raid
Dad Photographer
What about different skin colors and tones? Would the VC create unpleasant skin tones with darker skin tones?
Raid
Raid
Last edited:
arbib
Well-known
charjohncarter said:
I used the 160nc at rated ISO, I have no problem with noise with 160nc. (from Film Grain or Scan Noise) I get good Highights with detail. Although I have found with 400 films an increase of a 1/3 stop (ISO 320) works better to preserve highlight detail. Some go 2/3rds (ISO 250). Make sure the bulk of the meter is covering a fair amount of highlight and midtones., Let the shadow fall where it may.
Last edited:
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
charjohncarter - I, like arbib, shoot the 160 at box speed. But, in the interests of full disclosure, I really only use the 160 in 120 and 4x5, and as a rule am either in studio lighting or at the very least, spot metering - so I don't feel like I have to leave as much room for error as I do with the 400 speed films out in the field with the 35mm's
MadMan2k
Well-known
I shot a few rolls of the 400VC, but I was not pleased at all with the results. Then again, I didn't have them processed (or scanned) by a pro lab, so I couldn't expect much. C41 films haven't been treating me very well. I just got the 4-pack of free film from Kodak so I'm going to give the other three a shot and save the 400VC for wasting film when I'm bored.
charjohncarter
Mentor
Thanks rogue_designer and arbib, I have some for my Rolleiflex (TLR) that I haven't tried yet, so that was a great help.
venchka
Mentor
Guilty, Your Honor
Guilty, Your Honor
I admit the first picture I saw taken with Porta 400VC was in fact underexposed. I shot the roll at 320, 250 or even 200 might have worked better. After looking at the whole roll, Fuji Reala works best for me if conditions will allow. If I need 400 (a.k.a. 400-320-250-200) color negative film I'm sticking to Kodak Ultra 400UC from Wal-Mart. 24/7 availability. 108 exposures for $12. My Scotch genes appreciate that.
Guilty, Your Honor
rogue_designer said:
I admit the first picture I saw taken with Porta 400VC was in fact underexposed. I shot the roll at 320, 250 or even 200 might have worked better. After looking at the whole roll, Fuji Reala works best for me if conditions will allow. If I need 400 (a.k.a. 400-320-250-200) color negative film I'm sticking to Kodak Ultra 400UC from Wal-Mart. 24/7 availability. 108 exposures for $12. My Scotch genes appreciate that.
ampguy
Mentor
The Portra 160 VC is less contrasty and saturated than I thought it would be. I posted a few examples on my blog, though taken with a Nikon F3 with 50/2 lens.
venchka
Mentor
ampguy
Mentor
wow!
wow!
Excellent photos, can't wait to try my 400 out.
wow!
Excellent photos, can't wait to try my 400 out.
venchka said:
venchka
Mentor
Thank you! The client was pleased. That always feels good. Mrs. Wayne liked them too. She is my Ultimate Arbiter of taste and quality.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Wayne: Holy crap! I cannot wait to give my free Portra rolls a real workout. (I did use one but had to use flash... ugh), so the remaining rolls (I got more than four!) await some serious, controlled work.
Cheers to you and Ms. Wayne. She is a woman of taste even if she did marry you.
Earl
Cheers to you and Ms. Wayne. She is a woman of taste even if she did marry you.
Earl
venchka
Mentor
Thanks again. I'll pass that along.
BTW, these were taken with one of those other types of 35mm cameras. I think I should take the ultra wide out more often. If I did this type of photography frequently I would be looking for a really wide lens for Bigfoot.
BTW, these were taken with one of those other types of 35mm cameras. I think I should take the ultra wide out more often. If I did this type of photography frequently I would be looking for a really wide lens for Bigfoot.
Nachkebia
Well-known
So is it out for sale or not? can I buy it from online stores?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
It's for sale, but I don't know about online options. I would think the usual suspects (B&H, etc.) from the US, but for your part of the world, I'm not sure. Just be sure to specify the new emulsion, as there's probably enough older film in stock with some dealers.
