Kodak portra 160vc results

[robert_c_harvey]

Dear fellow netographers, has anybody besides mw been impressed with

thie usage of portra 160vc? The colors, grain, contrast, etc., are

fabulous! Landscapes and portraits were taken with it, and after using

almost every other manufacturer's film, I'm impressed! In my humble

opinion, and we all see things differently, Kodak's films haven't been

very impressive lately. I've been a Fuji, and Agfa devotee, after

trying so many brands and types of film. It used to be easy years ago,

because there weren't that many choices. Now, it seems there is a new

film each week! Let's hear other's opinions ! Thanks, Robert C> Harvey

[scott___2]

I am very pleased with the new Kodak Protra films both the 160 which I rate at 125 and the 400. More important my customers are pleased with the results.

 

Scott Thompson

[scott_eaton]

Gentlemen,

The only way to effectively test a new film is via a film scanner or video analyzer.

 

I'm not disputing many of the claims you've made, but please inform the rest of us how you've determined these characteristics of the new films, and aren't just characteristics of the the paper is was printed on. The difference between Portra III and Fuji Crystal Archive type "C" paper are greater than the dye set difference between Potra VC film and VPS III.

 

For further reference, please indicate what kind of paper you had these results on. Personally I've found PRN on Agfa pro to be superior to Portra VC on Potra III paper, but the type N films show more promise with Portra III, which is what I figured Kodak would stroke these film for.

 

//scott