A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Film & Labs
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

160S/160C vs 160NC/160VC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 29th 07, 07:07 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default 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.

  #2  
Old August 30th 07, 11:36 AM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,311
Default 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..???

  #3  
Old August 30th 07, 01:09 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Michael Benveniste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default 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.


  #4  
Old August 31st 07, 06:00 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default 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
  #5  
Old September 1st 07, 02:00 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default 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.
  #6  
Old September 1st 07, 09:54 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default 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.

  #7  
Old September 1st 07, 10:55 PM posted to rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Philip Homburg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 576
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Portra 160VC: poor scans? DD 35mm Photo Equipment 28 June 15th 06 03:38 PM
Portra 160nc format Film & Labs 8 April 1st 05 04:14 AM
Portra 160nc format Film & Labs 0 March 30th 05 02:37 AM
portra 160VC L. Jou Film & Labs 10 February 7th 04 01:44 AM
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice? Carlo Film & Labs 5 October 21st 03 04:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.