Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
rg2
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Rebekah wrote:
Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
rg2
Doesn't exist anymore. Or rather, Kodak isn't making it anymore.
Portra comes in 160 and 400, NC (natural color) or VC (vivid color).
There's also a Portra 800 for low light. Portra 100UC wasn't the most
popular of the Portra
I saw some Ebay, and I didn't know what it was, so I was just curious
if it was any good. :o) thanks mucho
rg2
On 9/3/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rebekah wrote:
Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
rg2
Doesn't exist anymore. Or rather, Kodak isn't making
Film is dead...
Rebekah wrote:
Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
rg2
--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Probably expired as well then...
Rebekah wrote:
I saw some Ebay, and I didn't know what it was, so I was just curious
if it was any good. :o) thanks mucho
rg2
On 9/3/07, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rebekah wrote:
Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
rg2
:
Rebekah wrote:
Any opinions on Kodak Portra 100UC?
rg2
Doesn't exist anymore. Or rather, Kodak isn't making it anymore.
Portra comes in 160 and 400, NC (natural color) or VC (vivid color).
There's also a Portra 800 for low light. Portra 100UC wasn't the most
popular
Rebekah wrote:
I saw some Ebay, and I didn't know what it was, so I was just curious
if it was any good. :o) thanks mucho
Actually, if it's the 100 ISO version of the 400UC I used a couple of
years ago, which didn't strictly speaking have Portra printed on the
box, I'd expect
UC was introduced as a Portra film (to go with NC and VC) and then
quickly spun off into it's own line.
I just picked up some of the 400UC in 120, since I heard UC in 120 is dead.
-Adam
Toralf Lund wrote:
Rebekah wrote:
I saw some Ebay, and I didn't know what it was, so I was just curious
Hi all,
This film is now in stock at my local camera shop. Has anyone out there
tried it?
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
: Kodak Portra 400 BW
Hi all,
This film is now in stock at my local camera shop. Has
anyone out there
tried it?
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Hi Dave,
I've used it many times. It, in my opinion, beats XP2 hands down. It is
the finest C-41 BW film out there but it is expensive (at least up here in
Canada). Most people, I think, usually opt for XP2 or T400CN before
spending the extra dough on Portra 400 BW. If you can afford it, it's
I read some nice things about it at photo.net. Do a search. Excellent
tonality.
The color cast is determined by exposure, paper choice and operator
skill.
Portra BW is meant to be printed on color paper - it's fine on b+w
though the print times are a little longer than with T400CN, which
itself has pretty long print times as compared to normal b+w.
It just depends on what
- Original Message -
From: David Mann
Subject: Kodak Portra 400 BW
Hi all,
This film is now in stock at my local camera shop. Has anyone out there
tried it?
Nice film. Prints well on RA-4 paper and scans nicely.
Fine grain (VERY FINE GRAIN), but not overly sharp, nice tonal
I don't know if this will be useful or not, but here are some scans of
Portra 400UC prints:
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/5866093/
The people pics are from the underexposed roll - ash and derek1
are definitely underexposed. I had an 8x8 made of Derek2, which is
pretty close to properly exposed
Portra 160NC doesn't respond well to underexposure. I usually rate it at
ISO 100. To my eye, it's underexposed even at 160 and you apparently
exposed it as though it was an ISO 200 film. C-41 film generally doesn't
respond well to push processing, but in this case I would ask the lab to
push
Re: RE: Re: Portra 400UC
Dave wrote: Because the parent lab can now proccess BW film,he is
stocking Tmax 100/400 film.At least i don't have to drive 45 min to pick BW
film
up now.
Wow!
Every now and again I'm reminded of my age. When I was first shooting
pictures, with my mighty howling
I shot my first roll of Portra UC a few days ago. I metered it at 320,
and since I was shooting some snow scenes, I used an incident meter. The
exposures are nice. I had just finished a roll of Plus-X, so my meter
was set at 100 when I began. I forgot to change it before the first shot
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED], on the subject of Portra 400UC mentioned his first
roll showed surprisingly good skin tones, and about 1/3 or the shots were
underexposed.
