike, blues and greens tend to be more vivid than with Eastman stocks, which appear more vibrant in the red/yellow range. They have two distinct looks, which work well in different kinds of film. IMHO Fuji gives a wonderful look to films where location shooting is more important, whereas Eastman is better in studio lighting.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-06-2002, 07:33 AM:

Betsie,

If you're taking your film to WAL*MART for processing, you shouldn't necessarily expect very good quality from any camera, whether it be Kodak, Fuji or disposable.

Wallyworld has a photo lab installed in their stores for one reason and one reason only: TO KEEP YOU THERE FOR AN HOUR (and find other stuff to buy). They are not supposed to re-do a print that doesn't come out well, as long as there's an image, they'll sell it to you.

I have printed from (and often use) the Kodak and Fuji disposable cameras, and when using the proper corrections, get fine prints (and most people are hard-pressed to tell they're from a disposable). Of course, negatives produced from high-end SLR's produce superior prints...

The kind of chemistry may be important, but from my experience, a commercial labs C-41 could be Kodak, Fuji, Konica or Agfa, and give roughly equivalent results. The REAL difference is the person who is printing from your negative. You need to find someone who can recognize good color, know how to print good color, and most of all, CARE that you get good color.

I have reprinted negatives for people who got lousy work at these discount chain stores (and drugstores) and they were amazed at the difference achieved from the same negative. And, on one occasion, I have brought in my bottle of Filmguard to remove scratches from negatives with absolutely FLAWLESS results.

Just as color timers are important to producing good color in motion pictures, a good printer is essential for your own work. Check out the specialty photography stores in your area, and give them a chance. You'll pay more, but may find that the proper results are worth the extra expense.

Hillary

Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 08-06-2002, 09:31 AM:

Hillary Said: "If you're taking your film to WAL*MART for processing, you shouldn't necessarily expect very good quality from any camera, whether it be Kodak, Fuji or disposable."

That about says it all. Taking your pictures to any one hour photo place in a department store or drug store is a huge crap shoot. I think that it's worth going to a more professional photo lab to have the film processed and printed. Sure the goofballs at "Wallyworld" (I love that) know how to make the machine go, but they don't know how to look for problems in their chemistry or a negative. I have found that most professional photo finishers take a little extra time to make sure your negatives and prints come out looking good, and I think that is worth the bit of extra cost.

Fuji and Kodak both make good film. Kodak is a bit more pricy and perhaps a bit better all around. Fuji works fine though. You can often find it cheap, and I think it really does a great job with the bluer end of the spectrum.

In other words, I agree with many of the other posters in saying that rather than pointing the finger at Fuji, you should point more in the general directions of Walmart and the world of the one-time use camera.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-06-2002, 03:11 PM:

As a professional still photographer, it is very interesting that this topic would come up on the day I registered to post here at the Film Tech Forum.
I have used both Fuji and Kodak film professionally for many years and both are excellent products. All of my clients work are printed by my professional lab here in Hawaii but I have had some of my 35mm films processed by some one hour labs found at Walmart stores during vacation trips and I agree that the quality is very sub standard. If you are looking for quality photo finishing, Most professional labs also serve the public and I highly recommend you consider using them for very important pictures. As to the difference between Kodak and Fuji, I have found Kodak films to be cooler and Fuji to be warmer. One of the best film I had the privilege of working with was one Fuji had discontinued and it was their excellent 400 speed NPH-400. This film was a photographers dream with excellent reds, greens, yellows and great neutral tones. Although most my my work is now photographed with a Fuji S-1 professonal digital camera, I still shoot a lot of film and the material I now use is all of the Kodak NC Portra professional film. They come in both 160 and 400 ISO speeds and is excellent for portrait and weddings which is my speciality. Kodak also manufactures a film with a higher contrast and is labeled PORTRA VC for commercial photography

As to Brad Millers comments, that one should not expect much from disposable cameras, I am afraid I will have to respectfully differ.
I once felt the same way towards this cheap paper cameras as Brad but I had an opportunity to photograph a snow scene at a resort about 80 miles east of New York City and it turned out to be good enough to be exhibited in the Masters Exhibit at the Professional Photographers of America's annual convention in Orlando Florida a few years ago. For those of you who would like to see this image, please go to my web site at http://www.claudesphoto.com and go to page two at the "IMAGE GALLERY" page and it is there.

