Kodak Portra 400 UC Results

[raid]

I recently tried out one roll of Kodak Portra 400 UC. I used a Leica CL with mostly its Summicron C 40mm/2 lens, but I also used the Nikkor 85mm/2.0 for a few photos with tighter crop. Of course, no polarizer was used, but note the saturation of the blues.

Link: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=673768


Raid

 

[raid]

Does anyone have images taken with this type of film?


Raid

 

[popstar]

Hey Raid - All the color images in my RFF gallery were taken with 400UC.

Is there a particular question, or just an observation on the blues in the photo? 🙂

 

[raid]

Steve:I am just surprised how intense blue the blues are. I will take a look at your gallery.

Raid

 

[MadMan2k]

I've used 2 packs of it (6 rolls), and I like it for certain things. I don't like the colors in daylight nearly as much as Kodak or Fuji slide film, but under cloud cover/shade it's very good. For macro it would be my choice, it's fast enough to stop motion but saturated.

The emphasis of the blues can hurt some daylight shots IMO. The reds/greens look great though.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/madman2k/274799859/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/madman2k/311551513/

 

[Athena]

I'm not sure it is possible to jucge this film on the web.

That said, it is a portraiture film - K made it clear that at various speeds etc, it had finer skin tones at finer grains.

So, I am curious why you would judge it on its "blues" - unless you were shooting smurfs! 😉

Your shots of the girls are the best test - but they are not close in enough (at least as shows up here on the website) to see if the skin tones are true etc.

Toss out the 50mm!

Pull out an 85 or 105 and get close in on the girls - that will be the test of this film.

Remember: Porta = Portrait

 

[jano]

Portrait film? Nah. It's more of an expensive film type thingy.

Here's my contrib, I've found it gets close to blowing reds and yellows, but everything else comes through contrasty yet natural. Contax G2 with 45 planar.
http://jano.smugmug.com/gallery/782552
and
http://jano.smugmug.com/gallery/991455/1/45823273

 

[Athena]

Portrait film? Nah. It's more of an expensive film type thingy.

Here's my contrib, I've found it gets close to blowing reds and yellows, but everything else comes through contrasty yet natural. Contax G2 with 45 planar.
http://jano.smugmug.com/gallery/782552
and
http://jano.smugmug.com/gallery/991455/1/45823273

Guess it's one of those CA things.

You ignore the stated purpose of the film - delcare your own use and figure if it doesn't work out - it's the manufacturer's fault - so then you can sue them!

Fine, you can use it to shoot plantains and NASCAR races and you'll get an image.

So what?

You can go to Walgreens and buy house brand ISO 200 too.

You're point then is?

 

[Nachkebia]

As far as I know there is no portra UC, there is kodak UC and portra VC, anyhow nice pictures, I always wanted to try kodak UC, anyone has tested the new portra`s yet?

 

[popstar]

The 400UC was part of the Portra line when it was originally introduced five or six years ago. It was split out on its own about three years ago if I recall correctly. Raid is probably just remembered to the time it used to be lumped in with the rest of the Portra films.

 

[raid]

Steve: I simply held up the negative to a light source, read off the negative what was written on it, and then posted this information to this forum. It sad Kodak Portra 400 UC.

Raid

 

[Nachkebia]

My mistake, pardon me...

 

[raid]

So, I am curious why you would judge it on its "blues" - unless you were shooting smurfs! 😉


Remember: Porta = Portrait

Hi Athena,
Portra film may be optimized for portrait work but I don't think this type of film must be used for people photography.

Raid

 

[jano]

Oh my, we've got a little pugnacious one 🙂 My only retort this time around shall be, "Know thyself!" Muwahaha.

 

[dazedgonebye]

I like the Porta 400UC (yes, that's what it says on my film as well).
I don't have anything to share by way of color shots though. I convert most everything to black and white after scan.
Here's one taken with a Fed-2 and Industar 26 lens. You at least get an idea of the grain and how well it scans. I like it very much and it's my current favorite.

 

[venchka]

Kodak ULTRA film

Kodak ULTRA film

Raid,

Is it possible you are talking about Kodak's ULTRA 400UC?

and

I have a thread on the ULTRA 400UC here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/professional/products/films/ultraColor/box400.jpg

So far, I have shot one roll of the 100 and one roll of the 400. I shot the 100 at box speed. I shot the 400 at 400, 200 & 100. My best results were the shots at 200 & 400. Except for one image where I felt that the 100 exposure was best for getting detail in the shadows. All of the images were useable. However, 2 stops overexposed was too much in some cases. I'm sure Photoshop could fix that.

I've attached examples of the ULTRA 400UC at 400.

I really like the ULTRA 400UC. Very fine grain. Good latitude. Very available: Wal-Mart stocks 3 36 exp. roll boxes for $12. 😉

Sorry, but my pictures don't have any blue in them.

 

[raid]

Steve: So you use this film for its grain and not its color rendition. It may be a good film for lens testing (converted to B&W) since Ilford XP2 is for some people here too "grainless", being a C-41 film.

Wayne: It is of secondary importance to me how Kodak labeled this film, but it is not an Ultra film as you have posted here. It could be that my roll is 3 years old. Someone sent it to me along with a lens or camera that I bought from him.


Raid

 

[dazedgonebye]

Not working in a wet darkroom, color rendition (saturation anyway) isn't that important to me. I can tone it down or amp it up in PS very easily...at the odd time when I want color.
It just seems very smooth to me...lots of detail and very nice tonal values after conversion.
I'm back to film after years with digital, so maybe my perspective has been "tainted." But I find I don't usually want a ton of grain. I like it in other people's work, but so far, I haven't found a home for it in mine. I'll be trying 800 and 1600 iso films soon so I'm guessing I'll be dealing with more grain then.
In any case, the UC is wonderful for scanning and converting. This one with a J9 (at f4, I think).

 

[kaiyen]

There is and has only been one emulsion from Kodak called 400UC. Whatever they put in front of or after it is irrelevant. However, this isn't not a variant of the Portra 400VC (very contrasty/saturated) that not only was different, with less contrast (oddly enough) and more latitude, but continues, I think, to coexist with 400UC. 400 and 100UC have been around for no more than 2.5-3, I think.

Portra is just Kodak's pro line. That is all.

allan

 

[venchka]

...

Wayne: It is of secondary importance to me how Kodak labeled this film, but it is not an Ultra film as you have posted here. It could be that my roll is 3 years old. Someone sent it to me along with a lens or camera that I bought from him.


Raid

Fair enough. However, if you wish to continue using the film, then chances are good that your older film is now labeled Kodak ULTRA 100 or 400 UC. Both are quite nice in my opinion. The 400UC is particulary attractive due to it's lack of grain, availability and price.

I plan to shoot several rolls at Christmas. I'll try to find some "blue" subjects to see how the newer packaged film handles spillover from water and sky.