Portra 160VC vs. 400VC

[bherman]

Hi;

For those of you who shoot 120 (6x6. 6x7, 6x9) etc and use Color Negative Film, is there and appreciable difference in grain between Portra 160VC and 400VC? What about Fuji? What do they have in this range? What are the Pros and cons of one over the other?

Even when blown up to 16x20, when lighting permits, am I still better off with the lower ASA film?

Common sense tells me "yes", but Kodak says thay the grain is the same between these two films. I mean the same grain structure doesn't necessarily mean that the 400VC film doesn';t have more of it.

What's your take?

Thanks

Brad

 

[Pherdinand]

Fuji has NPC160 and NPH400. NPH is in fact a bit less contrasty, but there is no high/low contrast correspondent at 400 speed.
I did not try npc160 yet in 120, but the nph is excellent. Really really good colours and smooth where it should be.

 

[David Goldfarb]

I've posted some comparison shots in this thread on APUG--

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/33887-now-new-portras-whos-used-them.html

Short version for grain--160 is better than 400 and NC is better than VC. 160NC grain is really outstanding.

 

[bherman]

Portra 160VC vs. 400VC

Thanks David. Is NC good for outdoor landscape photos?

I'm not shooting weddings or anything. Thanks, Brad

 

[David Goldfarb]

It's a matter of taste and what the like is like. Think NC in hard light and VC in soft light, but I tend to shoot slide film for color landscapes (usually Provia 100F).