Regarding an outstanding motion picture in Fuji Color, one of my favorite is "16 DAYS OF GLORY" about the 1984 Olympics at Los Angeles. Because Fuji was the official film sponsor at these games, all of the official still and motion pictures had to be photographed with their film. I have the movie on a laserdisc but I hope it will be available on DVD someday because the photographic image is just gorgeous.

-Claude

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-08-2002, 01:33 AM:

A year ago, I took some film to my usual camera shop developer which does nice work - it came back a mess. Gook on the negatives, crusty stuff, ruined. When I pointed this out to the min. wage register jockey, she said, "Let me look - oh, it comes off" & she started picking of the crusty stuff from the negatives & & tearing them up.

Bottom line: they were taken in on Saturday, the B team ran them & wrecked them. Camera shop developers can't be trusted implicitly.

If it's quicky rip who cares stuff like camera tests, I'll drop them by the 1 hour at Wal-Mart. (Boycott big chain drug stores, they are documented as the number one buyer & demolisher of viable historic structures!)

K-Mart's photo service is advertised as being sent to some Kodak lab; it's one day, not one-hour. Generally it's good, but the processing must have some automated analysis & adjustment of printing to try to make bad photos better. Typically, it will "push" dark photos. That's fine if you've taken a bad one, but if you've got something off the usual curve that's supposed to be dark, it will be wrecked. An example is a photo I took of some the sun behind some stained glass french doors in a theater, with dark, ignored people in front, & the processing decided that I was actually trying to shoot the people, pushed it, & blew out the windows.

But generally, I take them to K-Mart for the convenience & if-it's-not-too-strange quality of some Kodak-badged lab processing.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-08-2002, 02:05 AM:

The bottom line for me is that if they develop the negative OK, it's always possible to reprint individual frames graded as you want them either by doing it yourself, taking the negative to a proper photography shop or digitally scanning it. But if they produce a defective negative, you've had it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2002, 01:34 PM:

One of the often overlooked aspects of film processing is the need for proper washing of the film to remove residual processing chemicals. For example, residual thiosulfate (fixer) greatly increases the rate of dye fading. Trouble is, you don't know the lab hasn't washed the film properly until years later, when the images fade prematurely.

Kodak's processing manuals specify the washing requirements:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/h243/h2403ulm00041.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/operating7.shtml#final
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/operating6.shtml#wash-water
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/h249/h2409_03.shtml#162744
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/processing/h249/h2409_03.shtml#162993

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-08-2002, 02:05 PM:

One of the dangers of using some one hour labs is their disregard for proper film processing by cutting back the time of the stabilization bath or eliminating it entirely. This plus the cutiing back on the wash time as John mentioned will contribute to the very short life span of the negative.

-Claude

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-08-2002, 03:11 PM:

These new processing and printing machines are churning out stuff faster 'cause they're raising the temperature of the chemicals. Since the speed of the film is constant, that's gotta adversely affect the proper fixing of the film. Are people really that concerned with getting their prints FASTER rather than BETTER or more durable?

Several years ago, a manager at a particular lab told me they don't mix the stabilizer in the water for the final wash. When I asked them why not, the answer was that it puts spots on the film. This was the solution, rather than finding a way to avoid the spots, and help prevent dye loss. Such concern for the customers' precious images is heartwarming

The lab where I work (which is part of a chain of specialty stores) has gained a reputation in the area for superior work, but after having seen work from the other labs in our district, I totally agree with William that you cannot trust a Camera shop lab implicitly. The training offered by our company is adequate, but so few people care anymore, it's maddening, and often the quality is equivalent to the discount chain stores. The best way is to start with a lab which caters to professionals, or do some tests with short rolls or reprints.