Difference between Fuji Pro 160S & Pro 160C

I am a big fan of Fuji Pro 160S, mainly for its natural colors and very fine

grain. I have never really tried Pro 160C though. Can anyone tell if the

difference between these two films is really noticeable or just very subtle

(in terms of contrast and saturation).

 

It's not that I dislike Pro 160S all of the sudden, it's just that I would

like to try a 'different taste' but only if it's really distinguishable from

160S. If not it would just be a waste of money.

 

Some advice from the field would be very much appreciated.

In my limited experience, the skin tones are much much nicer from the S. The C is more saturated and perhaps more contrasty. I shot two rolls of each on the same day and the difference in color was quite striking. However, they were sample rolls so maybe production rolls are different.

 

For me, S is the way to go if there are people in the images.

Ilkka is right on with his observation.

Surely you could buy a couple rolls of 160C and give it a try without incurring financial ruin...

Here's my experience:

 

I have tried both and have to agree with the previous poster who said that the Pro 160S is better for skin tones. I shoot all portraits, very rarely nature, so my experience comes from that perspective.

 

The 160C is definately more saturated, but the 160S is also very saturated too. Both have very wide exposure latitude: 3 stops or so. both scan well. both are very fine grained. i shoot only 160S now for portraits in both 135 and 120 and regularly enlarge to 12x18, 16x20 and 20x24 with very good results.

 

comparing that to other fuji films i use, i would have to say there is not much difference between 160S and Reala. Though I don't shoot much Reala anymore as 160S is my film of choice these days for color negative film.

 

comparing to transparency film: astia is definately less contrasty and saturated, but pleasing for studio work. it's a matter of taste. i just love astia and generally shoot it when i'm shooting 120.

 

what other films have you used?

Pro 160C does not scan well on my old HP S10. I strongly prefer

Reala, which also looks better in prints off my local Frontier.

Ctein's tests indicate Reala is higher contrast than 160S, which

I haven't tried yet.

160S is the more neutral of the two. 160C has higher contrast and color saturation when compared to 160S. I'll attach a couple of brochures with sample images that I think will help you out.

One more...

<I>astia is definately less contrasty and saturated</i><P>The difference between 160S and 160C is contrast only - period. We've been round and round with this before, but there is very little if any difference in terms of saturation between Kodak Portra NC and VC, Fuji S vs C, and UC 400 vs Ultra 100. When you increase contrast with print film you gain a *subjective* increase in saturation because subtle tones get ignored, and the marketing depts at Fuji and Kodak take advantage of it.<P>Prior Fuji NPC had rotten skin tones and was a illogical film in my opinion becaise if one desires stronger saturation and contrast, then shoot slide film. NPS, Pro 160S, Reala, etc., all have milky skin tones and wonderful lattitude. However, no print film, regardless of the fancy designation on the box, is not going to beat Astia when it comes to saturation because of the limited density range of print film.