FUJI REALA or KODAK 160 VC for ALASKA

I would like to thank everyone for responses to my question on films

for Alaska mountains and glacier photography.

I have determined that for 120 film, either of the 2 above might be

the best choice for higher contrast scenery photography.

Is Kodak 160 VC really a higher contrast film than 160 NC?

The Kodak rep said it is. I am not sure.

I have also heard that Reala is also lower contrast since it is also

used in portraiture.

Has anyone had any experience with these two films in outdoor

photography?

I generally have my film processed at a pro photo lab that uses low

contrast paper for weddings. I wonder if the above films printed on

low contrast paper would be too low a contrast?

IS THERE another film I have not considered?

Thanks again for advice on this subject,

RICK

VC is higher contrast than NC. Go the the Kodak web site and you can print out the characteristic curves for each of the films. Overlay the curves on a light box (or hold them up to a light source) with the toes of the curves aligned and you will see that the VC curve is much steeper.

As I mentioned in my answer to your previous question, I really like Reala for high contrast scenery. It should look fine printed on most pro papers.

You might want to try NPS160 and shoot it at 100. Another good bet is NPH400 and shoot it at 320 or 250. The very best choice would be PRN100, but the Yellow Mother killed that one off.

 

I have not been that happy with any of the Portra films. VC ain't that vivid. NC is just plain blah. A feature that I really like about NPH400 is that you can dial the contrast with a fair bit of accuracy. Shoot it at 400 and it behaves just like a portrait film. Overexpose it a stop, and the colors really jump out at you. The added speed is nice as well. Reala is nice, but it's tonality is not as smooth at NPH or NPS.

>>Reala is nice, but it's tonality is not as smooth at NPH or NPS.<<

<p>

Huh? Reala has the longest tonal range of any color print film I've ever worked with, so I'm not sure what you mean by "tonality". It's also the lowest in contrast of any color print film that's out there. Lower than either Kodak NC or NPS. NPH often gets confused as being a low contrast material because it lacks the saturation of other materials. NPH actually has moderate contrast - yet very subdued saturation and good shadow detail to make up for it.

<p>

I use all three films - NPS the least, being this film is geared towards portraiture the most and least appropriate for scenics.

<P>

Rick, I'd still advise you to stay away from Kodak's Portra films. They are, as the name implies, "Portrait films".

<p>

If you're using MF exclusively I still don't think you can beat NHG II for all purpose use. NPH works well also in open sunlight, but you can't get strong saturation out of NPH if you beat it with a stick. NPH was engineered to be a higher speed competitor to Kodak's VPS and VPH and win over more conservative photographers.

<P>

PRN, if you can find it, is OK for low contrast situations, but NHG II has darn dear the saturation of PRN (except for intense reds and yellows), a wider tonal pallette and 6x the speed. And unlike PRN and PPF, NHG II looks better on about any paper the lab uses. The dye sets in PRN don't look right on Crystal Archive type "C" so you can forget about using a Fuji lab if you load up with PRN. Agfa papers and PRN work great together, but Pro Agfa labs are very rare. This leaves you with Portra and Supra, papers that have always sucked - IMHO.

<P>

Here's some more stuff on 35mm NHG II. At the moment I don't have much MF NHG II scanned. This image was not manipulated in anyway and is true to how I saw the scene.

<P>

<center>

<img src="http://www.mindspring.com/~wseaton/pictures/sheep.jpg"></a><br><i>Rainbow over Loche Ness, Scotland</I></a>