raid
Dad Photographer
I don't know exactly where to post comments a new film since the section for film developing seems out of place. Anyways, I have just gotten back a roll of (free) Kodak Portra 400NC, and I am quite happy about its colors. The photos taken outdoors came back with vibrant colors, so I wonder how the VC versions would be like if the NC type film has such colors. I also took photos indoors (without flash) and the colors were not bad at all at artificial light at night. I believe that Kodak may have really produced a nice new color film with its Portra line.
Maybe some of you could share with us how you feel about the new Portra film line. I may have missed earlier threads on it.
Here are a few snapshots from that roll. I kept the images at their original sizes (around 600KB).
Raid
Link: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=694378
Maybe some of you could share with us how you feel about the new Portra film line. I may have missed earlier threads on it.
Here are a few snapshots from that roll. I kept the images at their original sizes (around 600KB).
Raid
Link: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=694378
Attachments
Last edited:
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Raid,
Portra are the only colour films I shoot. I've always been happy with the very natural and not hypersaturated colours (read Fuji Velvia). Now that they're using t-grain technology, as Kodak says, they're supposed to scan better.
Here's a sample shot with 160 NC on a recent trip to Florence.
Ron
Portra are the only colour films I shoot. I've always been happy with the very natural and not hypersaturated colours (read Fuji Velvia). Now that they're using t-grain technology, as Kodak says, they're supposed to scan better.
Here's a sample shot with 160 NC on a recent trip to Florence.
Ron
Attachments
about a month ago there was a detailed thread evaluating the new Portra on APUG. Interesting side-by-side comparison shots were according to my feeble recollection.
jonasv
has no mustache
I used the new VC for some portraits recently (I suppose one should use NC for portraiture, but honestly I don't know anything about color photography and only shot one roll because I had to for this assignment). I like how the colors came out (despite my dislike of color photography). I have to say the colors don't look very vivid at all... Rather muted, almost slightly desaturated?
About the subject... It's for the portfolio of a fashion student who had to remake a historical costume.
About the subject... It's for the portfolio of a fashion student who had to remake a historical costume.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
Jonas:I agree with you regarding the muted colors (with your great portrait) I, on the other hand, got vibrant colors with the NC. Maybe I am wrong here, but the blue color is very vivid in my shots.
Raid
Raid
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Jonas: I think the colour rendition in that shot (which is very nice, BTW) has more to do with the subject and lighting.
Ron: The Florence shot is luscious!
Ron: The Florence shot is luscious!
Nachkebia
Well-known
Excellent portrait jonasv! exellent colors and tones as well!
venchka
Mentor
Portra 400VC
Portra 400VC
I'm in the process of editing a before & after home remodel gig. I did the before with Fuji Reala and the after with Kodak Portra 400VC. Dumb, I know. I should have used Reala for the after part as well. Anyway, my very early reaction to the Portra 400VC: GRAIN! Yuck! I know one roll and a few examples are too early to make a valid conclusion. However, I'm probably headed back to Kodak Ultra 400UC for that speed color negative film. The absence of grain and the great price at Wal-Mart are reasons enough to use it.
Portra 400VC
I'm in the process of editing a before & after home remodel gig. I did the before with Fuji Reala and the after with Kodak Portra 400VC. Dumb, I know. I should have used Reala for the after part as well. Anyway, my very early reaction to the Portra 400VC: GRAIN! Yuck! I know one roll and a few examples are too early to make a valid conclusion. However, I'm probably headed back to Kodak Ultra 400UC for that speed color negative film. The absence of grain and the great price at Wal-Mart are reasons enough to use it.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
the 400 VC and NC are both pretty grainy if underexposed - but perform very nicely. I meter both at 250.
All things being equal, the VC does, overall, seem more saturated to me (as it should be). But it's a small difference. And I am frequently suprised at how much pop the NC gives. If I really need desaturation, I shoot one of the fuji films.
Jonas - that's a fantastic portrait.
All things being equal, the VC does, overall, seem more saturated to me (as it should be). But it's a small difference. And I am frequently suprised at how much pop the NC gives. If I really need desaturation, I shoot one of the fuji films.
Jonas - that's a fantastic portrait.
Last edited:
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Bingley
Mentor
arbib
Well-known
I have used Porta 160nc and the fine grain in the scans is nice indeed. I have a local shop scan at 2400x3600 at 600dpi (their set up). anyway, I get a large file (5mb-9mb) and this film scans nicely (read low scan noise)
Portra 160nc
Have not tried the 400nc. I have a roll of Fuji Superia 400 XTra I am tying next. This film is supposed to be made for scanning....We'll see.
I shoot the 160 Portra at 160. And was fine. But the 400 I shoot at 320 as my habit is with 400 CNF's
Portra 160nc
Have not tried the 400nc. I have a roll of Fuji Superia 400 XTra I am tying next. This film is supposed to be made for scanning....We'll see.
I shoot the 160 Portra at 160. And was fine. But the 400 I shoot at 320 as my habit is with 400 CNF's
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
The Portra 400 is next for testing for me- I got a bunch of the Superia 400 Xtra and it is just too flat for what I shoot- Arbib, if you really like it let me know I probably have about 10-15 rolls I'd let go cheap. I'm a fan of the Agfa Ultra 100, the 50 before that, but I'm often in need of a 400 speed film too. I shoot FP4 & HP5 in B&W side by side and like them a lot, wishing I could find something I like in a 400 color too.
arbib
Well-known
sepiareverb said:
sepiareverb
Flatness does not bother me, I can always add contrast in editing. or use Curves instead (my perfered method). PM me with offer.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
What is that building Arbib? that's right up my alley. I'll pm you tomorrow when I see how much is left in the fridge ok?
arbib
Well-known
sepiareverb said:
That is the new "RAVE" movie theater. it has 25 viewing rooms. they all are teared seating, so you are never blocked by a head in front of you. each theater seats about 200 people.
BTW, that was taken with a CV 25. I was about 4 feet away from that front wall and railing. FWIW, there are the address numbers above the center set of doors that can be easily read in PS at 100% without a lot of edge softness !! A sharp lens indeed.
charjohncarter
Mentor
rogue_designer, do you have a rated ISO or speed for 160nc-vc? I really don't like those grainy scans you get in underexposed images. Your numbers suggest 37% reduction in rated speed. Do you think this is correct?
back alley
IMAGES
raid said:
i moved it for you raid.
it's film / dev / scanning
so anything that fits into that process would go here, thus film>dev>scanning which i assume is the process you used to get the pics on to the forum thread.
joe
raid
Dad Photographer
Joe: Thanks. I thought that maybe that section was meant for B&W film developing only. You have enlightened me. 
Raid
Raid
Freneticist
Member
The Portra VC works well doing portrait work. It gives skin-tones a little more color, so that they don't come out "flat" looking. Shooting indoors, tungsten light, with 400, shot at 400, I added an 80C filter, shot it at 1/60 f2.8. Helps hide skin blemishes, wrinkles, and as stated, helps with the "gold" color without the added reflectors. If you shoot it indoors, try a roll for testing before you actually use it for a keeper. I trashed two rolls before I found something that would work for the setting I was in. But, yes, it does give a "softer" look than the NC. Also a lot softer than the comparable Fuji.