REQ: Opinions on Kodak Portra 160 VC/NC

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Red Mage, Jul 17, 2004.

  1. Red Mage

    Red Mage Guest

    I've just started using this film a bit, and while I like what is
    coming back in prints (Kodak processing), I'm still feeling my way
    through scanning the negatives. I've noticed that I've had to correct
    a bit more for color casts than I might otherwise do with, say, Gold
    200 film.

    Anyway -- What opinion do you have of this film? I've done landscape
    and architectural with it so far, but no portrait or studio work. How
    does the VC compare with say, Velvia (sp?) or other "pro" type films.
    General impressions are fine - I'm interested if your impressions
    match mine, and if not, why...

    My impression: Nice detail, nice and sharp. Sometimes easy to "blow
    out" on highlights, but not normally a problem if the exposure is
    good. I've had a few places where I've had severe highlights on a
    relatively dark frame and blown spots into the emulsion, which are OK
    for small prints, but get ugly when blown up. Colors really pop
    nicely with this film, but maybe a bit too much. If your scanning, go
    easy on the saturation, since it's easy to "technicolor" your image
    and make it look artificial. (On the other hand, I've used that to
    effect too, and its rather nice.) Pretty low grain, so post
    processing for large prints isn't a big chore. I'm a bit concerned
    about the overall dynamic range of the film, but only have a few
    darker shots so far to work with. I've noticed some compressions in
    the shadows, but I'm not sure It's me or the film.

    Red Mage, Jul 17, 2004
    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.