IGMeanwell
Well-known
I have a roll of the 160VC that I haven't had developed yet...
should get that done; its been over 2 months
should get that done; its been over 2 months
40oz
...
in reviewing again shots on Portra 400NC, 400VC, and Kodak Gold 200, I much prefer the Gold films for my color negatives. NC was too "flat," which is probably intentional, the VC was fine, but the Gold 200 was simply better for all kinds of shots - informal portraits, landscape, and city scenes.
I'm sure the reason is the Portra films are designed for studio use and controlled lighting, and I have never shot under those conditions. I'm going to stick with Kodak Gold, but then, I'm not a studio professional.
I'm sure the reason is the Portra films are designed for studio use and controlled lighting, and I have never shot under those conditions. I'm going to stick with Kodak Gold, but then, I'm not a studio professional.
bkrystad
Established
portra 160NC exposure, part 2
portra 160NC exposure, part 2
Well, my wife's Epson all-in-one scanner did better than I thought, so here are some untouched scans of a couple 4x6 prints for what they're worth. Again, these were with a Retina IIa (coated lens and skylight filter), mid-day bright sun in February (low angle), f/5.6 at 1/250. Colors aren't a terrific match to the prints, but you can get the gist of the exposures.
portra 160NC exposure, part 2
Well, my wife's Epson all-in-one scanner did better than I thought, so here are some untouched scans of a couple 4x6 prints for what they're worth. Again, these were with a Retina IIa (coated lens and skylight filter), mid-day bright sun in February (low angle), f/5.6 at 1/250. Colors aren't a terrific match to the prints, but you can get the gist of the exposures.
