Reala and Portra NC - Contrast and Saturation?

For those out there who have used both films, I would simply like to know which

has the least contrast and saturation. I am looking for low saturation and

contrast. I have used Reala before and like it (although it is a bit stronger

in colour and saturation than I would like) but have never used any of the

Portra films and dont want to buy a box of 5 if it is "stronger" than Reala.

If there is a film lower in saturation and contrast than these two I would

appreciate knowing about it.

 

Thanks

 

Steve

Steven, In my experience Portra NC is much lower in saturation. As for contrast they are about tied (low). Portra NC is my favourite for photos of my grandchildren. (3yrs & infant) Beautiful skin tones. Agfa Portrait 160 is lower in contrast than both of the above, I hear, but I've no personal experience with it. Best, LM.

Both Portra 160NC and 400NC have "natural" saturation. But 160 is lower contrast. I don't think that there's "tamer" film than Portra 160NC.

 

You can buy single rolls of Portra to test it out, it isn't only sold in the sleeves of 5.

Agfa Optima 160 is lower than the other 2 and you get increased "grain" as an added bonus. I still occasionally shoot it, but mostly prefer the Kodak Portra lineup.

I shoot both Reala and 160NC, and digitize both with a Coolscan 5000 with Nikonscan on default.

 

I haven't noticed significant differences in saturation. The palette is very different though. Reala has tended to be much cooler.

 

I haven't noticed significant differences in contrast either, when shot at rated speeds. Use 160NC at ISO 100 if you want to reduce contrast further.

portra has the least saturation by far... some use the complaint, "muted colors" some use the term "a muddy look" most like it because of the skin tones. i like it for head shots. its warm. anything brown in the photo, turns browner.

Using state of the art pro processing and scanning, Portra NC shows its true advantage: subtle but precise and sophisticated color.

 

It's just not an amateur film. It really does nothing spectacular on cheap minilab prints.

 

I just love it when someone buys a roll of Portra 160NC, drops it off in a minilab, and then says: gee, its such a crappy pale film, don't know why anyone would want to use it.

 

Try it with a drum scanner or high end CCD scanner, and a crew that knows its stuff, and see all the subtle bur rich colors you otherwise lose in crappy minilab or cheap home scanning.

"Try it with a drum scanner or high end CCD scanner, and a crew that knows its stuff, and see all the subtle bur rich colors you otherwise lose in crappy minilab or cheap home scanning."

 

Hey, I resemble that remark. "Cheap" home scanning can be perfectly high quality. Quality of the operator and post-processing is much more important.

Thanks everyone for the input. I didn't know about Agfa 160 but will look out for it. I think I'll try Portra NC and see what my scanner does with it.

 

Steve

Roger. Yes you can do miracles with some know-how, but you can't do anything to fake dynamic range, color fidelity, resolution, noise etc. of the CCD in your scanner.

 

Nobody said you can't get good scans from a cheap Minolta, but you can still get better from an Imacon or Coolscan 9000

Steven, go for Portra NC, I think you'll like it, and don't wait to see what your scanner can do with that film, see what you can do with your scanner with that film in it

"but you can't do anything to fake dynamic range, color fidelity, resolution, noise etc. of the CCD in your scanner."

 

You can fake noise and dynamic range by merging multiple scans using a program like Photomatix ; )

http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html

 

The color fidelity issue you may be right on- I'm waiting to participate in a project with Wolf Faust to help evaluate scanners on this. See this page: http://www.testdata.coloraid.de/

 

For the record I use a Canon FS4000US, which is 4000dpi and not that low-end, but it was fairly cheap ($350 used in 2004). The scanner bakeoff also indicates that cheap scanners (Minolta Scan Dual IV, etc) can outperform expensive scanners in the hands of inexperienced users.

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2005/numbers.html

Roger

 

I was actually more aiming my comment at MF story, where a lot of people use flatbeds, and where real scanners cost a fortune.

 

I would agree with you that for 35mm , with some skill one can get professional quality scans at a relativley small price.

Though I still wouldn't burn my negs and slides after a 4000dpi scan on FS4000.

I have absolutley no frikken idea why you'd drum scan a wedding film other than being too ignorant to get a dSLR. Jeez, grow up. You actually like that 400x PMT grain up in shadow areas when you're just 1/2 stop under-exposed? Who does this anymore and why?

 

The color and fidelty produce by such a combination owes more to the profile being used than anything else. Spent a few years doing nothing BUT drum scanning Portra NC and VPS and writing profiles for each. You coulnd't force me to go back.

 

Reala has more saturation than NC 160, but it also has a more relaxed contrast curve which is obvious in a white wedding dress printed on Portra paper, but the Kodak film have a little better shadow seperation. NPS was even lower in contrast, but it still has more saturation than NC 160. Nothing wrong with NC in this respect - it's just how it was designed, which is a bridge between VPS III and modern portrait films. If you REALLY want to talk about junk/low contrast portrait films, we needn't go further than Kodak's nasty VPH 400.

 

Agfa print films suck - screwball colors that block too easily, crossover in skin tones, and nearly impossible to match with Kodak and Fuji paper emulsions.

 

Try Konica Pro 160 (if you can find it). Similiar contrast to Portra NC, but even more subdued color saturation. It also matches Kodak and Fuji papers and looks like a professional film -vs- something Agfa scraped off the bottom of the emulsion tank.

 

Another option is to shoot Portra NC at 50 and have the lab pull it a stop.