Agfa Portrait 160 -- lower contrast?

[jimdesu]

Hi there,

 

I know this pro'lly sounds crazy, but are there any color print films

out there with lower contrast than Agfa portrait 160?

[scott_eaton]

NPS is lower in contrast than Agfa Portrait, but higher in saturation. Depends on what you are looking for.

 

Or, shoot NPS at 50 and have the lab pull it a stop. Now there's *dull* for you.

 

Konica Pro 160 is similiar to the Agfa in terms of contrast, but personally I feel the Konica emulsion is a better film for portraiture. More neutral than Agfa Portrait.

[bill_tuthill]

Contrast changes depending on scanning method and/or printing paper.

When Ctein tested portrait films in Jan/Feb 2001 for Photo Techniques

magazine, as printed on Supra III paper, he ranked Agfa XPS 160

lowest, closely followed by Portra 160NC and NPS 160. "Portra had

greater mid-tone contrast, while NPS had a bit more highlight contrast

combined with a bit less shadow contrast." He did not test Konica 160.

Ctein agreed with Scott Eaton that Agfa 160 was lowest in

color saturation, and though grayscale neutrality was top-notch,

had these remarks about its color neutrality: "a reddish yellow and

a desaturated magenta, combined with low saturation, muted many of

the colors... the overall effect is [low] color accuracy."

[scott_eaton]

NPS has that odd curve to it, which combined with it's rather strong saturation yields different opinions on it's contrast. Still, if you shoot NPS and Agfa 160 side by side, and scan them identically, you'll get lower midtone conrast with the Fuji material.

 

Otherwise, Agfa 160 is the worst portrait film on the market because of it's screwy color renditions. The Konica is a better film if for some reason you don't like NPS/NPH or Portra NC.