SteveRD1
Well-known
SteveRD1
Well-known
Chaser
Well-known
Good shots....looks like a great combo...
SteveRD1
Well-known
aizan
Veteran
try the nc versions, too. mmm...kodak.
SteveRD1
Well-known
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)
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
Seasoned Member
Really nice results, Steve! I like Kodak's pro films too...
ywenz
Veteran
Nice, but I've always preferred the look of Fuji NPH to my Portra 160...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
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
South Florida Man
great. Colors are true. Where do you develop? By who?SteveRD1 said:
kshapero
South Florida Man
By the way, what is the difference between Porta NC and Porta VC?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
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.
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
the snow must go on
kshapero said:
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
South Florida Man
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
the snow must go on
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.
Of course, you can solve this "problem" in PS if needed.
kshapero
South Florida Man
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
Established
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
Paul
Nachkebia
Well-known
pvenables : I personaly can not get good quality scans from negative (cooslcan 5000)
jkelly
Analog hobbyist
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.
Attachments
Last edited:
SteveRD1
Well-known
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.
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.