I'm glad to hear the skin tones are good. My first couple of rolls of people
shots come back from
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, I dropped of the roll for processing thinking I'd have a great
demonstration. Between the exposure latitude of 400UC and
the magic of the
Fuji Frontier, I had 10 acceptable shots and two fairly
bad ones.
I would shoot at 250. That's going to give you a margin of error. I
think that even 200 would be okay for flowers, which might benefit from
a bit of extra contrast. Most films seem to be rated high, even the
transparency stocks.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
six rolls of Portra 400
JT UC (and other films, of course). I thought I'd share my impressions. I
JT have not yet had a chance to scan the negs, so the following comments
JT are based on machine prints on Fuji Crystal Archive. (They are good
JT machine prints, but they are machine prints only.)
JT
Forgot to mention. I did not push the film, but several times I
underexposed by 1 to 1.5 stops. The prints look fine.
Joe
A while back a list member(forgot who)replied
to a film quiry with the statement that,VC is
better in a dull or cloudy situation were as NC
would be better in a sunny situation.I tried to
experiment with that advice 2 weekends ago but
the weather was not ideal to test the theory.
(shot most
I have done a first cut at what an order would look like from BH. The
biggest problem for me is that I really don't have a clue what would
be good chemicals to start with - which developer, which stop, which
fixer? I figured that I would start out just shooting Agfapan 100
400 while I get more
WR Kodak gives a developing time of 3:15 for standard C-41, 3:45
WR for a 1 stop push, and 4:15 for a two stop push, at the standard
WR temperature of 38ºC.
WR And it still doesn't work.
The pro labs here do pushing c41 in the eveneing, if i understand
it, by turning up the temp of the bath - ?
We'll test your theory soon enough BillG
Dave
Begin Original Message
Bill D. Casselberry wrote:
Yup - If I can do, so can you ;^) anyway - it's easy
Pentax User
Stouffville Ontario Canada
http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/
http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses
Sign up
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 05:26 PM, William Robb wrote:
It is possible to push in some of the minilab film processors by
turning off the drive when the film is entirely into the
developer. The FP350 won't hold an entire 36 exposure roll on
the developer rack though. The Noritsu machined
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 05:48 PM, frank theriault wrote:
Really, the only
thing stopping me from doing this darkroom thing is intertia, and fear
that I'll
screw up some otherwise nice shots (they're so few and far between, I
can't afford
to lose any!) by doing something wrong.
On Tuesday, May 28, 2002, at 04:20 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'd suggest Agfa's Rodinal with those films.
I also would suggest Rodinal, or Ilford Perceptol (if you don't mind a
powder). I'm a fan of Perceptol with old school (as in, non-T grain)
stuff like APX, Plus-X, FP4 and the like.
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra and T400CN (WAS: Kodak Portra)
Perhaps this has been asked and answered before, and if it
has, I wasn't
paying attention. There may be some need or preference for me
to shoot
some chromogenic BW in a few months and I
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 01:04 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I wasn't suggesting using a minilab for printing real BW. If you can't
print the negs yourself, then find a real lab that can do the printing
for you. I'd never suggest a minilab for making a decent BW print.
I know, Shel, I was
the Portra B+W isn't.
Unfortunately my lab has slightly elderly machines and they don't even
have the option of pushing...supposedly they're getting a frontier
this year.
On a side note, the allure of chromogenic has caught me...I shot my
first roll at a wedding yesterday
tv
-
This message
BigDay Tom wrote:
On a side note, the allure of chromogenic has caught me
...I shot my first roll at a wedding yesterday
The discontinued (but still in the pipeline) TMaxCN is
(IMHO) a marvelous people film. The tonality is very
smooth and grain effect
Perhaps this has been asked and answered before, and if it has, I wasn't
paying attention. There may be some need or preference for me to shoot
some chromogenic BW in a few months and I was wondering if any version
of the stuff has better archival properties than another, and if the
various
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 11:07 AM, tom wrote:
Unfortunately my lab has slightly elderly machines and they don't even
have the option of pushing...supposedly they're getting a frontier
this year.
