1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

800 vs. 400

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by Col. Hogan, Jun 30, 2001.

  1. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    I recently took some shots on both 800 [120 size using Mamiya 7II & 150 mm lens] and 400 [35 mm using Canon A-1 with 50 mm lens] speed print film. The prints from the 800 were brighter than those of the 400. I can see this in both the negatives and the prints. I know there's a lot that this could be attributed to, but is chemistry one of them? The numbers on the 35 mm negatives were a bluish color and I was told earlier that they should be darker. Could this be due to processing the 400 film at the wrong speed?

    I took all the shots on an overcast day all at the same time. Any thoughts?
  2. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    Without details of films etc it is difficult to say, Diane. The stated ISO (ASA)rating of a film is not always the 'true' speed - ie. that speed which if developed for the appropriate 'normal' time would give a negative with the best overall range of tones, and if exposed correctly. Without getting too much into Zone technique, the true speed of, say, Tri-X has been found (by many people) to be 160, with appropriate reduction in development time of about 30%. Velvia's true speed, at normal E6 development is often held to be 32. The same B&W film developed at 400 and 800 would require different development times. Both cameras you used employ centre-weighted metering and I have used both cameras extensively, and their metering is no problem - I can only surmise on the information you have given is that the 800 film you used in the Mamiya was given better (ie more appropriate) development than the 400 in the Canon, whatever films they were.
    <font color=red>#
  3. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    Sorry I forgot those details, what do you expect after midnight? Anyway, the film details: both are color negative, the 120 roll was Fuji NHGII 800 and the 35 mm roll was Fuji NPH 400. I believe that I had the Mamiya set for AEL on the dial and the A-1 for program.
  4. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Could it just be the superiority of 120 film over 35mm? You just cannot compare the two, 120 will win every time. Just a thought. ( a rare thing indeed in my empty head!)
  5. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    I don't think so, it's more a case of how dull the colors were on the 35 mm vs. the 120. I may not have even noticed, but one of the ladies' shirts was a bright pink.
  6. Clive

    Clive Well-Known Member

    So it looks like a definite processing fault. If the film numbers and Fuji name etc were not dark enough, perhaps the company's 35mm developer was exhausted, or faulty temperature or something. If so it's irretrievable - but the company should still attempt to compensate in the printing when you point out to them the deficit.
  7. Col. Hogan

    Col. Hogan Well-Known Member

    Actually, they gave me a free roll of 400 speed film. That's the second free roll in about a month. The other one was a roll of Kodak HIE [which I can't complain about as it costs about $9/roll.]

    I should have noticed it earlier with that shot, and this was the second time they re-printed it. The lady at the store thought that several other pics looked strange, so she sent the roll back to be re-printed [on them]. But this was the result.

Share This Page