portra VC

[edgar_njari]

I'm planing on ordering 5 rolls of potra 160VC to try it out.

 

Can anyone with any experience tell me his impressions?

Or perhaps someone has some images posted so i can see it?

[staticlag]

I like portra 160VC a lot, outdoors, it gives all colors a nice boost and has smooth colorful skin tones. The prints look very rich, but not oversaturated, the 160 version of this film is fine-grained(the 400 version is grainy at 4x6).

[staticlag]

That is of course in relation to 160NC.

 

Here is an example, though my scanner is very bad and messed up the contrast. The colors are fairly accurate to the print, but the print has much less contrast.<div></div>

[staticlag]

With electronic flash indoors, this film has killer contrast.

[gary_woodard]

Is "killer contrast" a good thing? like the contrast is "sick", please

inform, regards, lacking in current venacular trends.

[scott_eaton]

Portra VC has entended contrast over Portra NC. Meaning, it has more contrast - not more color saturation over NC.

 

If your lab is Fuji based, Fuji NPH is a better alternative and will be more neutral.

[staticlag]

<i>"killer contrast"

</i>

<p>

If your flash isn't powerful enough to light the room, then everything gets blocky around the falloff and hotspots because of the high contrast of the film. What Scott said is true, but even with Fuji processing I like the warm colors better than any fuji alternative.

[edgar_njari]

Can anyone then recommend me some film with normal or low contrast and more punchy colors. Not too saturated like Agfa ultra 100 (i find it allso to contrasty) Just good saturated colors with softer contrast.

I know contrast and saturation usually come together, but perhaps there is an exeption.

 

By the way, thanx for the scan (if you have contrast problems, you can fix it by adjusting the tone curve).

Does anyone have more VC examples?

 

p.s. I mostly use natural light outdoors, how does VC perform there?

[claudia__]

Here is a pic using Portra 400VC (120 roll)

 

I was under the impression that the VC means "vivid color" rather than a reference to contrast

[mike_buckles]

Does anyone know yet how this film compares with the new Kodak 100UC? I shot a roll of Kodak Portra 400UC, and was very pleased with the results, but would like to have a film with the same saturation, yet a bit tighter grain. I did try Portra 160VC last year, but just used it for flash shots, and was very happy...how does it do outside compared to the other films I've mentioned?

[r.t. dowling]

"Can anyone then recommend me some film with normal or low contrast and more punchy colors."

 

That would be Fuji Superia-Reala 100.

[bill_tuthill]

Here are some samples by Benjamin Cromwell, who almost a year ago

complained about 160VC grain in 4x6 prints.

<BR>

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/1804411&size=lg">

the better one</A>

<BR>

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/1804410&size=lg">

the worse one</A>

[staticlag]

I made a post eariler this year, and it has some sample pics(scanned on a good scanner!) from reala, gold 100, gold 200, and impressa 50, if you are intrested, here is the link:

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007wWb">Konica Impressa 50??? - Chromatic Abberation??? - Both?</a>

[link]

This attached photo was shot on portra 400 nc 120 size.

 

Is this enough color?

 

To be fair, it was not printed directly from the negative, but scanned from the

negative. I really like the portra films.<div></div>

[r.t. dowling]

"I was under the impression that the VC means "vivid color" rather than a reference to contrast"

 

That is what Kodak would like us to believe.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I haven't used 160NC. I've used 160VC, 400NC (for a friend's wedding), and 400VC. I like the skin tones and overall colours of the VC films. I can't stand the grain of 400VC but I find 160VC's grain to be reasonable. The only 160VC scan I have online is a picture of my cat so I doubt that would help you much :-)</p>

 

<p>Have it printed on Kodak Royal paper (or on a Kodak pro paper if you're using a pro lab). Don't even think of getting any of the NC or VC films printed on Fuji Crystal Archive via a Fuji Frontier. If your favourite lab uses a Frontier, Fuji NPH is the answer to almost any film question - NPH + Frontier is a magical combination.</p>

[george2]