Frontier won't let 'em push. As far as I know, no automated mini-lab
style machines can
]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Kodak Portra?
My local film supplier cannot get the 400CN nor
Royal Gold 1000 any more.He can only get the
Select +.May be because he's a small store,but some
other labs still have 400CN in the fridge.
Dave
Hi Jerry.The Rapid Photo 1 Hour were i live does 4x6 and
5x7 BW but has to send the 8x10 out to the bigger store south
of me.near Brendan.My guy does his BW as his end of day work.
Only problem,he only has glossy and i like my BW matte.If
only that were my only life problem ehG
Dave
Begin
On Monday, May 27, 2002, at 12:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know of any minilab in my area (Houston, Tx) that does real
b/w in
any fashion?
They generally don't, unless they're really upscale (and by then they're
not really a minilab anymore). Minilabs can, however, make a
I haven't had any trouble getting more stock of T400CN. If the channel
starts drying up, I'll sound the alarm, but for now I wouldn't panic
about it.
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
Hi, Dave,
APO, at 41 Britain Street (Richmond and Sherbourne area). 416-368-3840, if
you want to call first.
$6.50 to develop 35mm or 120. $8 for a contact sheet (with processing). 65
cents each for 4x6 proofs (with processing).
regards,
frank
David Chang-Sang wrote:
Frank,
What lab is
]
Subject: Re: Home developing - was: Kodak Portra?
Hi, Bill,
Well, you see, that's one of the other things that gives me inertia
(causes me to be inert? whatever...). The guy who runs the lab I use,
Bob, does good work. Several times I've gone in to pick up stuff, and
he's told me that he's re
Frank,
You can't screw up a nice shot. If you've got the negative, then you
can always make another print, or, if you feel particularly insecure,
the neg can always be taken to a good printer for a final, exhibition
quality print.
And, by processing your own BW, you can have absolute control
I agree with everything you say, Shel, except the last paragraph. I've only used c41
bw
twice. The first time, I bought Ilford because I was out on a walk, ran out of film,
and
the minilab that I went into (first and last time) only had c41 bw. The next time was
when I bought the Portra
On Sun, 26 May 2002, frank theriault wrote:
I'm wondering if the cast is inevitable from minilabs, but if you get
it printed on BW paper maybe it works? Anyone else out there know
It's possible for minilabs to print the chromogenic stuff on colour paper
so that it looks very close to black
not going to be happy
with how they
look.
So lets hope the Portra is good!
You're looking at this the wrong way.
The 4x6's you get back from c-41 b+w are just *proofs*. You should
just use them to decide which ones you want reprints of. The fact is,
there are few option for b+w proofing
for their pics. Funny,
they liked my pics better the only problem being they cost $14.00. So, it
seems the problem is the paper.
As far as the color cast of C41 BW on color paper, I've read that the
Portra version is designed to print best on color paper. I have a roll to
try out. Don't know
Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
Hi Cory, Frank ...
Why don't you guys just spent $25.00 or so and buy a developing tank and
a reel or two, get some chemicals, and start processing your own BW -
the real stuff? You
Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
Hi Cory, Frank ...
Why don't you guys just spent $25.00 or so and buy a developing tank and
a reel or two, get some chemicals, and start processing your own BW -
the real stuff? You
filter if you have a lot of greenery in (the background) of your photos to
lighten it. It's somewhat contrasty.
From: CBWaters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reading the Kodak site I came across this Portra BW C41 film.
They say Labs can get excellent black-and-white output with no changes in
workflow
Sure there is ... you'll get to learn a new skill, have greater control
over your work and the quality of your work, save a little time as
compared to running to the lab, and, once you've got the negatives done,
and have learned to read them, you can then have specific negatives
printed at a
Does this stuff look any better when printed at minilabs
than the films more
easily available (like at Target Wal-Mart)?
