Portra film experience?

[nickchew]

It's old news to most of you but I just found out that kodak Portra 400 film has a special coating to make better scans.
Anyone with experience?
It is really of any use? It is expensive?

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...vedScanning.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.13.14.16&lc=en

Nick

 

[kiev4a]

I used Portra in 2002 to photograph our daughter's wedding on Maui. Probably before the "improved scanning" type but I have scanned a few frames off the film with no problem. Standard Portra is nice for events like wedding -- softer contrast and colors (at least that's my take). Not that great for landscapes but nice skin tones for people.

 

[ZeissFan]

I have to say that I think Portra is overall one of the nicest color print films that I've encountered. It's not a highly saturated film, so some don't like it for landscapes. I find the colors to be very natural, and as Wayne has mentioned, it's a first-rate emulsion for people and just terrific for weddings.

 

[ZeissFan]

To add to this, it has a lot of latitude. I recently exposed a roll of Portra 400 (35mm version) at 160, because I thought it was 160NC. I had other issues, including leaving my shoe-mount finder for the 35 and 135 lenses.

After I finished the roll, I spoke with the photo lab -- a good place in Pennsylvania that I've dealt with a number of times -- and they felt that rather than try to pull-process, just do it straight up.

With the exception of some shots that would have been underexposed even at 160, the colors were fine. And the grain for the 35mm version of this 400 speed film is quite tight.

For a general purpose film, it's a bit pricey. Regular Kodak Gold is hard to beat. But if you ever shoot a wedding or want a film that will always give you nice results, Portra is an excellent choice.

 

[jano]

I shot a few rolls of the 400UC version which I picked up at walmart a couple months ago on the cheap. The colors were lovely and very, very smooth, slight grained (which essentially disappeared with GEM). Tendency to be too much with reds and yellows.

jano

 

[DougK]

Portra 160NC is a very nice film for general shooting. I've never shot it in 35mm, only MF. I like it the best of any color print film I've tried and I usually try to keep a few rolls of it around.

 

[Trius]

I shot a few rolls of the 400UC version which I picked up at walmart a couple months ago on the cheap. The colors were lovely and very, very smooth, slight grained (which essentially disappeared with GEM). Tendency to be too much with reds and yellows.

jano

Jano: Well of course there is emphasis on reds and yellows ... the Kodak box is predominantly red and yellow, it bleeds into the emulsion during storage! 😉

Seriously, I like the NC. I've never used the more saturated emulsions, as that's just not my taste, even for landscapes.

I remember shooting CPS (C-22) and VCS (C-41) in the past. These were the professional emulsions, and I shot them in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. They were always a step up from Kodak's consumer grade films, so when I needed ultimate colour fidelity and tonal range, that's what I used. Portra is the successor to these films, if I'm not mistaken.

Trius

 

[CJP6008]

I use portra NC professionally for weddings - great skin tones. For me the Fuji offerings NPH NPS etc are weirdly too magenta and too cold. I have used a bit of them but with anyone given to a slightly florid complexion they end up looking like a smacked bottom.

Scan wise - all of it goes through a Fuji Frontier for print and scan (the two operations being inextricably linked). No complaints - looks good. Scanning tends to increase grain slightly (grain aliasing I think it is called). An analogue print tends to be better but I am only looking for enprints so what the heck.

Good film I just pray that it survives the bloodbath that is the photographic industry at the moment.