art_adams

I'm hooked on Kodak 400UC for the moment. Rated at 320, it yields excellent flesh tones and nicely saturated primaries and secondaries. It's very fine-grained as well. I haven't shot anything else in months.

400UC's flesh tones are surprisingly good. Just be careful with reflections from nearby objects on skin, particularly green or yellow reflections. If the image drifts too far away from flesh tone and into a primary or secondary color this film will grab it and RUN.

I tried pull processing 400UC 1 stop for a lower contrast negative... I gained some detail but the image shifted slightly yellow and flesh tones weren't as nice.

I've shot 400UC mainly in 645 format; I've no experience shooting the 35mm version. My blowups to 11x14 from 645 show very little grain, and I really have to look for it.

Previously I primarily used NPH and NPS. Both are very nice stocks but I like the tight grain and extra speed I get from 400UC. And you can't beat it for punchy colors in a color negative film that still handles flesh tones well.

I've used 160NC and 160VC. They're okay. I was happier with NPH and NPS. VC was nice for shooting against green backgrounds, like grass and plants. The greens really popped.

I tested some NPZ at 800 and I wasn't impressed. It was muddy and very bland. I'll try it again at 640 sometime when I'm desperate for the speed.

In response to the person who said they had muddy results... rate 400UC at 320. I found I had muddy greens when shooting portraits in full front sun; dark green plants in the background didn't get enough exposure even though flesh tones looked great. Since I've started rating the film at 320 I've gotten really good blacks and nice dense negatives.

The flesh tones this film produces are marvelous.

I've gotten proofs on Agfa Prestige and enlargments on whatever Kodak's pro archival paper is (forgotten the name for the moment.) It looks great across the board.

All my prints have been done at a pro lab, Photoworks in San Francisco. I've been shooting in 645 format.

This film really wants to be rated at 320 for best results. It's an interesting stock; great flesh tones and very saturated greens, yellows and blues. Reds too, but they don't pop like the other colors do. So far I like it, but it's definitely a portrait-only film. Very tight grain.

I'm curious as to whether anyone here has done any pull processing,

and what your experience was. I'm intrigued by what I've read pull

processing does: reduces color saturation, improves grain, lowers

contrast... but I'm also concerned about color shifts in highlights

and shadows when the mid-tones are printed correctly. I'm also

curious how much of a change in color saturation and contrast I can

expect to see.

Also: I know that push processing doesn't track the way you'd think,

ie. "push 1" doesn't really equate to a one stop push, but really

only about a 2/3 stop increase in speed (1/3 stop according to

Kodak.) Does this work the same way with pull processing? If I rate

an ASA 400 film at ASA 200 and "pull 1" will I get the same density

as if I rated the stock normally and processed normally? Or do I

need to "pull 1" and rate at 250 or 160 instead?

I'm curious as to what will happen if I "pull 1" some of the Kodak

and Fuji professional color stocks (400NC, 400VC, NPS, NPH.) Also

curious as to what anyone thinks might happen if I pull 400UC or NPZ.

I'll do some testing this weekend, but I can always benefit from

prior knowledge. :)

Inexpensive: the best camera for the price is the Panasonic DVX-100. Great color, and it'll do progressive scan (although you can't boost the gain or use autofocus in progressive mode). I think they run around $4000.

Expensive: Sony D30 or D35. Around $15,000-$22,000. Beta SP or DVCAM, depending on the deck you get for it. These are EXTREMELY light sensitive cameras. At +6 db they can shoot images you can't quite see clearly by eye without tons of noise.

Avoid the PD-150 (blech!) and the Canon XL-1 (horrendously front heavy in hand-held mode and marginal picture quality).