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
and
--
[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 the
-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]
Hey Joe,
Thanks for the first peak at this new film. I've got to go out and
shoot some (just sitting in the fridge). I wonder how it compares to
the 400VC product?
Thanks again,
Bruce
Friday, December 13, 2002, 10:01:43 AM, you wrote:
JT I spent November in France, during which I shot
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
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
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
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
David,
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 - you may be pleasantly surprised.
Bruce Dayton
Saturday,
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
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
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
All the Kodak 160 speed pro color films seem to work better at 100-125.
Paper and chemistry is easier calibrated to work with the same manufactures
film, but if the lab is sharp it should not be a major problem.
Ciao,
Graywolf
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. There
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...)
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Thanks tv,
I will have to shoot some back to back in test portraits and check the difference.
I must say though that I can't remember feeling that my last roll had less than
perfect skin tones. In fact, I took a couple of shots of an older gentleman who has
blotchy skin and the VC didn't
[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 just shot a whole lot of NC, all with my MZ-S and AF360 flash. I was
amazed at how well the combination worked in a wide variety of lighting.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks tv,
I will have to shoot some back to back in test portraits and check the difference.
I must say though that I can't remember feeling that my last roll had less than
perfect skin tones. In fact, I took a couple of shots of an older gentleman who has
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
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
Yeah, my problem was that I didn't see that little tiny BW on the end of the
subject line.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Portra 400 BW
At 10:44 AM 9/15/2001
At 03:05 AM 9/15/2001 -0700, Jim wrote:
Just bought my first roll of Portra film this evening, and plan to have fun
with it over the next couple of days! Any of you use it? (I assume so...)
The only people I know shooting it are wedding guys. Apparently it gives
nice proofs.
tv
-
This
I have used Portra quite extensively. Usually the 160 variety. It is a
portrait and people film and works very well when low contrast is desired.
This is not a film to go out and shoot scenics with. Used for the right
subject and you will really like it.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
-
At 10:44 AM 9/15/2001 -0700, you wrote:
I have used Portra quite extensively. Usually the 160 variety.
I had assumed from the subject he was asking about Portra BW.
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
more
versatility with a couple more lenses. Hopefully, I can pick up at least one
of the above in the next few months.
- Original Message -
From: Mark D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Portra 800 and weddings
From: Treena Harp
From: Treena Harp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To make this on-topic: shot the wedding with a PZ-1p w/ 500FTZ flash, and
a 645 with a Sunpak 555
w/Lumiquest softbox (first time to use it; worked GREAT).
Wow! You shot the whole wedding without any lenses?!?!? Damn, you're good
; )
Mark
-
This message is
Tom,
I suppose I'm experiencing what you experienced
previously. NC 160 seems a little washed out, so I
tried out VC 160 (I'm new to all these Portra thing).
Haven't got the results back though. I suppose NC
having that washed-out look is ok if you shoot
portraits (that's what it's meant for,
As I said yesterday, I ran out of Portra at my son's wedding just before
the reception/dance. All I could get my hands on was Gold 200. As it
turns out it is a great party film , it's increased color saturation really
picked up the bold colors of the balloons and decorations. Skin tones are
43 matches
Mail list logo
