portra 160VC contrast

[edgar_njari]

Just finished scanning some 160VC

I've been using 400VC quite a lot, but never 160, and I have

expected it to be same as 400VC just with less grain, but

my impressions are quite different from my assumptions.

It seems to have even more contrast than 400VC. Grain is just

a bit more visible than 160NC, so it's great for my taste of grain.

Nice colors, don't know if it's about by

scanner/technique/procedure, but reds and purples seem to be vibrant

and very clean, a visible difference in colors compared to NC

Weaker on the green side I think.

 

anyway, back to contrast..

Is it just me or is this a really contrasty film??

I look at the negative on a lightbox, and even the image on film

looks contrasty to my eyes.

When I scan it as positive, get rid of all the orange mask cast,

I get an image that is almost ready for printing.

With films like 160NC, after removing the mask I get an image

that is very soft in tones, and very low contrast, but this time It

almost looks like printing contrast.

But suprisingly, the film does not blow out highlights and tolerates

contrasty daylight scenes

Really strange film..

 

this thread is not about complaining or anything, I'm just sharing my

thoughts about this film

 

What are your impressions with this film? How often do you use it

and for what kind of work?

[jeff_drew4]

I agree with your observation that Portra 160VC offers more contrast than 400VC. 160NC has less grain and less contrast, yes. I don't scan much yet, but your comments seem normal. You may want to spend some time at the kodak.com site for lots of Portra info. 90% of my color negative film use is Kodak Portra in all flavors. I am very happy with its consistency from 35mm thru rollfilm. Most uses involve any activities with people as primary subjects. I will also grab the UC versions for scenics & travel. BTW: Portra works great on pets too!:-)

[edgar_njari]

I've seen all the info on the Kodak site, they say it's a medium contrast film. But I don't know, if the full range of the negative has a very viewable contrast, I'd call it a high contrast film.

[calvin_lee]

I use Kodak 160VC for 90% of my portrait shooting. 160NC is good, but is a little flat and muted for my tastes. However, if the subject is wearing an outfit with very bold or saturated colors, I tend to use 160NC to help mute the colors a bit.

[jeff_drew4]

I'll add to my previous post. When I shoot Portra, it is processed and printed

professionally in a Kodak channel. Yes, it costs more, but on many occasions the

events being captured are "once-in-a-lifetime" events and I feel it's important to me

to do the best I can - so I use Portra. With Portra, the skin tones are usually very

accurate and everything else falls into place. As with anything "in color" we all see

things differently. I like the contrast choices and concur with the "medium contrast"

opinion for the film speeds given. My experiences (30+yrs) usually tell me that the

slower the film speed, the greater the contrast of the given film. However, when I

shoot Agfa 160 vs Portra 160NC, the Portra has more contrast and finer grain. Both

films have their uses and consume space in my locker. On a humorous note: If a

higher power told me I could shoot only 1 film for everything forever, I would know

that I was in the "Twilight Zone" and I would choose Kodak Tri-X!

[bill_tuthill]

I'm not good at making contrast assessments, but

according to Ctein in Jan/Feb 2001 Photo Techniques magazine,

the only 160-speed film with more contrast than 160VC is NPC.

But NPC has contrast spread evenly across its tonal range,

whereas 160VC has unusually high shadow contrast.

This was judged as printed on Supra 3 paper.

Being a fan of shadow detail,

perhaps this helps explain why I don't like either VC.

I like NPC and am looking forward to its replacement 160C.

[edgar_njari]

Yea, I noticed that too, the midtones to highlights section seems more natural, but the dark parts seem to jump into darkness faster.

that's probably why there are no problems with highlights regardless of high contrast