I would like to like Fuji Pro 400H more than I do, as it would be nice to have an alternative to Kodak Portra 400. Jury is still out, generally, but it doesn't work that well with my Holga. The Fuji film appears to be rated at least a stop faster than it really is - meaning that it really needs to be overexposed to get decent colors and negative thickness. Since the Holga only has two aperture settings (at best) and one shutter speed, you either need to get just the right lighting conditions, or you need a fairly forgiving film. Black & white films tend to have a lot more exposure latitude, so you can get decent exposures under much more varied lighting conditions than with color negative film. Kodak Portra 400 also has a lot of exposure latitude, although not as much as the better black & whites. I've had very good luck with the Holga using Portra. However, given Kodak's recent troubles, and its apparent attitude toward us "backward" film shooters, having an alternative would be both helpful and prudent. Unfortunately, it looks like the Fuji isn't going to be it.
 |
"Eventide" (Roscoe Village, Chicago, October 2011)
Holga 120n, Fuji Pro 400H
I like this shot, even though it is strongly underexposed, as I think the underexposure helps create a mysterious and evocative mood. |
 |
"A Little Light Is So Religious" (Roscoe Village, Chicago, October 2011)
Holga 120n, Fuji Pro 400H
This shot shows a much better exposure, resulting from the more direct light on the steeple and the bright sky. |
No comments:
Post a Comment