Fuji Pro 160S and 160C

Discussion in 'Fuji' started by Bill Tuthill, Sep 15, 2005.

  1. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Anybody try these new films yet? If so, whaddya think?

    Ctein just published a review of them in Photo Techniques magazine.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Tuthill

    Alan Browne Guest

    And what did they say... ? (Respectable mag, that).
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Here is a summary:

    Both print on the same channel, unlike NPS and NPC, although 160C requires
    20% more exposure and 7CC yellow. Compared to the old films, the new ones
    have similar speed and latitude. Resolution is not measurably higher,
    though edge sharpness is improved. Mainly the grain is finer, more than
    expected from RMS 4 to 3. "160S is definitely finer-grained than [160NC]
    but it's nearly a draw between 160C and [Kodak UC 100]."

    Contrast ranking, lowest to highest: Portra 160NC, NPS/160S tie, UC 100,
    160C, NPC.

    Saturation ranking, highest to lowest: 160C, UC 100, NPC, 160S, NPS,
    Portra 160NC.

    Best rendition of primary colors: 160C, UC 100, 160S, NPC, NPS, (big gap)
    Portra 160NC.

    Neutrality of gray scale: 160S, 160C, NPC, Portra 160NC, UC 100, NPS.

    Overall flesh-gray balance: 160C, 160S/Portra 160NC tie.
    Best light skin tones: UC 100, 160S, 160C.
    Best dark skin tones: 160C, 160S, UC 100.

    Overall color rendition: 160S. Second place UC 100 is lower contrast with
    better pastels, but worse oranges and reds. Third place 160C with superb
    saturation and color rendition, but too much contrast for accurate pastels.

    Tested by controlled exposures (at box speed?) and printing on Supra E.

    There are four pictures with the article: contrasty apple blossoms taken
    with 160S, telephoto shot of ocean surf taken with 160C, a fine looking
    160S Macbeth chart, and an amazing comparison of yellow and gray grain
    between 160C and NPC.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 16, 2005
    #3
  4. Hmm, this sounds very interesting.
     
    Philip Homburg, Sep 16, 2005
    #4
  5. Bill Tuthill

    Robert C. Guest

    I'm surprised they didn't include Portra 160 VC into the test.

    So if I understand correctly, 160C seems to win out on most tests, yet 160S
    wins on the colour rendition test with 160C placing third. I checked out the
    Fuji website
    (http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/PREventDetailPage.jsp?DBID=NEWS_825271&CAT_ID=-1007)
    and 160C is called a "High Contrast, Vivid Colour" film, whereas 160S is a
    "Smooth Tone, Natural Colour" film.
     
    Robert C., Sep 16, 2005
    #5
  6. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Ctein tested Portra 160VC in the Jan/Feb 2001 issue of Photo Techniques
    magazine, and the film has not changed since then. Most people consider
    160NC a better film, so Ctein used it for comparison purposes.
    None of the films really wins, as such. Some are better than others
    for certain applications. Your results might (probably will) vary
    if you use different paper, or scan.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 17, 2005
    #6
  7. Bill Tuthill

    Robert C. Guest

    I usually use Portra 160NC for studio (flash) photography and Portra 160VC
    for outdoor (daylight) photography. I get them printed at a pro lab on Kodak
    Professional Paper. I will have to get several rolls of 135 and 120 (they
    are not always the same) 160S and 160C and conduct tests to see how they
    compare.

    ~Robert C.
     
    Robert C., Sep 17, 2005
    #7
  8. Bill Tuthill

    Alan Browne Guest

    Thanks Bill! (See Q's below)
    Is that best to worst or worst to best? And how was it done? (scanned?).
    Best to worst or low to netral to high (or v-v).
    Hmm. Would add a level of color uncertainty, etc.
    Even more uncertainty!

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 17, 2005
    #8
  9. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Out of curiosity, why don't you use UltraColor 100, which is quite a bit
    less grainy than 160VC? Especially for Caucasian skin tones, for which
    Ctein says it even beats the new Fuji films.

    You can even shoot UltraColor 100 at EI 160 and it doesn't change much.
    My suspicion is that UltraColor 100 in the US and EliteColor 200 in Europe
    are the same or a very similar emulsion.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 18, 2005
    #9
  10. Bill Tuthill

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Best to worst, as printed on Supra E(ndura). Judged by Macbetch chart.
    Best to worst. NPS had crossover (pink highlights and green shadows).
    Bingo. Les Sarile has online scans (by Coolscan 5000) showing a box of
    crayons taken on different films. Ultra Color 100 is significantly
    grainer than Reala, so the jury is still out whether 160S and 160C are
    finer-grained than Reala, or not.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Sep 18, 2005
    #10
  11. I found
    <http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CiMi>

    As far as I can see, I prefer the Reala scan to the one from Kodak UC.

    In my experience (scanning with an LS-4000) Superia Reala and Supra 100
    have comparable grain. According to Kodak's docs, UC 100 has more grain
    than Supra 100.
     
    Philip Homburg, Sep 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Hi. I just published a brief review of these two new films on my website -
    http://www.gnyman.com
    regards George Nyman
     
    Dr. Georg N.Nyman, Oct 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Bill Tuthill

    Robert C. Guest

    I did not go into such an elaborate test of both films as you did: I simply
    shot some photographs of my kids in the studio with both 160S and 160C (120
    format) and came to the same conclusions: 160S is slightly better for studio
    use due to its "softer" image characteristics; I think the 160C film is
    probably better suited for outdoor portraits or landscapes.
     
    Robert C., Oct 7, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.