steve_levine Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 The skin tones were no where near as creepy as UC or VC! In fact Im happy with the results.Thanks Scott E.for the 411! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Swell shots; handsome couple. What E.I. did you shoot that NPC at? I was so disgusted with NPS, I went back to Reala. But I should probably A-B a roll of NPC v. Reala. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 This was 220 NPC shot in available light,rated at ISO 80.My usual film is either NPH or Portra NC 400.I got some NPS and NPC as samples,having never used either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_eaton Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 I finally had a chance to take a look at these images on a calibrated monitor, and I guess I'm seeing something totally different that what Steve is. The images have have a purple/red cast in the skin tones, and contrast is too high, which is most evident in the image on the left. Honestly, had these images been shot on Superia 100 I doubt if they'd be much different. I know that Kodak films on a Frontier can be tricky, and I'm not discounting Steve's bad experience with them with Fuji processing. It's just that these examples are hardly softening my dislike for NPC. Lighting and posing is great - nice work on the front. However, if the couple wants enlargements of these images you'd better find a lab using Fuji Type P to reign in the contrast. A good lesson here to keep plenty of NPH in the bag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted July 12, 2003 Author Share Posted July 12, 2003 Funny thing,all of the UC and NPC I have ever owned came free from their makers!My assistant remarked about the UC,"why do you think they are giving it away"?The lighting was very contrasty in these shots,NPH would have smooth out these speed bumps.The 220 was shot for our use.The bride & groom are getting 35MM 160 & 400NC shot with fill flash outdoors & double lighted indoors.This is how I "steal" portfolio shots.They get their proof books and a few enlargements.We get 645 or 6x7 negs for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_tudor Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 For what it's worth, in all my film tests, I found 400UC much better at skintones and in general than Fuji 160 NPC which was too contrasty. I also used 400UC at a recent wedding and it came out great. More color than NPH, but great skintones. I will upload some shots when I get the negs and scans back from the lab. Why is Kodak giving UC away? Probably to cut into NPH's market? To get INTO the market? I have no idea. But 400UC is IMO the best 400 print film out of all the ones I've tried. Accurate skin tones and punchy color. 400VC is garbage - and 400NC like 400NPH - more mellow. If my Frontier lab could print it as analy as I like it would be even better! But it prints on the Frontier I use better or at least as good as all other Kodak/Fuji films I've tried. I WAS looking for a 400 slide film, but gave up on that idea after asking here and trying some Provia400F and Kodak E200 pushed one stop! I do use E100GX though for special "needs". Beautiful film. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now