Im Amazed. M7 and Portra 160VC

[SteveRD1]

1st time using this film. A bit pricey but so worth it over any other color negative film I have tried. Some samples from today on a walk with my son - M7, 50 cron, 15VC and portra 160VC

[SteveRD1]

more. Love the colors of this film!

[Chaser]

Good shots....looks like a great combo...

[SteveRD1]

A few more from today. Last ones

[aizan]

try the nc versions, too. mmm...kodak.

[SteveRD1]

Just ordered 5 rolls of NC and 5 of VC from BH. My new fave film. So much better than HD, gold or Reala (imo)

[Dougg]

Really nice results, Steve! I like Kodak's pro films too...

[ywenz]

Nice, but I've always preferred the look of Fuji NPH to my Portra 160...

[Trius]

Last Fall I was pleased with Reala 100 for foliage. This year I think I'll load up both Reala and Portra NC and compare. The Reala scanned really well (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=21076&cat=5481).

[kshapero]

A few more from today. Last ones
great. Colors are true. Where do you develop? By who?

[kshapero]

By the way, what is the difference between Porta NC and Porta VC?

[Pherdinand]

160VC is indeed worth its weight in gold. (I'm exaggerating, of course. ALthough i see not much use for gold in photography.)
I used five rolls in 6x6 and the colours are gorgeous, and the level of details!
Good shots, Steve.
I like the strap on the little fellow's camera.

[Pherdinand]

By the way, what is the difference between Porta NC and Porta VC?

nc = neutral colour.
vc=vivid colour.
Supposedly more saturated.
Never tryed nc though. VC is NOT oversaturated, so i wonder how NC is.

ywenz, the nph is i think a bit of a different category. I notice the speed difference. Grain in 35mm becomes visible when I enlarge a bit. And the Kodak stuff seems to be a bit warmer. But i like the NPH's colours too.
VC160 is more like fuji's NPC160, in my oppinion.

[kshapero]

Anyone have experience with both Porta 160 VC and Reala 100? I use Reala which develops beautifully although sometimes the colors are just a little too bright on skin tone.

[Pherdinand]

reala100 is my favourite all-around 35mm film, BUT, on a sunny day outdoors its colours are a bit too aggressive, indeed for people it is not the best choice, unless the image requires higher contrast, bright colours.
Of course, you can solve this "problem" in PS if needed.

[kshapero]

I live in very sunny Florida. Would a Kodak Porta be a better choice to keep the sun from "attacking" my colors. If so which one, NC or VC?

[pvenables]

Has anyone had any experience of putting either the Kodak or Fuji 160 film through a Nikon Coolscan ??. I get good results from slides so hardly use any colour neg film at all, but I'd be interested to try some if folks say that it works well...

Paul

[Nachkebia]

pvenables : I personaly can not get good quality scans from negative (cooslcan 5000)

[jkelly]

Attached is an example of a shot taken with Porta NC 400 ASA. Alas, it was taken with an uncoated Summar/IIIa combination. In addition it was an overcast winter day, and the grass was kinda dead. I like the color saturation okay, but I keep going back to Fuji Superia, because I don't see enough of a difference to justify the higher price of the Kodak film.

[SteveRD1]

I have shot about 6 rolls of reala and on my Nikon Coolscan V the negatives scan HORRIBLY. Color casts and overall muddy look. I never liked Reala though I tried after so many glowing recommendations. I find with the Nikon scanner, all Kodak films scan much better than Fuji Reala.

These were processed negative only at my local 1 hour lab (CVS) and I brought them home and scanned them on the coolscan V. Resized in PS and uploaded here.

I also scanned my sons though he was using an OM1 and Kodak Gold. Those are not nearly as nice color/grain wise and he was using 100 speed where the portra is 160.

Thanks for the comments! I found my new main film in portra 160VC.

[dadsm3]

What great news, I love this film. Now I know why I was able to pick up 5 rolls of unexpired VC160 for $20......he's clearing stock for the new version.
These are both taken with VC160......

[leif e]

Has anyone had any experience of putting either the Kodak or Fuji 160 film through a Nikon Coolscan ??. I get good results from slides so hardly use any colour neg film at all, but I'd be interested to try some if folks say that it works well...

Paul
I have indeed put my portra negs through a Coolscan (LS 4000) and love the results. I have only shot NC so far, 160 and 400, and especially skintones and blues come out wonderfully, I think. I spent much of this summer in the Norwegian mountains, above tree level, with both Reala and Portra NC. No doubt about it, the Kodak baby wins. It suits the very special range of colours of the brief mountain summer very nicely. The Reala is a bit to keen - except maybe in a more dull, cloudy or afternoon/early evening light. I´ll post a few later on - they´re on the office mac.

leif e

[adayoncedawned]

I think Reala is notoriously a challenge to scan. I've heard this same thing from friends, and I found the same thing when I tried to scan it for the first time. Then again, scanning Reala was also my first attempt at scanning colour at all so I really don't have any experience for comparison.

Where Reala shines is in a print, imo. And not to take anything away from the Kodak films, but I love Reala and thought I'd share a few examples. I'll concur that I could do with even less saturation for the sunny day stuff, but the fact that it's so much cheaper than any of the pro films has prevented me from trying them. When I buy the pricey films, they tend to be of the 400/800 variety. ProZ, btw, is probably the coolest development in film technology ever as far as I'm concerned. And I shoot primarily black and white.

Anyway. Some Reala.

