What EI for Kodak 400UC

I susually shooot NPH at EI 320. I am thinking about trying Kodak

400UC. Yes, I will experiment for myself, but I wanted to know if

others regularly use Kodak 400UC at some other EI than 400 and under

what conditions. I will be shooting outdoor events, like battle

reenactments, with wide and long lenses during non-ideal lighting

conditions.

I've found that all the Portra films can be shot at box speed as long as your shutter is not running fast, as these films have little or no tolerance for underexposure without getting grainy and green.

Jay,

Thanks for the response and the insight. Btw, is Potra 400UC the same film as Ultra Color 400UC? Is it just rebranded?

Thanks,

John

I have not yet purchased UltraColor 400, but yesterday on rec.photo.equipment.35mm, bob.kirkpatrick@heapg.com wrote:

"Portra 400UC is gone. Professional Ultra Color 400 is supposed to

replace it but it's even more contrasty with worse shadow detail

than Portra 400VC."

(My tests indicated 400VC had a stop less shadow speed than 400UC.)

I'm one of those who shoots new NPH @ 320 and shot 400UC as rated.

Hi John,

 

I haven't tried the replacement yet (Ultra Color 400), but I've regularly shot Portra 400UC at 320, since (as Jay said) shadow noise quickly becomes an issue with underexposure.

Bill, when can we expect a report of your Ultra Color 400 test so we can finally put to rest the interminable issue of whether it's the same as Portra 400UC?

Guess I'll buy UC400 locally and report back on a different thread.

Forgot to order it from NYC last week. My #2 wish (after whirled peas)

is that Ed Hamrick would do a Vuescan profile for new NPH.

Bill, FWIW, I just received back some prints from (new) UC400, one set printed with a Noritsu and one with a Frontier, both sets on Crystal Archive paper. UC400 doesn't appear high contrast to me. The Noritsu skin tones were ruddy and the colors less vibrant. The Frontier prints (same negatives) had richer color and decent skin tones. Neither set, IMO, is as good as my last few rolls of NPH (Frontier only), but I still like the UC400 well enough. Good thing -- I couldn't find it around here, so I purchased ten rolls from Adorama.

I use Portra 400UC for social events photography (indoor with flash). I always overexpose it 1/3 (or rate it at 320). I take it to a KODAK photo lab and I ask for Matte Royal Gold Paper.

Results: Excellent skin tones + brilliant colors.

The Ultra Color 400 is the exact same film as 400UC. No changes in film at all. The same film stock that was being used to splice/spool 400UC cannisters is going into your '400 Ultra Color' cans. From the same coating facility, same emulsion formulation, same base, same guys making it (new edge ID info though). The packaging has been updated and rebranded to follow the new line of films released at PMA 2004, to keep the current management stucture in place at Kodak after thier announcement earlier in the year. Investor groups didn't like hearing that Kodak was giving up on new films.

 

The Ultra color 400 was released when the packaging/cans for 400UC were exhausted. The Ultra Color 400 cat. no. was only available for order until just recently, at the same prices. Don't be fooled.

 

Thought this might be helpful.

 

-Dave

Some stores here dont have 400UC here yet. They are waiting to sell off the old Portra versions first. I'll try and pick up a roll from someone and print it on both our printers- one analog and one digital Noritsu's. That should put to rest what's going on for me. I havent tried printing that film on the digital machine yet, as we get the machine next month. Someone told me analog prints have more saturated colors then digital- at least on Noritsu equipment and Kodak paper. I'm waiting to test that out. As an aside- I liked Agfa's Ultra 100. Its better then Kodaks UC100.

<<bob.kirkpatrick@heapg.com wrote: "Portra 400UC is gone. Professional Ultra Color 400 is supposed to replace it but it's even more contrasty with worse shadow detail than Portra 400VC." (My tests indicated 400VC had a stop less shadow speed than 400UC.)>>

 

I'm skeptical about anything said by someone who thinks Portra 400VC was overly contrasty or has bad shadow detail. I've been shooting 160VC and 400VC exclusively as my C41 color films since they were introduced, and one of the things I like best about them is the broad tonal range. A lot depends on who's doing the printing. My local pro lab has a Portra channel because up until about last year when the last of the local pros went digital, Portra was the overwhelming choice. A few of the cranky oldtimers were still sticking to NPH but the younger and more sucessful ones switched to Portra.

Scott, I agree that Agfa Ultra 100 is a wonderfully useful film,

and better does what (I think) Kodak was trying to achieve in UC100.

UC100 has warmer skin tones, but with such high contrast, you'd be

a fool to use it instead of 160NC for portraiture.

 

Jay, I stand by my remark that 400VC has about one stop less shadow

speed than 400UC. I tested both on the same scene from EI 6 to 6400.

The Agfa machine print from 400VC at EI 3200 was unacceptable, while

the 400UC print was fairly good. My HP S10 scans show comparatively

little shadow detail in 400VC even when box rated. In his Mar/Apr 2001 Photo Techniques review of high-speed films, Ctein asserted that

400VC's "highlight rendition is realistic and shadow rendition is

overly contrasty."