I recently took some C-41 bw film to Target (can't remember which
brand) and they couldn't get the tone right. They kept trying and I
ended up with one sepia toned, one
- Original Message -
From: Robert Woerner
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
Hi,
I've shot the Kodak 400 C-41 BW( the kind you buy at Target,
WalMart, etc.)
and had it printed on BW paper. It looks great. Only problem
is I lose the
savings and convenience of C-41 due to the cost of having
At 08:25 5/26/2002 -0400, frank theriault wrote:
I've only used C41 bw once (it was Ilford, I can't remember the exact
type), and I hated the blue/purple cast from the minilab. Said I'd never
use the crap again.
Must be XP2, all the others are from Kodak (T400 CN, BW+, Portra 400 BW).
I've
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Amita Guha
Does this stuff look any better when printed at minilabs
than the films more
easily available (like at Target Wal-Mart)?
I recently took some C-41 bw film to Target (can't remember
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Robb
It is really dificult to get perfectly neutral results with the
pseudo BW films on colour paper. For 5 bucks a roll, they have
to accept they are not getting custom colour balanced
Hey Hey..
One of my FAVOURITE films to use !! :) (or favorite for you American
folk - Happy Memorial Day Weekend!!)
Here's my experience with Kodak Portra BW:
I've only had it processed at camera stores. In the Toronto area, Downtown
Camera and Japan Camera do a wonderful job with this film
- Original Message -
From: Amita Guha
Subject: RE: Kodak Portra?
Does this stuff look any better when printed at minilabs
than the films more
easily available (like at Target Wal-Mart)?
I recently took some C-41 bw film to Target (can't remember
which
brand) and they couldn't
- Original Message -
From: tom
Subject: RE: Kodak Portra?
It is really dificult to get perfectly neutral results with
the
pseudo BW films on colour paper. For 5 bucks a roll, they
have
to accept they are not getting custom colour balanced
prints.
Exactly! What do you people
I am concerned that though the topic is specifically about Portra BW, all
the chatter coming back appears to be mostly about other C41 BW films and
the color casts experienced with them. This is not the same film. I've used
the other films, Kodak Black and White +400 Film for example, and seen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of William Robb
What I have found is, the less they pay, the higher their
expectaions seem to be. I don't understand it myself. Well,
actually, I do understand it, but my thoughts on the subject are
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 11:17 AM, David Chang-Sang wrote:
It does not have
the strange blue/purple cast that Ilford XP2 has.
This is because those particular labs do have a channel for Portra BW
and do not have a channel for XP2. It is not inherently the nature of
the film. Just like
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 06:49 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Why don't you guys just spent $25.00 or so and buy a developing tank and
a reel or two, get some chemicals, and start processing your own BW -
the real stuff?
Only problem is, if you're getting minilab prints, and they're coming
- Original Message -
From: tom
Subject: RE: Kodak Portra?
Just out of curiousity, how long does it take you to print a
roll of
36 4x6's?
Dry to dry, with no redos, we can get a roll through the lab in
just under 20 minutes.
If the roll requires more colour corrections, and redos
be a thing of the past. Save time, money, and
SB effort. Experience the joy of your own creativity and skill.
SB CBWaters wrote:
So lets hope the Portra is good!
Cory
Who knows he should just throw one of the kids out of her room and take it
over for a darkroom so he can forget all
I wasn't suggesting using a minilab for printing real BW. If you can't
print the negs yourself, then find a real lab that can do the printing
for you. I'd never suggest a minilab for making a decent BW print.
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Only problem is, if you're getting minilab prints, and
Developing tank and reel(s) - $25.00
Developer - $3.00
Stop - $5.00?
Fix - $5.00
Photoflo or LFN (Wetting Agent) - $5.00
Clips to hang film to dry - free to $10.00
Dark room for loading film - Free
A pair of scissors - I'm sure you've got a pair somewhere g
Negative sleeves - $5.00
Some of these
Frank Cory et all.I have used some 400CN andthe
replacement the Black and White Select + and
have it printed on colour paper as 'proofs'then
pick the ones i think would look good in BW
and have them print out on the proper
paper.Some times the 'sepia' effect makes a
better picture IMHO
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: Kodak Portra?