Olsen
Well-known
I shoot only 160VC in both 120 and 135 film. NC is too dull for me. I have heard that NC is intended for studio portraits with flash. Which explains why it looks totally dull used on landscapes.
I have dropped faster film alltogether, even in 120 film. This because my 1Ds II gives so much higher quality (lower grain/noice, that is) at higher ISO.
I have dropped faster film alltogether, even in 120 film. This because my 1Ds II gives so much higher quality (lower grain/noice, that is) at higher ISO.
venchka
Mentor
MadMan2k
Well-known
The prints from the roll of 160NC that I got back from A&I completely changed my mind about c41 film. Great tones, the level of saturation is perfect for overcast days, no grain that I can see, very nice looking film.
I also found that there's nothing like shooting in a slight drizzle for macro-ish work
Should have them scanned soon, although they were taken with an SLR so I don't know if I'll post them here.
I also found that there's nothing like shooting in a slight drizzle for macro-ish work
Should have them scanned soon, although they were taken with an SLR so I don't know if I'll post them here.
bkrystad
Established
figuring out latitude of portra 160NC
figuring out latitude of portra 160NC
I'm new to color negative film, so apologies for the naive post. I loaded a roll of 160NC in my Retina IIa and took it to the new sculpture park in Seattle on a very sunny (and very crowded) February day, around mid-day. I used my digital camera to get an average meter reading on the scene, and it said f/5.6 at 1/250 would work.
Now, I don't know if I had the ASA set wrong on the digicam, but having worked more with the "sunny16" approach with my B&W film since then, this now strikes me as the wrong exposure in that situation. At 2/3 stop underexposed on speed but at least 2 stops overexposed on aperture, if not more, I would have expected the photos to be clearly overexposed.
But when I finally got the developed roll (from A&I), they weren't. They were pretty good. Good (if "flat") blue in the sky, good skin tones (not washed out), overall adequate exposure to my inexperienced eye.
Is the latitude on a color negative film like 160NC wide enough to allow 1 or 2 stops overexposure? Or am I misunderstanding the sunny16 guideline? Or did A&I make up for my exposure error?
I don't have access to a scanner right now, can't post a sample. But any observations from others about latitude of this or other color negative film appreciated.
figuring out latitude of portra 160NC
I'm new to color negative film, so apologies for the naive post. I loaded a roll of 160NC in my Retina IIa and took it to the new sculpture park in Seattle on a very sunny (and very crowded) February day, around mid-day. I used my digital camera to get an average meter reading on the scene, and it said f/5.6 at 1/250 would work.
Now, I don't know if I had the ASA set wrong on the digicam, but having worked more with the "sunny16" approach with my B&W film since then, this now strikes me as the wrong exposure in that situation. At 2/3 stop underexposed on speed but at least 2 stops overexposed on aperture, if not more, I would have expected the photos to be clearly overexposed.
But when I finally got the developed roll (from A&I), they weren't. They were pretty good. Good (if "flat") blue in the sky, good skin tones (not washed out), overall adequate exposure to my inexperienced eye.
Is the latitude on a color negative film like 160NC wide enough to allow 1 or 2 stops overexposure? Or am I misunderstanding the sunny16 guideline? Or did A&I make up for my exposure error?
I don't have access to a scanner right now, can't post a sample. But any observations from others about latitude of this or other color negative film appreciated.
R
rich815
Guest
bkrystad said:
Quite simply, yes.
MelanieC
Well-known
I used my first roll of Portra (400VC) in a Holga, and everything came out OK (granted, it was pretty bright out) so I'm guessing the new Portra films are pretty forgiving when it comes to exposure. Either that, or I'm not very discriminating.
Here's an example. In case you were wondering, yes. There is a dog in this photo too.
Here's an example. In case you were wondering, yes. There is a dog in this photo too.