I agree with Scott Eaton in that VC has more contrast than NC and, like R.T.Dowling, I do not believe whatever the marketing departments announce. The question whether they have the same saturation is disputed: the skin tones appear identical and are perfect in both cases, while the blues and greens appear bolder in the VC version and muted with NC.<br>

I rather trust my eyes and having used all these materials and their predecessors VPS III and GPX long enough I think that there is no perfect film for all situations. I use Reala, 160VC and 400NC both in 35mm and in MF and they are all good. They are so good that even if the "wrong" film is used for a given subject/lighting the results can still be stunning. <p>

After all the colour rendition on the final print mainly depends on the printer's skills; the choice of paper is a close second. If I tell you that I have great prints with film X on paper Y, it will be a statement of no universal validity, since a good print is primarily the printers' merit. I would therefore urge you to go to your favourite lab and ask which material they know best. Typically, my best printers handle both Fuji and Kodak with the same ease and the same success rate. The Portras are printed on Kodak Royal paper by default and on Portra pro paper on request. Reala is printed on Crystal Archive <i>Supreme</i>.<p>

Final note: I personally prefer 160VC in sunny or overcast weather and Reala with fill flash.

[edgar_njari]

Printing is really not the problem for me because i am using those films for digital scanning, I either print them myself on a printer or choose the lab where i want my files printed.

[johnmarkpainter]

Edgar,

 

Nothing you see online is going to really tell you anything. The Film is 'good'...you just

have to try it and see if it is good for you.

 

I personally tend to stick with the NC in Portra (tends to be warm). If I want (what I

consider to be) a more modern look, I use Fuji.

 

jmp

[edgar_njari]

I allso shoot NC a lot, but i find its greens a bit pale (i like the blues thought) when i am shooting nature.

I am just wondering will VC give me stronger greens

[elliot_n]

400VC (in 120) is my favourite film, but its achilles heel is its poor representation of

natural greens (grass, foliage etc). Lush green grass will be rendered very yellow by

400VC (and 160VC). Maybe try Fuji?

[bill_tuthill]

NPH and UC400 both have excellent green rendition, by which I mean

accurate. Yellow-greens are yellowish, olive greens are brownish,

forest greens are dark, conifers have a blue tinge, teal is teal,

turquoise is turquoise, etc. Not like Velvia 50.

[rowland_mowrey]

Without doing some calibration, I cannot tell whether VC has high contrast and high color saturation both or just one or the other.

 

I can tell you this. Often in this forum, people equate high color saturation with high contrast. You can have high color saturation and low contrast, hight contrast and low color saturation, or high color saturation and high contrast; all three are possible in three different films.

 

Color saturation is primarily the result of interimage effects and good color masking in negative films. You can have a high contrast film with poor color masking and interimage effects and the result is not vivid color but muddy color.

 

You can also have short latitude with vivid color, but due to the short tone scale you can lose detail in highlights and / or shadows resulting in the appearance of either high or low contrast, depending on subject and exposure due to this blocking up effect.

 

From previous discussions, I think you realize that there is a practical contrast range for any negative film if it is to have the latitude you also need. This is generally about 0.6 because the paper has a contrast of about 2.5 to yield a print of about 0.6 x 2.5 or 1.5.

 

The eye integrates the toe and shoulder of the print with the contrast to yield a pleasing scene that appears to have the 1:1 ratio of the original scene.

 

The only way to state with authority what a given film has in terms of the above 3 characteristics that I described, one needs 3 measures. They are 1) Sensitometric neutral scales, 2) Undercut exposures, and probably 3) double undercut exposures. It would be nice to print them onto paper as well to make sure of the results.

 

Bottom line is that saturated colors can fool the eye into thinking that contrast is high. The reverse is also true, high contrast can fool the eye into thinking that color saturation is high.

 

What is pleasing is the only true measure of the effective customer satisfaction with a given film, no matter what the tests say.

 

Go with your gut feeling; what you like.

 

Ron Mowrey

[eco_foto]

Try Fuji NPC 160 you will not be disappointed I don't know why it hasn't be recomended already its a great film!!!!!