Heck, when I had a little place back in 1972, I couldn't even
use the
bathroom, but I figured out a way to use an Omega D2V-XL in my
kitchen,
which I could make light tight, and I built a small wet sink
in the room
On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 05:00 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Have you ever tried Agfa Optima II - you can get 100, 200 or 400
speed. Agfa is usually very clean with whites and the Optima seems to
do well with browns/reds - earthy tones. I would be very tempted to
try a couple of rolls -
Thanks Aaron,i'll pre warn you if and when i
can scoot by.
Looks like Agfa Optima II will have to be tried.
Dave
Begin Original Message
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:10:41 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Portra/Supra,lost my notes
Yeah
,and if i stay with Kodak,would the Portra VC or Supra
400 be more suited to my needs.I can vaguely remember but i'm not sure what
the majority suggested,Supra seems to be ringing in my head but not sure.
Are my only choice of speeds 160 and 400,at the lower end?
Thanks and sorry
Dave
-
This message
I think Portra 400VC comes closer to Royal Gold than does Supra. Portra is
probably more saturated and vibrant, but the window is narrower. You have to be
quite accurate in exposure.
Paul
David Brooks wrote:
Hi all,sorry for asking this again,but i lost my printouts from the responses
from
,horsey with a lot of
DB browns,greens and whites,and if i stay with Kodak,would the Portra VC or Supra
DB 400 be more suited to my needs.I can vaguely remember but i'm not sure what
DB the majority suggested,Supra seems to be ringing in my head but not sure.
DB Are my only choice of speeds 160 and 400
That's been my reason for using Agfa for 30+ years. Extremely natural, yet
somewhat saturated palette.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Portra/Supra,lost my notes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Portra/Supra,lost my notes
That's been my reason for using Agfa for 30+
years. Extremely natural, yet
somewhat saturated palette.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 09
and that Ultra 50 was /is good for certain effects.)
Regards,
Robert
- Original Message -
From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Portra/Supra,lost my notes
I have never shot any Agfa film but if you
thinks it might
possible dimiss of the RG.?
DB Dave
DB Begin Original Message
DB From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DB Sent: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 17:13:14 -0500
DB To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DB Subject: Re: Portra/Supra,lost my notes
DB That's been my reason for using Agfa for 30+
DB years. Extremely natural, yet
HDC has been replaced by Vista.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 7:38 PM
Subject: Re[3]: Portra/Supra,lost my notes
David,
Be sure to try the Optima II stuff - not the HDC.
Bruce
Robert Woerner wrote:
Anyhow, I got some Agfa Vista 400 and found out
it is really good. The grain may not be as fine as Supra 400 or Royal
Gold 400 but it has a nice color palette and is not overly contrasty.
What's it like when shot at 1600? I felt like playing with
underexposing
by Vista.
BO Bill
BO - Original Message -
BO From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BO To: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BO Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 7:38 PM
BO Subject: Re[3]: Portra/Supra,lost my notes
David,
Be sure to try the Optima II stuff - not the HDC.
Bruce Dayton
On 25 Feb 2002 at 8:11, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Tom, here's the easy solution:
If you like Portra 160NC, try a roll of Fuji NPS. If you're a VC
person, try NPC.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
What are the 400 versions?
I wonder how many customers Fuji loses because people just
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, tom wrote:
If you like Portra 160NC, try a roll of Fuji NPS. If you're a VC
person, try NPC.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for.
What are the 400 versions?
NPH is their pro 400 with low contrast and accurate colour reproduction;
it's the 400 version of NPS
On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 03:02 PM, tom wrote:
What are the 400 versions?
