Kodak Portra 160

Unsarcastically, I would like to see the results of that.

Here's +3. The glare on the Kodak chart isn't from overexposure, but from me not realizing the chart was at an angle to reflect the light.


Portra 400 +3 by ezwal, on Flickr


And +6 just for the heck of it:


Portra 400 +6 by ezwal, on Flickr

I didn't run the new Portra 400 this high, but I extended the test on 400NC-3 with +8, +10, and +12 exposures. Those started to look bad. Mind you, the scene pictured doesn't have a huge dynamic range, which certainly affects things, but the stop or two around the incident metered exposure survives surprisingly well.
 
It looks like this emulsion is designed scanning. I've been looking for something to use for color with the loss of Kodachrome. I've used NC in 120 but don't know how 135 will enlarge. The other film I'm planning to test is Provia 100. Any comments..?
 
It's very positive to see a new film introduced but let's not misunderstand what's going on here. Where there were 4 film types before, there are two now. Kodak is consolidating its film line to what it can profitably continue to offer.

They are eliminating the overhead of having two flavors each of Portra 160 and 400 ( while standardizing these films on the same technology as higher volume movie film). As a matter of fact, given the reportedly wide latitude of Portra 400, I'm surprised they're keeping 160 around at all.

They're going to continue eliminating redundancies. Many people have mentioned they get everything they want in slide film from Ektar 100. I bet Ektar was designed from the very beginning to replace Kodak's slide film. Yet, more consolidation.

This is a positive sign for us who like film. Kodak is positioning itself so it can continue to make, and sell, film for a while; otherwise, if they didn't foresee a profitably future for film, they'd just stop production of whole lines of film without any replacements.
 
as someone who lives in a place where buying and developing slide film has become prohibitively expensive, having colour negative films with slide qualities is a very, very welcome innovation. I have a box of slide film which I am about to sell locally for those who want to use them for cross processing. it hurts a bit, but I'm keeping the velvias and p1600s 🙂
 
As a matter of fact, given the reportedly wide latitude of Portra 400, I'm surprised they're keeping 160 around at all.

Most color negative has that kind of latitude. I can't quite figure out why Portra 400 is being heralded as unique in this matter. Not that I don't like Portra 400 - it's a wonderful film.
 
It's very positive to see a new film introduced but let's not misunderstand what's going on here. Where there were 4 film types before, there are two now. Kodak is consolidating its film line to what it can profitably continue to offer.

They are eliminating the overhead of having two flavors each of Portra 160 and 400 ( while standardizing these films on the same technology as higher volume movie film). As a matter of fact, given the reportedly wide latitude of Portra 400, I'm surprised they're keeping 160 around at all.

They're going to continue eliminating redundancies. Many people have mentioned they get everything they want in slide film from Ektar 100. I bet Ektar was designed from the very beginning to replace Kodak's slide film. Yet, more consolidation.

This is a positive sign for us who like film. Kodak is positioning itself so it can continue to make, and sell, film for a while; otherwise, if they didn't foresee a profitably future for film, they'd just stop production of whole lines of film without any replacements.

Exactly. As happy as I am to see this improved emulsion, let's keep it in perspective. And I'm sure that the film department at Kodak wants to keep producing film and stay in the market for many years to come but that doesn't rule out the possibility of some people high up deciding to get out of the film business tomorrow. I personally don't think that's gonna happen but it's not entirely impossible.
 
I don't see any negative in this at all really (no pun intended), we've got some good, modern films, with the movie film technology, and lost some slight saturation differences, which could be adjusted during scanning or printing anyway.

Maybe Kodak will ditch E6 altogether, but if we get good C41 replacements, I'm OK with that. I'd hate to see Velvia go (It's not Kodak, I know), but if there was "Velvia/CN" to replace it, I'd be excited to try it.

Things change, which is better than things staying the same. Right now we have some great films from Kodak, maybe bad things will happen in the future, but no point worrying about that now.
 
Exactly. As happy as I am to see this improved emulsion, let's keep it in perspective. And I'm sure that the film department at Kodak wants to keep producing film and stay in the market for many years to come but that doesn't rule out the possibility of some people high up deciding to get out of the film business tomorrow. I personally don't think that's gonna happen but it's not entirely impossible.

Movie tech is making its way to consumer film because there is still quite a bit of development in that field - and from everything I've heard from the industry here in LA, it's still very profitable. I think as long as there's steady demand in Hollywood, it doesn't make much sense to kill off the extra sales at the consumer level. At least with 35mm, it's mostly the same format (well, but for the remjet and such.)

I do believe, however, that we will see consolidation in sales and developing. We'll have fewer local shops for film and most will come from the big mail order houses; same for developing where you have to send it out.

As for the new 160, I can't wait to get some. I really, really like the new Portra 400.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom