Anyone shot the new new Portra 400's yet? (400NC3 and 400VC3)

[brooks_lester]

I just shot 5 rolls of 400VC2 in Hawaii and like the results, however, I was slightly disappointed with the

amount of grain when I scanned the processed negatives. I'd love to be able to shoot at ISO400 on my

next vacation, but I may use the 160 speed Portrasor 400NC3 if the new 400VC3 isn't a noticeable

improvement over the 400VC2. (I'm not saying I didn't like the 400VC2, but after shooting some

400NC2 I noticed that the 400VC2 definitely has more grain...)

 

TIA

 

Here's an example of Portra 400NC2:

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2291/2244575284_919210bc1e_b.jpg<img>

[brooks_lester]

The grain is apparent in 110MB tiff scans as soon as I apply some capture sharpening,

both my own efforts and those with PhotoKit Sharpener.

 

In addition to the grain issue, which is most likely just me noticing the greater grain of

400VC vs. 400NC, it seems like these rolls just don't look as sharp as some of my

previous scans. Almost all of my shutter speeds were 1/100 or faster, though I was hand

held for 95% of the pics, including the linked one. My shots usually look sharper than

these do.

 

I did notice some pepper grain on some of the scans and I wonder if my scans aren't

perfectly focussed, too.

[brooks_lester]

for your interest. You contribute a lot to this forum.

[brooks_lester]

Here's a link to a 400NC2 shot I made at home just before shooting the 400VC2 in Hawaii -

-

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2086672964_bafe21fe17.jpg

 

again, I'm hoping the version 3 of the 400VC is noticeably less grainy, and more like

400NC2, which has very subtle grain in 35mm...

[User_502260]

There is no reason that Portra 400 should be more grainy in 120 size than in 35mm size. There are two potential problems with this film when it is used in 120 size and shot in very bright light. The first is that no flatbed scanner will do justice to it. I sometimes have a local camera store make an 8X10 or 11X14 from a 6X7 color neg. They usually use a flatbed scanner and the results are OK but above 11X14 I would want them to use a dedicated film scanner. If I'm not going to get a good scan I would be better off just using 35m film. For that format they would not be using a flatbed scanner. The second problem has to do with exposure. All light meters are calibrated to read 18% gray. If you meter off of an 18% gray card you will get very accurate exposures. Sometimes using a gray card is not practical and you must rely on other techniques. A beach scene in Hawaii can have large expanses of bright sky and large expanses of beach. Either or both of these will cause underexposure if you do not compensate for the extra light. The more modern 35mm cameras have sophisticated metering programs which can help in difficult situations. Very few medium format cameras have such sophisticated metering systems. With a properly serviced and calibrated Nikkormat FTN from 1967 you can get exposures which are as accurate as those from a Nikon F6. You just have to know how to use it. When I use a Canon F-1 with its 12% spot metering I try to meter off of a gray mid tone. If I shoot the same scene with a Nikkormat I might use its center weighted metering to read a brighter part of the scene and then open up a stop or two. Color print film is very intolerant of underexposure. If you can work around that you will be very happy with the results.

[brooks_lester]

however, I do wonder if 400VC2 might help from being shot at ISO 320...

[brooks_lester]

in Prescan the RGB histogram values were PERFECTLY distributed from 0 - 255 on almost

every frame - I've never seen that on any other negative film I've scanned. There's always

been a few % points on one or both sides that could be adjusted. That means three things:

Portra has superb exposure latitude, Coolscans "read" the film easily and accurately, and my

N80's metered the scenes exceptionally well. I used Matrix Metering exclusively with no

Exposure Comp since I was moving quickly, mostly getting grab shots, and didn't have time

to interpret the light and adjust exposure. I'm VERY satisfied with how easily "new" Portra

scans.

[rainer_nagel]

In two german photo magazines the optimized film revision MK III was announce too.

my guess is: 400VC MK III Prof. is 400UC (which Kodak did retire silently).

Joke aside, there was mentioned the new MK III films have a special coating for improved scanning performance.

[rainer_nagel]

Hi Brooks your initial Portra 400NC2 flickr link is dead. anyway, try to scan at max 3200 ppi.

 

the Mk III Portra 400 VC-3, NC-3 are said to be improved in shadow parts of pictures only (toe part of density curve)

[rainer_nagel]

review in french Responses Photo No 197 August 2008, p.120-121:

"...Les effets sont particulierement signicatifs dan les ombres où, pour des niveaux situe à environ 0.20 au-dessus du voile, les granularites "RMS" chutent de 32 % (pct) pour des emulsions de la classe 400 - 500 ISO..."