Preferred film for landscapes?

[Derrel]

The name "Portra" is an indication of what the film was optimized for;note it is not Landa,but it was developed from an older low contrast film known commonly as VPS, which was rated at ISO 160. As I recall in the late 1980s Eastman Kodak discontinued VPS and came out with portra and then a few years later came out with Portra high-contrast, for some semblance of a rich, saturated color palette.

Film of course is a personal decision, and some people like a low contrast and low saturation film,which is often just the ticket when you have brides and white dresses and men and dark tuxedos in the same frame. this (weddings, portraiture)was the initial use for a low contrast color negative film, and for which VPS was optimized. On days when the light is extremely contrasty,using a film which tames contrast can be just the ticket. The secret is to get the image on film with low contrast and then to optimize the final presentation through use of contrast control measures which for the first 15 or 20 years of the film's life were measures exercised in printing, but now which might well be exercised in Photoshop.

There is also the matter of whether you are scanning the film, or are printing it in the traditional manner. You want a film which works well with your printing out method or your final processing steps.

I look at Ektar as being Kodak's attempt to make a high-resolution and very saturated color negative film to respond to the people who would otherwise have selected Fujichrome Velvia 50... Ektar is an amazingly high resolution film for its speed and for a color negative emulsion, but I think it has too much saturation and looks kind of garish. As I said earlier, film is a very personal decision, and there are no absolute right or wrong choices.

 

[Derrel]

Preferred wine for chicken dinner? preferred one for lobster dinner? Preferred wine for tuna fish sandwiches at lunch?