Kodak updates Portra film!

It is good to hear that Big Yellow is still working on their films. Most of the film-news in the last few years has been mostly Fuji, but competition is good for us as photographers ~ ; - )
 
thelovecollect said:
what speed do you rate these films at?
and what speed for fuji negs?
Click to expand...
Rated box speed is a fine place to start. See what your negs look like; examine the shadows. In general, color neg films have considerable tolerance for overexposure, and a bit of that is likely to benefit tonality and apparent grain especially in the darker areas. For Fuji NPS 160 I set my meters to 100; for NPH 400 I set 250, and for NPZ 800 I put the meters at 500... works well for me, YMMV as they say. :)
 
Last Fall I did my foliage shots on Reala 100, which I really liked and it scanned beautifully. This year I may load up two cameras, one with Reala, one with Portra NC and do some comparisons. I've also returned to Tri-X for my traditional b&w, so this having a Kodak C41 colour film I can count on is cool.
 
kshapero said:
Is Porta UC/VC developed C-41?
Click to expand...
Akiva, yes! Fortunately, today all color neg films and chromogenic B&W use the standard C-41 color neg process. The actual chemistry may differ very slightly among manufacturers but the difference in results is hard to detect. Years ago Agfa had their own proprietary color neg process, quite incompatible with Kodak's C-41, and it seems to me Konica might have had something different too.

Ilford's early chromogenic XP-1 used a variation of C-41 that resulted in longer development times more convenient for home processing, but with XP-2 years ago they switched to standard C-41, as they found most customers were taking the film to their local labs.
 
Ultra color, Vibran color... technicly I guess VC is more balanced (more for portraits and commercial work) I am guessing btw :)
 
My Minolta 5400 and Epson 4780 for 4x5 scan it just fine. The scans match what comes from my pro lab. I use original software with both and do not need any adjustments.

I suggest the developing lab is trying to stretch chemicals or doing some other shortcut to give bad negs.


My 4x5 is home developed and most 35 is sent to a pro lab.
 
Tom Diaz said:
Great news! Portra 160NC and 400NC are my favorite films. I get them developed (anywhere!) and scanned-to-CD for pretty cheap. The good pictures I scan with my desktop Konica-Minolta Scan Elite 5400 scanner. That is a great machine and scans the negatives with no wacky profiles and no other strange results. Too bad they got out of the business, but you can still get one on ebay....
Click to expand...
Quite a coincidence: Portra 160NC has been my mainstay color film for several years now, and I've been using a Minolta 5400 scanner almost since its release; the characteristics of both film and scanner dovetail amazingly (almost eerily) well...the scans rarely need more than a light tweaking in PS, and the color is simply right-on to my eyes. My only quibble (and not a major one) has been with grain: I've long felt a film rated at this speed should possess somewhat finer grain than 160NC has offered up to now, and it appears that Rochester, even at this late date and in spite of everything it's been dealing with lately, has answered the call. And if this improvement has truly spread throughout the Portra line, it might lure me back to the 800-speed stuff (I've been mostly working with Fuji in that realm).

And, imagine this, just in time for Autumn! (Coincidence here? Methinks not.) I'll have to grab a few pro-packs as soon as the usual suspects in town have some.


- Barrett
 
Btw does it matter if you develope kodak film in fuji lab and visa versa? I think my quick supermarket lab cracks up my color negative films :)
 
amateriat said:
My only quibble (and not a major one) has been with grain: I've long felt a film rated at this speed should possess somewhat finer grain than 160NC has offered up to now, and it appears that Rochester, even at this late date and in spite of everything it's been dealing with lately, has answered the call.
- Barrett
Click to expand...

Totally. For me also the grain was a quibble, more than made up for by the incredibly natural colors and great sky and sunset/sunrise colors. The "low contrast" of the film is, to my eye, perfect for natural looking pictures of everything. If Kodak has made the grain better, that is excellent!

By the way, my comments and affection apply to the NC (natural color) film. I did not like the greens (chlorophyll) of the UC and VC versions when I did tests. Other people might, though, and the UC had finer grain.

Because I see E6 as an endangered species, folks, I really recommend this, and the Fuji equivalents, if you are into color and want to keep shooting film for quite a while. It's C41 film that can be developed everywhere.
 
Nachkebia said:
Btw does it matter if you develope kodak film in fuji lab and visa versa? I think my quick supermarket lab cracks up my color negative films :)
Click to expand...
Nope. The one thing that matters (but to a somewhat lesser degree than, say, E6) is a lab running fresh chemistry in a decently-maintained (read: clean) machine...and, yeah, someone who knows how to decipher a control strip. Your odds are obviously better at a pro lab with a dip/dunk machine, but an aware minilab operator will give good results as well (I've worked machines in both environments).


- Barrett
 
Barretts got the point there. I have a Walgreens 2 blocks from my house that gives me C-41 from thier Fuji Frontier as good as any pro lab in town. Why? Because 2 of the people working there know the machine well, know how to keep it clean and, perhaps most importantly, shoot film themselves. They understand what is desired by the customer because they want it themselves.

We may be moving across town soon. If we do, my color neg will still go to that store as long as those two are working there.

As for the new Portras, well, I think after reading this thread I do owe them another try. I don't expect it will supplant Reala for me, but the 160NC may have caught up. Gotta try it again. Perhaps as was suggested up thread, one body with Reala and one with NC?

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom