Kodak - Royal Gold vs. Portra for my Epic?

Hello,

 

I'm still trying other films in my Olympus Stylus Epic, while

sticking with Fuji Superia X-TRA 400 when I don't feel like

experimenting. Anyway, my latest candidate is Kodak Royal Gold 400.

The person at my store also suggested Kodak's Portra, saying that it

was a "punchy" and good all-around film, despite the fact that it is

formulated for portrait photography. Has anyone had any experience

with either of these two offerings in the world of p&s?

 

Thanks,

 

Raymond

Portra is used in my point and shoot 90% of the time. Portra has a really nice color pallet. I can't stand Kodak Royal Gold. Fuji Supera X-TRA is good for tricky color situations (indoor), but doesn't have the punch portia has (which can be a blessing or a curse).

<p>Royal Gold 400 has been renamed "Kodak High Definition 400." It's a very good film (look <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Ge9">here</a> for more information). Fuji is supposedly coming out with a new version of Superia 400 later this year, so any testing you do with the current version is likely to become obsolete.

 

<p>"Portra" is actually an entire line of films in ISO 160, 400, and 800 versions. As the name implies, the films were originally controlled-contrast films optimized for skin tones and intended for portrait and wedding photography. The person at the store may be referring to "Portra 400UC," which, by many accounts, is the best general-purpose color negative film in the world, ideal for both scenery and people. With their usual genius, Kodak's marketeers seem to have now settled on <i>Portra</i> as the name for all their "professional" color negative films, thereby muddying a clear and clever brand name and confusing all those photographers who shoot subjects other than people.

 

<p>Ask the clerk what the price is for Portra 400UC. The answer may well influence your choice.

 

<p>Another film to try is Fuji Superia 800. It has amazingly fine grain and very good color. Some people say it's actually better than the Superia 400.

Hi Ted,

 

I just love the way Kodak keeps shooting themselves in the foot. All I know is that the staff at the film desk said that they sell Royal Gold and Portra for the SAME price. Now I guess I'll have to check if it's the real Portra (UC), or not. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

Raymond

Portra UC is not that much more expensive if you get a brick of it from B&H. It is pretty much all that goes into my cameras now ever since I discovered it.

 

I have some odd films that I use - Ultra 50 and 100 but they are not for everything.

 

Conni

I'm not crazy about Royal Gold. Portra 400UC is OUTSTANDING, if a bit pricey. Kodak HD 400 looks promising but I've only shot one roll so far. The day was heavily overcast so colors were not snappy, but overall it seems to be a nice film (and supposedly has some of the same emulsion qualities as 400UC.)<div></div>

Yes Raymond, Portra 160 NC has realistic colors and has tight grain. I am not as impressed with the grain of Portra higher speed films. I found Punchy did *not* mean over-saturated colors (this is good.)

 

For my Epic Stylus, my compromise (still searching) will be a 400 or 800 speed film, costing about $5.60 per roll with unsaturated, normal looking colors and tight grain.

 

Kodak High Definition 400 performed well in my Stylus-- no color shift under overcast sky, sharp, but colors are a tad saturated for my taste, especially yellow. And the sticker shock-- $7.59 per roll.

 

Let me compliment John McCormack on the dog photo. Crisp, sharp. My goal is to make photos exactly like this one. Crisp and sharp photos look 'wet' to me. I love 'em.

<i>Kodak High Definition 400 performed well in my Stylus-- no color shift under overcast sky, sharp, but colors are a tad saturated for my taste, especially yellow. And the sticker shock-- $7.59 per roll.</i>

 

<p>Another compliment to Kodak's brilliant marketeers. HD 400 is available in 3-packs of 24 exposures for about $10 (sometimes less), which is $3.33 per roll. It's also available as single 24-exposure rolls at a much higher price, although I've never seen it quite as high as $7.59. But no 36-exposure rolls in any form. Having neither an MBA nor a pin-striped suit, I am incapable of comprehending the rationale for this pricing strategy.

>Kodak High Definition 400 performed well in my Stylus-- no color >shift under overcast sky, sharp, but colors are a tad saturated for >my taste, especially yellow.

 

Yes, HD400 appears a bit more saturated than 400UC, which still holds the ISO 400 title for best color print film, IMO.

 

 

>And the sticker shock-- $7.59 per roll.

>Another compliment to Kodak's brilliant marketeers. HD 400 is >available in 3-packs of 24 exposures for about $10 (sometimes less), >which is $3.33 per roll.

 

Check your local K-Mart for 5 roll packs of HD400 (24 exp.). I was there the other day when the clerk was pulling the 5 roll packs out for display but he didn't know the price at the time. Price should be about $3.00 a roll I think.

 

BTW, the dog shot looks wet and crisp because the dog is fiberglass art. Gotta say the T3 makes most of my (normally mediocre) pix look good.

There is more than one flavour of Portra. Portra NC is 'normal contrast' - good for skin tones, with slightly lower contrast than most print films (personally I think this is a benefit). Portra UC is more jazzy and punchy. Both are classed as professional films, and the price will reflect that.

<br><br>

Royal Supra (aka Royal Gold) is a good film, and cheaper than Portra. You can see an example <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/650491">here</a>, taken with my Stylus Epic.

<br><br>

I particularly like Porta NC for portraits and general scenes, but I will never expect everyone to agree. Your choice will be down to two things: your personal tastes and the quality of the d&p service you use. Don't be brow-beaten by some know it all who insists X brand is best. IMHO printing has a greater effect on the final results than any other part of the chain.