View Full Version : Have you tried the new Kodak Portra Films?
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
visiondr
02-11-2007, 08:14
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
BrianShaw
02-11-2007, 08:20
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.
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?
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/5696/62204100jy2.jpg
About the subject... It's for the portfolio of a fashion student who had to remake a historical costume.
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
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!
Nachkebia
02-11-2007, 11:48
Excellent portrait jonasv! exellent colors and tones as well!
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
02-11-2007, 14:05
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.
erikhaugsby
02-11-2007, 14:30
I love the rendering of the 160NC, and the 400NC/VC isn't that bad either (the picture is from the 400NC, I haven't scanned the 160 yet...)
I really like Portra NC too. This one was taken with 160NC.
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
http://i5.pbase.com/o6/01/313701/1/73237363.fWlCInxq.TNMetMallRaveEnterenceStairs1.jp g
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
sepiareverb
02-11-2007, 16:17
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.
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.
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
02-11-2007, 16:29
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?
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?
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
02-11-2007, 16:53
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
02-11-2007, 16:59
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
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
Joe: Thanks. I thought that maybe that section was meant for B&W film developing only. You have enlightened me. :-)
Raid
Freneticist
02-11-2007, 17:43
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.
What about different skin colors and tones? Would the VC create unpleasant skin tones with darker skin tones?
Raid
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?
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.
rogue_designer
02-11-2007, 20:42
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
02-11-2007, 20:53
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
02-12-2007, 07:54
Thanks rogue_designer and arbib, I have some for my Rolleiflex (TLR) that I haven't tried yet, so that was a great help.
the 400 VC and NC are both pretty grainy if underexposed - but perform very nicely. I meter both at 250.
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. :D
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.
Samples of Portra 400VC exposed at ASA 320. Mixed lighting: daylight, room lights & flash. Thanks for looking.
Excellent photos, can't wait to try my 400 out.
Samples of Portra 400VC exposed at ASA 320. Mixed lighting: daylight, room lights & flash. Thanks for looking.
Thank you! The client was pleased. That always feels good. Mrs. Wayne liked them too. She is my Ultimate Arbiter of taste and quality.
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
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.
Nachkebia
02-22-2007, 06:17
So is it out for sale or not? can I buy it from online stores?
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.
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.
New Kodak Portra 160VC exposed at ASA 100.
Thanks for looking. In my never ending quest to improve, all comments and critiques are welcome.
MadMan2k
03-11-2007, 16:26
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.
bkrystad
03-21-2007, 23:20
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.
......Is the latitude on a color negative film like 160NC wide enough to allow 1 or 2 stops overexposure?
Quite simply, yes.
MelanieC
03-21-2007, 23:41
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.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/422735715_c793c2c679.jpg?v=0
Here's an example. In case you were wondering, yes. There is a dog in this photo too.
IGMeanwell
03-21-2007, 23:54
I have a roll of the 160VC that I haven't had developed yet...
should get that done; its been over 2 months :(
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.
bkrystad
03-22-2007, 10:39
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.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.