Kodak Neg Film Portra VC vs Supra

[chip_greenberg1]

Hi Folks: I'm looking to do some landscape shooting next week with either

Portra VC 160 or Supra Kodak 120 color neg film. Anybody worked with

these. I�m looking to try neg film and see how it scans for printing compared

to my usual Velvia. Since I typically shoot Velvia the VC part of the Portra is

appealing but Kodak�s website says �for controlled lighting situations� I take

that to mean studio. Anybody worked with these and have comments?

Thx

Chip

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Well, Supra isn't available in 120, so I guess that one can be ruled out :-)</p>

 

<p>I haven't used Portra for landscapes, but apparently a lot of other folks have - do a discussion forum search here for articles containing both Portra and landscape and you'll get a lot of hits.</p>

[scott_eaton]

Portra VC is a studio film (that's why it's called 'Portra') that you'll find little amazement in using this material for landscape work. It has more contrast than NC 160, but little if any more color saturation. Not bad if the sun is out, but in that case you should be using Reala anyways.

 

Supra isn't available in 120 format, but Portra UC is, and that should be the film you use.

[erhin_peddersome]

I wouldn't use portrait films for landscape. Ture the VC is vivid color but generally portrait film isn't that sharp. I've noticed this after scanning it at 4000dpi. An AWSOME landscape film is Fuji Reala. It has vivid saturation and one of the finest grains I've seen for print film. I shoot Supra 100 & 400 in 35mm and find it scans awsome too (fine grain/good saturation). I've shot some nice landscapes with portrait film only to wish I had someting better inside because it didn't look very sharp enlarged.

[robert_kennedy]

I'd have to agree here. Overall the portrait films (Portra, NPH, etc.) are designed to HIDE things. Which is good. A tack-sharp image of a face is rarely a good thing. You don't want every single little pore and blemish showing up. This is why vaseline was invented.

 

If you want sharp stay AWAY from the Portra. Now, you may find a good use for this in landscape work. I encourage you to play with the concept. Who knows, you may hit on something that will really work. But don't COUNT on the Portra shots. Shoot a roll off AFTER you have done the serious work.

[md stephenson]

For what it's worth, I LOVE Kodak Supra in 135-36 for Landscape - I've used ISO 100 (my usual), 400 (for low light), and even 800 in a couple of cases and all 3 ISO's performed very well.

[struan_gray]

<center><img

src="http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/stacpollaidh.jpg"

width=400 height=400 alt="Stac Pollaidh and Cul Beag from

Achanahaird"></p>

<p><i>Stac Pollaidh and Cul Beag from Achnahaird.<br>

Portra 400NC in 6x6</i></p></center>

 

<p>I use Portra NC as my general film (400 in 6x6, usually 160

in 35 mm) and like the results. It has weak red descrimination

and low contrast when conventionally machine printed, but both

problems can be avoided by hybrid or fully digital printing. It

helps if you have control of the printing yourself. I have never had

a problem with too little contrast, so I've not bothered with VC, UC

or Supra in any format.</p>