high contrast or low contrast films

Ok Id like to clarify when to use kodak NC (neutral contrast) or VC ( I guess this means high contrast) in the Portra range,

 

Im thinking that the same applies to Fuji too.

 

My application is primarily Landscapes

<p>There's no appropriate time or place to use a specific film — it's all very much a matter of personal opinion.</p>

<p>VC has more saturation compared to NC (vivid colour vs neutral colour). At least, I think it means colour — it might well mean contrast, although increased saturation might also lead to increased contrast.</p>

<p>I don't think Fuji uses this kind of naming for their films — as far as I know, the Pro line consists of 160C, 160S, 400H and 800Z — the 160 films come in 2 types, one more saturated than the other, but there're only 1 type of 400 and 800 films.<br>

I heard that they recently took out a lot of films to reintroduce them sometime later, but I'm totally confused on this (and never bothered searching it up.)</p>

<p>Why not go on to Kodak & Fuji's websites and look up the films? That'll give you the most accurate descriptions.</p>

<p>NC/VC stands for Neutral colour /Vivid colour. The contrast is same in both films. NC produce less saturated colour and more critical to colour temperature. It is also less critical for scanning and editing.</p>

<p>Tim,<br>

I would not recommend any of the Portra films (or their Fuji equivalents) for landscape photography, unless you are specifically going for a special look. Relatively speaking, they are ALL low contrast. It will of course depend on your lenses and scanner, but there's a reason why just about every landscape photographer of note who uses film uses either Velvia or Provia.<br>

Scott</p>

<p>It's a matter of personal aesthetics, Scott. I know of some highly respected photographers who preferred these high quality color negative films over Velvia and Provia specifically for landscapes and other fine art photography.</p>

<p>Lex,<br>

I'm sure there may be some photographers that do, but they are probably in the minority. I would suggest to a landscape photographer looking at films to consider Velvia or Provia (or the Kodak equivalent because many like them as well) for the following reasons:<br>

1. feedback on issues such as color balance and exposure will be much more valuable. Unless a lab does it for you on the prints, it is not easy to achieve a correct color balance on negative film. It's even more of an issue if you scan yourself. <br>

2. On my scanner, Porta comes out very low contrast. Bumping up the contrast brings out the grain and dust. For sharpness and low grain (what most landscape photographers want), I doubt Portra films can compete with Velvia. I wouldn't be surprised if photographers that do prefer Portra are shooting large format and going for a specific (and very subtle) type of aesthetic.</p>

<p>This is an example of how Portra 160vc comes out of my scanner, and Epson V500 (I'm assuming beginners may have something similar, and not a Nikon 9000). The contrast is not helped by my geriatric Bronica S2 lenses, but note the bluish cast. This is from a recent engagement shoot, taken at about 6pm--the light was fading and warm, and I used a polarizer! Achieving good color balance and contrast on a file like this takes much more work and tweaking than transparency. I'm expecting some Provia from the same shoot to come back today, and I'll post a comparison.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is an example of a scan of Provia 100-same setup as above. Note the color balance--the scan came out almost exactly as the film appears on my light box. All that's needed is to add a little contrast back in. Without the Provia, I would not have had a reference for the color, even with the DSLR that I also used that day (my Pentax invariably turns out grass that is too yellow):</p><div></div>

<p>PS--the above was overexposed, but it still clearly shows the difference between a Portra or Provia scan.<br>

Scott</p>