Fuji NPH 400 is like Portra 400NC, and is matched to NPS (160) and NPZ
(800). There isn't a 400 speed equivalent of NPC yet, but based on
sales I'd imagine that one is in the pipeline. If you need a higher
On 25 Feb 2002 at 17:50, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
snip info on Fuji nomenclature
Thanks.
I said
I may have to suck it up and switch labs.
Oops, we're not supposed to say that anymore, sorry.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net
whatever...
I've always had very good luck with the portra films...I've never seen wierd
colors or felt the iso rating should be altered (never used the 800 speed
film, however)...
Brendan MacRae
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net
I've been using Portra 160NC lately, and found the color to very, very
neutral. My negative scans are also excellent with this film, so maybe
my scanner is also matched to Kodak? g. It just seems like a great
film to me, and exposure has been terrific at the rated 160.
Thanks,
Ed
http
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: Portra Films
I went to the lab today to pick up some color proofs, and the guy who owns
and runs the place took me aside.
Tom, we need to have the Portra talk.
Uh oh
I recently shot a roll of Portra 160VC in my Yashica 124G, metered with a
Minolta IIIF. Colors neutral but saturated when scanned at 1200 dpi on an
Epson Perfection 1200.
Bill
I've been using Portra 160NC lately, and found the color to very, very
neutral. My negative scans are also
ed...
Me too...
I haven't yet seen the need to rate the 160 any slower. However, if shooting
someone with a darker complextion rating it at 100 would be a good idea. This
would only yield about 2/3 of a stop over exposure...should be just enough.
Brendan MacRae
-
This message is from the
On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Treena Harp wrote:
BTW, has anyone here used the Portra chromogenic B+W yet? I was wanting to
try some for portraits, but was wondering if any of ya'll have any feedback
on it.
I ran a test on some the other week - exposed the same scene from ISO 25
to ISO 1600
]
Sent: ÐÝìðôç, 20 Äåêåìâñßïõ 2001 8:58 ìì
Subject: Portra 160VC
Hey guys...
Does anyone else shoot this film? I love it. I've read the NC has better
skin tones but I'm not sure...
I noticed it does well with falsh photography. Just fast enough. I used it
over Thanksgiving in my LX
I have used it a a alot for photographing babies and children. I find that
It brings out their energy, better than any otehr negative film I've used.
(you can't shoot slide film anyway because the parents want prints...)
I'll agree with you there, it's so fine and vibrant yet skintones are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey guys...
Does anyone else shoot this film? I love it. I've read the NC has better skin tones
but I'm not sure...
I am. VC is a great film, and 160 is probably my favorite coor neg film,
but NC spanks it for skintones.
tv
-
This message is from the
pick this up. Not bad...
Kodak pushes the fact that the entire Portra line can be used interchageably. Well,
we'll see...
Brendan
Brendan
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users
the photos taken on stage of Nutcracker dancers
after the curtain came down. The full stage lighting was still on and
again the metering mixed these superbly and the Portra 160 NC was sharp
and perfect skin tones, albeit with some stage lighting providing some
highlights. I had many
isn't good for much else, while VC serves an an excellent
all-around film...
Kodak pushes the fact that the entire Portra line can be used interchageably. Well,
we'll see...
You can take this one with a grain of salt.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
Mike...
Thank you for your input.
In fact, thak you all for your comments. I think Kodak has a real winner in the 160
Portra.
I have now finally decided on my all around color (colour) print film. What a relief...
Now, if I can only decide between Kodachrome 64 and E100V...
;-0...
Brendan
Hey guys...
Does anyone else shoot this film? I love it. I've read the NC has better skin tones
but I'm not sure...
I noticed it does well with falsh photography. Just fast enough. I used it over
Thanksgiving in my LX ;-)with the Pentax-A 28-135 f4 zoom (LX on AUTO, lens at f5.6 -
f8),
Portra 160VC is my favorite color print film. It is vivid compared to
NC. In fact, I have to rate NC at 100 to get any pop out of it. i do
occasionally shoot NC for portraits, but I've used VC with good results
as well. VC is of course great for landscapes, flowers, and wildlife.
[EMAIL
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
