Kodak Pro 100 PRN

[25asa]

Looking into getting some old stock of this. I have not used this yet

myself. Judging from responses from others, I've decided to give this

one a try. What is PRN closest in look to? Scott Eaton mentioned it

is a high color saturated film. Is this more or the same as say the

Royal Gold films, or maybe Gold 100? Also what is the exact PGI of

this film? I may have seen 36 or something somewhere. Is this close

to Reala in look? And how was this film for use with Portraits? Any

comments on this film would be great. Im looking into getting it in

120 rolls.

[don_cooper]

I loved this film! I found it the best Kodak ever produced for what I was doing, architecture and landscapes in 6X7 format. Wonderful color and grain structure. Great shadow colors, didn't get a blue cast so common in other Kodak films. Can't comment on it for portrait use though. I was so PO'd when Kodak discontinued it and supposedly replaced it with Portra 160 (not even close) that I've never bought a roll of Kodak since.

[scott_eaton]

Pro 100 was canned a couple of years ago to make room for Portra VC, which was a really *BAD* move on Kodak's part to save money and consolidate film lines.

 

Pro 100 was a souped up version of RG-25/100 with the only color saturation and sharpness I've seen in a print film that could rival some slide films. Unlike Agfa Ultra, Pro 100 didn't 'sludge-out' strong colors and retained exellent detail in those areas. Grain was about the same as Gold 100 and not very remarkable.

[bill_tuthill]

Yup, PGI 36. I think of it as a cross between Ektar 100 and Gold 100.

Higher contrast than Reala, not such luscious skin tones. It puzzles

me that Kodak didn't just bring back PRN and call it Ultra Color 100,

because 100UC is unremarkable if you ask me. I still feel that Fuji

NPC 160 @ 125 makes the best PRN replacement.

[25asa]

Well it looks like the 100 speed film I've been looking for from Kodak. If its a cross between Ektar/ RG and Gold 100, then that's perfect. I love both series of films. Too bad about the grain problem. So its not good for portraits then? Oh well. I agree maybe they should have used PRN for 100UC. Even Supra 100 would have been a better choice. When I shot the rolls of 100UC I did get, I couldn't control the contrast problem with the film very well. I may only use 100UC for VERY flat lighting and color- like extreme shade. Even then 400UC would be a better choice there.

 

I won an auction for 20 120 rolls of this stuff which has been frozen since new from a film studio, and dated 2000. So this stuff should be good and last a while.

[scott_eaton]

Pro 100 likely had a bit more contrast than UC 100. However, Pro 100 had much stronger color saturation.

[25asa]

Pro 100 has more contrast then 100UC?? Wow. I got the impression from a previous post of yours that 100UC had more then PRN. I thought 100UC's contrast was too high as it was. I'll have to see what PRN looks good at using then. Does anyone have any scans of PRN to show?

[jim_shanesy]

Scott-

 

Would your would-be supplier happen to have any old stock of the tungsten version of this film (PRN)? In my opinion PRN was the finest C-41 film ever made, and I'd pay a pretty penny for it, especially in the 120 format.

[jim_shanesy]

Sorry. Make that PRT. Asleep at the keyboard again.

[scott_eaton]

Not having tested Pro 100 and UC 100 side by side I'm making some big guesses here, but I can tell you Pro 100 was light years ahead of UC 100, and even UC 400 in terms of color saturation. Not only could Pro 100 drive colors harder, but had much better control of those colors. If you've ever shot RG-25...same beast....and closely related films.

 

Contrast though with Pro-100 was high, and this was a big reason Kodak killed it. Basically because their retarded marketing division pushed it as a potrait film when in fact it was an awesome scenic/commercial film. When Kodak's overly pampered pro print film cliental whined and complained about the contrast they introduced Portra NC Plus....err....Portra VC, and helped give Fuji a few more mill in market share. Kodak pulled the same stunt with PPF/PMC, although those films were not as unique as RG-25 and Pro 100 were. Note that Portra UC 400 and royal 100 has more in common with Pro 100 than Portra UC has with the other Portra films.

[25asa]

I think it would be interesting if you could still do that test you were going to and compare PRN with 100UC. Another on here said contrast on PRN was not that high, so I wonder. It just blows my mind how many good films Kodak has killed off over the years and the ones they keep- it seems most people dont care for. Who ever gets Kodaks formulas one day and reintroduces those films when film is a niche product will be lucky. Lets see- Kodachrome X and 25, Ektar 25, Verichrome Pan, Super XX, Pro 100 (I havent used it yet myself), and so on. I'm sure others could add to this list.

 

As for Pro 100T- what was good about that film that Portra 100T cant compare to?

[scott_eaton]

I have a couple rolls of Pro 100 in 35mm iced down, which I'll probably use for some side by sides with newer films at some point.

[bill_tuthill]

I've heard on several occasions that Portra 100T sux compared to the

previous Pro 100T, but it must have been in private e-mail or on the

disappearing forum. I've never used either, but judging by the number

of movie scenes with blue lighting (unless they just use blue lights)

tungsten-balanced film is used a lot by the movie industry, so you'd

think the technology would be advanced.

[25asa]

Reviving an old thread of mine. I never ended up shooting any of this film when I got some back in the day. But Im re-trying this film recently for a video Im making on it. I managed to get a few rolls of this stuff, but how badly the film has aged I dont know. I'll see when I get it done.

Is Scott Eaton still around?