Im Amazed. M7 and Portra 160VC

[SteveRD1]

1st time using this film. A bit pricey but so worth it over any other color negative film I have tried. Some samples from today on a walk with my son - M7, 50 cron, 15VC and portra 160VC

 

[SteveRD1]

Few more

Few more

more. Love the colors of this film!

 

[Chaser]

Good shots....looks like a great combo...

 

[SteveRD1]

More

More

A few more from today. Last ones

 

[aizan]

try the nc versions, too. mmm...kodak.

 

[SteveRD1]

Portra

Portra

Just ordered 5 rolls of NC and 5 of VC from BH. My new fave film. So much better than HD, gold or Reala (imo)

 

[Dougg]

Really nice results, Steve! I like Kodak's pro films too...

 

[ywenz]

Nice, but I've always preferred the look of Fuji NPH to my Portra 160...

 

[Trius]

Last Fall I was pleased with Reala 100 for foliage. This year I think I'll load up both Reala and Portra NC and compare. The Reala scanned really well.

 

[kshapero]

A few more from today. Last ones

great. Colors are true. Where do you develop? By who?

 

[kshapero]

By the way, what is the difference between Porta NC and Porta VC?

 

[Pherdinand]

160VC is indeed worth its weight in gold. (I'm exaggerating, of course. ALthough i see not much use for gold in photography.)
I used five rolls in 6x6 and the colours are gorgeous, and the level of details!
Good shots, Steve.
I like the strap on the little fellow's camera.

 

[Pherdinand]

By the way, what is the difference between Porta NC and Porta VC?

nc = neutral colour.
vc=vivid colour.
Supposedly more saturated.
Never tryed nc though. VC is NOT oversaturated, so i wonder how NC is.

ywenz, the nph is i think a bit of a different category. I notice the speed difference. Grain in 35mm becomes visible when I enlarge a bit. And the Kodak stuff seems to be a bit warmer. But i like the NPH's colours too.
VC160 is more like fuji's NPC160, in my oppinion.

 

[kshapero]

Anyone have experience with both Porta 160 VC and Reala 100? I use Reala which develops beautifully although sometimes the colors are just a little too bright on skin tone.

 

[Pherdinand]

reala100 is my favourite all-around 35mm film, BUT, on a sunny day outdoors its colours are a bit too aggressive, indeed for people it is not the best choice, unless the image requires higher contrast, bright colours.
Of course, you can solve this "problem" in PS if needed.

 

[kshapero]

I live in very sunny Florida. Would a Kodak Porta be a better choice to keep the sun from "attacking" my colors. If so which one, NC or VC?

 

[pvenables]

Has anyone had any experience of putting either the Kodak or Fuji 160 film through a Nikon Coolscan ??. I get good results from slides so hardly use any colour neg film at all, but I'd be interested to try some if folks say that it works well...

Paul

 

[Nachkebia]

pvenables : I personaly can not get good quality scans from negative (cooslcan 5000)

 

[jkelly]

Attached is an example of a shot taken with Porta NC 400 ASA. Alas, it was taken with an uncoated Summar/IIIa combination. In addition it was an overcast winter day, and the grass was kinda dead. I like the color saturation okay, but I keep going back to Fuji Superia, because I don't see enough of a difference to justify the higher price of the Kodak film.

 

[SteveRD1]

Reala vs Portra VC

Reala vs Portra VC

I have shot about 6 rolls of reala and on my Nikon Coolscan V the negatives scan HORRIBLY. Color casts and overall muddy look. I never liked Reala though I tried after so many glowing recommendations. I find with the Nikon scanner, all Kodak films scan much better than Fuji Reala.

These were processed negative only at my local 1 hour lab (CVS) and I brought them home and scanned them on the coolscan V. Resized in PS and uploaded here.

I also scanned my sons though he was using an OM1 and Kodak Gold. Those are not nearly as nice color/grain wise and he was using 100 speed where the portra is 160.

Thanks for the comments! I found my new main film in portra 160VC.