[SteveRD1]

If I could get scans that look like that from my Reala I would be happy. Every scan has a horrible color cast and looks grainy when I scan Reala. Your scans and pics look great.

[jmi]

I've had very nice results from Reala just getting the lab to scan it (no scanner good enough for 35mm), but no idea how they make it work so well... they are using a Noritsu (or some name like that). However this is probably of no use to you given the extortionate amounts a lot of labs charge for scanning.

Must try 160VC now! The superb results Andrew Nemeth has on his Sydney Unposed (http://www.4020.net/unposed/blad.shtml) site using the MF version are also encouraging.

[SteveRD1]

I saw this guys shots on flickr and many of the awesome noctilux shots were using portra VC160.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tommyoshima/59811002/in/pool-noctilux/

[jmi]

Wow! Very nice.

I've not scanned colour neg before - can you share any hints? I have a whole pile of Reala to play with for the moment so I'm also curious as to how to get good results from that, it could save 2 pounds/roll....

[Nachkebia]

adayoncedawned : wow, amazing, how did you print those?

[adayoncedawned]

adayoncedawned : wow, amazing, how did you print those?

Thus far I've only had the opportunity for printing black and white personally so when I shoot colour I have proofs printed at a professional lab. 1hr photo labs give me severe nausea. :(

[NelsonFoto]

Portra is nice, but Reala smokes it in my book.

http://nelsonfoto.com/mein/wnw/reala/FH000020a.jpg

http://nelsonfoto.com/mein/wnw/reala/FH000023.jpg

http://nelsonfoto.com/mein/wnw/reala/FH000026.jpg

http://nelsonfoto.com/mein/wnw/reala/FH040018.jpg

[NelsonFoto]

More Reala:

[Andrew Sowerby]

Hither, that first pic made me chuckle -- well done.

[Nuno]

1st pic: Reala / Nikon F301 + Nikkor 50-300 ED
2nd pic: Porta 160NC(expired for 3 months) / Contax G1 + Biogon 28

[haagen_dazs]

Has anyone had any experience of putting either the Kodak or Fuji 160 film through a Nikon Coolscan ??. I get good results from slides so hardly use any colour neg film at all, but I'd be interested to try some if folks say that it works well...

Paul


I notice that when i scan the 160NC on my coolscan V,
the colours are generally more cool (blueish)

anyhow faced similar situations?

[sepiareverb]

...I found my new main film in portra 160VC.


Have you tried Agfa Ultra 100? Talk about color! This is my favorite- poppy colors like greens in the Velvia of old- but all the colors jump like that. Still some around on ebay- it all comes from China now, but it is the same stuff- I've bought from several folks and tested each batch as it comes in.

[nikola]

I would love to shoot color, but there's no decent lab in croatia to do it... :(

[Avotius]

hm....looks interesting, I have been looking for this film here but cant seem to find it in china :( will keep looking but it looks good

[mfogiel]

If you look at full size enlargements, I can hardly see one picture where the model's eye(s) are in focus... I think ther're overdone.

For scanning the colour negatives, you either shoot a grey card at the beginning of each roll, like with digital, or you use a profiled software, or you can try Vuescan - the reala and portra profiles are already in.

[tajart]

the new portra films are rumored to be formulated to be more scanner friendly.

steve, did you use fill flash in this one: bluxbs.jpg?

[Nachkebia]

New portra is not a film, it is mythical element, when in the hell they will be selling them? :)

[shadowfox]

This is Portra NC the 120 version. Shot on a Bronica ETR-C with 75mm standard lens.

Since my Nikon Coolscan can't do 120 negatives, it's scanned on a pretty crappy Epson at work :(

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/338499595_287bb1c798.jpg

[35mmdelux]

the Reala is great but only come in 100asa. 160 NC and 400NC really does skin tones justice. I use it for everything, preferring a subdued color pallet. My other like is kodachrome, but its a lot harder to scan.

[Olsen]

For the record; the Portra 160 VC (vivid colour) has a somewhat higher colour saturation intended for existing/natural light. While the NC version is supposed to give you 'natural colours' with studio flash, - for portraits etc. This is what a Kodak rep told me at a photo fair here in Oslo. That's why the NC version gives such dull colours when used outdoors in, say, light from an overcast sky.

The Portra 160 VC is simply the best negative colour film available. I have used it extensively with my Zeiss Ikon, Leica MP, Hasselblad 203FE and 905SWC. It is the only film I use nowadays. It is fairly easy to scan, - for an amateur like myself.

[TJV]

hm....looks interesting, I have been looking for this film here but cant seem to find it in china :( will keep looking but it looks good

There's about 40 rolls left at www.photo.co.nz, maybe more. It's on sale too.

(Edit) you'll have to email them though, it's not listed.

[TJV]

pvenables : I personaly can not get good quality scans from negative (cooslcan 5000)

I'm using a Canon FS4000US and find scanning negs rather promlematic also. Vuescan is supposedly very good as it has better presents etc for neg film. I think the best way to deal with scanning neg film is scan with multiple passes in 16bit to make sure you capture all the highlight detail. I find the scanning process can emphasize the grain also, which is another good reason for multiple pass scans.

Tim

[ZdenekP]

1st time using this film. A bit pricey but so worth it over any other color negative film I have tried. ...


If you like Portra 160VC you will like Fujicolor Pro 160C too. I tried this film a few days ago with nice results.

[sam_m]

on nc/vc, i think it's actually a difference in contrast, with vc having boosted contrast, giving the perception of more saturated colours. uc, on the other hand, has both boosted contrast <i>and</i> saturation.