NPH or Portra NC for Wedding

[lou_giordano1]

I would like some help deciding between NPH or Portra NC. I am

leaning toward Fuji because I have had good results with their

products in the past. I do not have a lot of wedding experiance I

have assisted some. I am shooting my brother's wedding and I have a

friend who is a wedding pro backing me up. I would like coments on

grain, punch,and contrast. Also if you would recomend shooting at 400

or 320 or whatever. I am using 6X6 with a Metz 60

 

Thanks for your time

 

Lou

[victor_lioce]

I think the Portra gives better flesh tones and cleaner whites for the wedding gowns. I also shoot the 160. I find even a Vivitar283 flash provides more than enough light with the 160. DON"T use the high contrast film!

[barry schmetter]

Lou,

 

I've had great results with NPH at EI320. Very fine grain for a fast film, and the best skin tones of *any* film I've ever used. It is not a highly saturated color film, which is a good thing for weddings. My experiences with Portra films have been poor, but it could be my lab. Portra also doesn't seem to scan well, which is puzzling for a relatively new film.

[jkantor]

Well, I've had exactly the opposite experience with Portra that Barry has (and I was the first one to use Portra at my lab). I use it (160NC, 400NC and VC, and 800) for weddings not only because I like the skin tones and color rendition, but because it scans extremely well. (I've even used it for fashion portfolio work.) However, I've also seen wonderful (though slightly different looking) shots done with NPH.

 

You can't go wrong with either. Do a test roll of each with the lab you are going to use and see which you like better. By the way, if I'm shooting without flash or with fill, I rate it down 1/3 of a stop. If I'm using straight flash, I shoot it at normal.

[steve_levine]

I'm a career wedding shooter,and I use 400NC for everything.I have used Fuji NPH 400 also and have gotten good results.As for altering the ISO speed,shoot it at 400.These films have a lot of latitude and tolerance for contrasty lighting.If I knew I'd be outdoors all day,I might consider 160NC instead of the 400.I also use a Metz CT60 strobe at F8.The extra depth of field helps with focus.

[dzeanah]

I use Portra, but only because my lab made it clear that they get better results with it than with the comparable Fuji products.

 

I'd ask your lab what they're optimized for, then try a few rolls.

[bill_dewberry]

NPH @ 250 goes toghether like a wink & a smile.

[scott_eaton]

I've had a lot of experience doing doing Q/C for commercial portrait/wedding line, so I'll give you a big tip. If your lab uses Kodak paper, most likely Portra III, stick with Kodak Portra NC film because this combination was designed to yield high quality weddings and portraits. NPH printed on Kodak Portrait paper tends to be "harder" looking and accounts for many of the different tastes mentioned above. NPH simply has more contrast than NC and this needs to be compensated for with a different paper.

 

If your lab is Agfa or Fuji based (paper), I strongly recommend you stick with the advice of using NPH at about 320. I work with a couple of professional Agfa and Fuji based labs, and both push NPH over Kodak NC/VC films, and quite strongly. This is because NC/VC tends to look "chalky" and with muddy skin tones on these non-Kodak papers.

 

My own personal preference for portraiture is NPH printed on Agfa Portrait paper. Ths combo yields denser, more accurate colors than NC/Kodak with a bit more realism and less of the "fluffy skin effect" produced by NC and VPS. Still, this later combination has been the defacto standard in portraiture for decades, and is tried and true.

 

By all means your primary consideration should be to find a decent lab first.

[kevin_kolosky]

Lou

 

What the heck, I might as well add my $.02 worth. I have been shooting color neg film since Kodak's premier portrait film was called CPS. I have used CPS, VPS, VPSII, VPS III, Agfa, Konica, Fuji NPS and NPH and their 800 speed film, And now all of the Portra films.

If there is one piece of advice I could give you, it is to befriend someone at your lab and work closely with them. If you do, and if you let them know what you like, you will get good results from all of the above films that are still being manufactured. In fact, that Konica 160 film is just beautiful shot at 125 and it is cheap to buy.

I use the Kodak 400 400 NC film exclusively now. why. My eyes tell me that it has just a hair more contrast than the fuji film and I like that because every now and then I like to use a diffusion filter and it seems as thought I get mush with a diffusion filter on the fuji film. I think the color is great. And finally, for me at least, it does shoot at 400 ISO, which is where I rate it. I am very careful to meter properly indoors, and I am not afraid to drag the shutter as necessary. Kevin

[struan_gray]

One other plus for Portra: there is a range of speeds with a

matched dye set and 'look'. I've been using a lot of Portra 800

recently, and unlike other fast films I've used its colour rendition

doesn't stand out when prints are mixed with slower films. I also

like to use 160NC in 35 mm and 400NC in 6x6 at the same

event, and Portra lets me mix the shots together without tonal

inconsistencies.

 

In cameras with meters I tend to set the marked EI, but am

liberal with the exposure compensation when the light allows.

[lou_giordano1]

Thanks to all for your time. Your info is greatly appreciated. I will be checking with the lab and make my decision based on the paper they use and what they feel they get the best results with. I am leaning toward Portra now.

 

Thanks

 

Lou

[scott_eaton]

Lou,

 

Another benefit of using VPS/Portra NC and a lab that uses Professional Kodak paper is you can establish a very solid frame of reference from an industry standard. You simply can't go wrong with Portra NC on Kodak Portra III paper for weddings, and if you decide to shoot further weddings you can test a roll or two of the different films ahead of time and have your NC proofs as a reference. Weddings are not appropriate occasion to beta test films.

 

Yeah, you can get some nice results from Konica or Agfa film, but by and large these guys are trying to scavenge from Kodak's dominance in the portrait game. Plus, any lab worth it's salt by handling quality weddings will know Kodak NC or Fuji NPH inside-out and backwards. Konica and Agfa films seriously lack universal technical support, and a lab that handles 1,000 rolls of Kodak or Fuji film is not going to give you as consistent results if you're the only guy shooting Konica.

 

NPH is often given the status as a portrait film even though Fuji doesn't intend it to be a competitor to NC/VPS, and NPH has an entirely different look than your vanilla portrait film of which everybody and their brother makes. Fuji NPS *is* Fuji's dedicated portrait film, and by and large NC and NPH are much more popular.

[struan_gray]

I like NPS, *except* for the rosy hue it insists on giving caucasian

skin. My wife's family includes a lot of very pale skinned people

who always end up looking like boiled lobsters, whatever paper I

print it on.

 

Well, maybe not that bad, but I would recommend testing NPS

agains your personal tastes before committing to it.

[wayne_crider3]

A late add, but may be of value. In side by side comparsions of two rolls each, and with each being printed at pro labs with their own brand chemicals and paper, Kodak on E surface, NPH on Classic, 400NC gives better skin tones; NPH gives a rosy hue or increased skin color. Both overexposed 1/3 of a stop. Colors otherwise fine. Both handled tungsten lighting and flash well. Watch out with NPH for pale skin.

[reggie_barton]

I would be interested in knowing what tests you guys are using for exposure. I use a

varient of the Zone I test for B&W films. I have found that Portra 160 NC is properly

exposed at 100 ASA.

 

Reggie Barton