160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC
 

Now that the new Kodak Portra films have been out for a while,
has anybody seen a trustworthy head-to-head comparison of Fuji's
Pro 160S vs Portra 160NC and 160C vs 160VC?

Ctein reviewed the new Portra films in Photo Techniques magazine,
but it wasn't really a head to head test.

I have not done a periodical search at the local library, but
a Google of the web comes up with nothing AFAICT.

160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC
 

On Aug 30, 4:07 am, Bill Tuthill wrote:
Now that the new Kodak Portra films have been out for a while,
has anybody seen a trustworthy head-to-head comparison of Fuji's
Pro 160S vs Portra 160NC and 160C vs 160VC?

Ctein reviewed the new Portra films in Photo Techniques magazine,
but it wasn't really a head to head test.

I have not done a periodical search at the local library, but
a Google of the web comes up with nothing AFAICT.

Nothing I have seen either.. It's probably because we are waiting for
a *respected* tester to do it. Maybe that guy from creekin...? (O;

More seriously, I would be asking at photo.net (for wildly varying
opinions that you could possibly average out..), or at that film site
that oft gets recommended here, but it's name escapes me..

Somebody..???

160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC
 

wrote:

Somebody..???

I've shot both, but I've never done a head-to-head
comparison and likely never will. With the lighting and
labs I use I _think_ I slightly prefer the Fuji. Both
have excellent grain structure, but the prints from the
Kodak film have a fraction more blue than I'd like.

Since my last decent sized portraiture project, one of
my local labs has switched from analog to digital
enlargements. The next time I use them for 160S, I'll
add in a 160NC shot and take another look.

My home scanner is an older CanoScan FS4000US, so I what
I see off of the scanner doesn't do either film justice.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC
 

In article ,
Michael Benveniste wrote:
wrote:

Somebody..???

I've shot both, but I've never done a head-to-head
comparison and likely never will. With the lighting and
labs I use I _think_ I slightly prefer the Fuji. Both
have excellent grain structure, but the prints from the
Kodak film have a fraction more blue than I'd like.

Since my last decent sized portraiture project, one of
my local labs has switched from analog to digital
enlargements. The next time I use them for 160S, I'll
add in a 160NC shot and take another look.

So far, I did not try the new Kodak films. The Fuji films are extremely
sharp, but the grain is not as nice as the old 160NC. However, 160NC is
not as sharp as 160S.

From the datasheets is looks like the new 160NC is less sharp than the old one.

Sometimes grain of the Fuji films gets a bit too ugly. I guess I have to
try a roll of 160NC some time.

(I judge film by how it scans on an LS-4000)


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC
 

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Now that the new Kodak Portra films have been out for a while,
has anybody seen a trustworthy head-to-head comparison of Fuji's
Pro 160S vs Portra 160NC and 160C vs 160VC?

I've shot dozens of rolls of 160NC. It is a fine portrait film and
scans beautifully. I've only shot a few rolls of the VC so no comment.
In any case rate/meter at ISO 100.

The Fuji is highly regarded as well by those who use it. I've got 5
rolls of Fuji 160S in 120 format in the freezer... need to shoot that
one of these days.

I don't think you can go wrong with either Kodak or Fuji on these films.
Just hope that they're around for a while.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC
 

Thanks Michael and Philip! Interesting datapoints.
Weird that the Nikon scanner makes Pro 160 look grainier than Portra 160.
In Ctein's article, Pro 160S was slightly less grainy than Portra 160NC.
Whereas Portra 800 was noticeably less grainy than Pro 800Z, all colors.

I was going to buy these four films from B&H, but they were sold out
of the camera I wanted, so I guess it'll have to wait. My test would've
been done on a Fuji Frontier and HP Photosmart scanner.

Also it would be worthwhile to compare Pro 400H and Portra 400NC. Fuji
has no film to compete with Portra 400VC, so I guess that one could be
tested against Ultra Color 400. I've heard/seen nothing but good things
about the new Portra VC films.

160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC
 

In article , Bill Tuthill wrote:
Thanks Michael and Philip! Interesting datapoints.
Weird that the Nikon scanner makes Pro 160 look grainier than Portra 160.
In Ctein's article, Pro 160S was slightly less grainy than Portra 160NC.
Whereas Portra 800 was noticeably less grainy than Pro 800Z, all colors.

I did not compare grain sizes. In many cases 160S is very nice. However,
sometimes, mostly in shadow areas but also in skies, it gets ugly. It doesn't
mean that the grains are particularly big, but it often a case of more
chroma related noise compared to Kodak's best films.

I was very worried about the direction Kodak seemed to be going so I just
dropped them. Maybe I should get 160NC for images where shooth surfaces and
shadow areas are important, and keep the 160S for sharpness.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency