to all you film shooters :)

santino · Oct 5, 2004

...Yesterday I bought a medium format roll of Kodak Portra 160NC and Portra 400NC. Now I would like to know, if anybody has any experience with such a film. Advice appreciated

terri · Oct 5, 2004

I have not used that film personally, Santino.

Someone else will have to weigh in here. PB, ksmattfish?

P Bailey · Oct 5, 2004

These are both good, but I prefer Agfa Optima 100 or Konica Imprezza 50. I think these perform better than the Kodak NC or VC films and are also less expensive. If I had to chose between the Kodak160 or 400, I would take the 160. Check my 'Portrait of Maine' post in the Critique gallery. That one was taken with Agfa Optima 100 in a Holga camera.

ksmattfish · Oct 5, 2004

I prefer Fuji color films, but I've used the Kodak stuff also, and it works fine. Do you have a specific question? Individual photographers will have different results with the same films depending on equipment and shooting styles. These are decent films. Shoot them and see if you like them.

My opinion on film choice in general is that trying lot's of different films is fun, but generally useless. Choose a film and stick with it for 2 dozen (or more) rolls so you can actually learn how it reacts to your style, your equipment, different lighting conditions, etc... Photographer "A" may get completely different results and have different opinions than Photographer "B" using the very same film.

When I worked at the photo lab I tried every kind of film out there. My guru said I was like the kid with the box of 128 crayons, but I still needed to get the fundamentals of the 8 crayon box down first. I was having fun, but not learning the subtle nuances of any particular film. Now I usually stick with just a few films that I feel I've learned how they react for me.

Arista Pro 125 ( Ilford FP 4): for most of my low speed BW work

Tmax 100: I don't use it as much because it's twice the price of the Arista 125, but it works in the same situations, and is great for long exposure night photography

Arista Pro 400 ( Ilford HP 5): for most of my mid/high speed BW work

Tri-X (at 1250 in Diafine): very low light BW work

Fuji NPS 160: low speed color

Fuji NPH 400: high speed color

santino · Oct 5, 2004

ok thank you all!
so I think I won't stick with the Portra series (far too expensive

ale

...but I'm curious about the results

ksmattfish · Oct 5, 2004

santino said:
so I think I won't stick with the Portra series (far too expensive ale

I originally chose the Fuji pro films because they tended to be a bit cheaper than the Kodak stuff, and I knew that both Kodak and Fuji made great film. Unfortuantely all the 120 size stuff tends to be pro priced. I wish I could get Kodak Gold 200 in 120 size. It used to be my favorite 35mm color film for my personal work; I just don't shoot 35mm color for myself these days.

santino · Oct 5, 2004

I bought both Portra films in 220 size, so I'll get 24 exposures with my Pentacon Six Tl (it was cheaper than two 120 rolls).
I think I gotta try out Fuji if it's cheaper than Kodak. thanks again.

Solarize · Oct 7, 2004

I've shot Portra 400NC and was fairly pleased with the results, though the colours were a little too neutral for my likings.
I week later I shot Portra 160VC and loved it. I'd say it is probably my favourite print film.

I'm talking about 35mm though. And yeah, Portra is rather expensive but the way I see it is, if im going to spend £6 or so on the developing, I dont mind spending a pound over the odds for the film I like as its more likely to give me results I like.

ksmattfish · Oct 8, 2004

I just tried some Fuji NPC 160. I guess it's supposed to be Fuji's version of Portra VC. Can't say I liked what it did for skin tones (very reddish). I'll be sticking with NPS for portraits and weddings.

mygrain · Oct 8, 2004

I'm an Ilford HP (B&W)and Fuji NP(color) kid myself. I used big yellow initially-the portra range specifically- but found not only was it more expensive but the cheaper pro films from the formentioned two companies worked MUCH better for me. Better color and contrast for me.

santino · Oct 8, 2004

mygrain: I think it was Kodak's intention to create an low-contrast film with "real" colors.
But meanwhile I can only judge it by it's reputation, gotta try it out first

thanks for your comments!

airgunr · Oct 8, 2004

I've shot a few rolls of the 160 and 400 in NC, VC and UC Porta. I did like the results I got with them.

Now I am pretty new to trying anything else but standard Royal Gold film so I am not well versed in the options either.

I am now just experimenting with Fuji Velvia 50 and Kodachrome 64 slide film. I have been very impressed with the Velvia and want to try the faster versions.

I'd post some pictures but my main computer is down and I haven't got the scanner hooked up to this one.

Karalee · Oct 21, 2004

I just bought 3 rolls of Kodak Portra UC 400 at walmart last night - yeah theyre sellin it at walmart now, $8 for the 3 pack.

voodoocat · Oct 21, 2004

Karalee said:
I just bought 3 rolls of Kodak Portra UC 400 at walmart last night - yeah theyre sellin it at walmart now, $8 for the 3 pack.

damn.. i'm gonna have to get some of that... that is fun film.. its now the ultra and selling for the pro prices. It has a 70's album art feel to it i think.