Porta UC - Excellent Film

I have just shot a few rolls of Portra UC film and have been pleased with
the results. The flesh tones seem accurate but are somewhat saturated.

The fall colors are quite good.

I have wondered what the niche for Portra VC is. It does not seem much more
saturated than NC, but is reputed to be grainier.

S. Thomas Lewis wrote:

I have wondered what the niche for Portra VC is.

I keep wondering that myself, although Kodak must sell lots of it,
otherwise they would have discontinued it. The only things I've heard
that make sense a

. fashion photographers use it when they want bright colors for clothing
but relatively neutral skin tones (400VC only in medium format)

. it might work better than any other pro film for freckly complexions,
but to my eye Agfa Vista looks better for freckles

It does not seem much more saturated than NC, but is reputed to be grainier.

Actually in scans, VC is noticeably less saturated than NC. For 35mm
images I find 400VC to be grainier than Supra 800 rated at EI 640 for
most colors, although 400VC has an edge for light skin tones.

In article .net "S. Thomas Lewis" writes:
$I have wondered what the niche for Portra VC is. It does not seem much more
$saturated than NC, but is reputed to be grainier.

I liked 400VC's skin tones and colours, but always found it too
grainy. Now that 400UC beats it on colour and grain and still has
good skin tones, I'm also having trouble imagining what 400VC is
for. *shrug* That's Kodak's problem, not mine :-)
--
Stephen M. Dunn
---------------- http://www.stevedunn.ca/ ----------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/

In article , says...
In article .net "S. Thomas Lewis" writes:
$I have wondered what the niche for Portra VC is. It does not seem much more
$saturated than NC, but is reputed to be grainier.

I liked 400VC's skin tones and colours, but always found it too
grainy. Now that 400UC beats it on colour and grain and still has
good skin tones, I'm also having trouble imagining what 400VC is
for. *shrug* That's Kodak's problem, not mine :-)


I bought a brick of 400UC to photograph some of my son's baseball games
after reading a rave review of it on photo.net and was quite pleased
with the results. Color, grain, and skin tones were excellent.

Kodak's web site has some data on grain structure
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...bs/e190/e190.j
html?id=0.1.18.4.11.14.24.3&lc=en#print%20grain%20 index

For an 8 by 10 inch print with 35mm the print grain indices for 160VC,
400UC, 400VC, 400NC and 800 are 62, 62, 70, 66 and 72 respectively. I
too do not know the niches for these various films, but will use 400UC
when a higher speed film is needed. It is not that much more grainy than
Fuji Reala 100.

Bill Janes

I guess the answer is simple. They sell it to us here in Asia. We don't have
Porta UC.

"Stephen M. Dunn" wrote in message
...
In article .net "S.
Thomas Lewis" writes:
$I have wondered what the niche for Portra VC is. It does not seem much
more
$saturated than NC, but is reputed to be grainier.

I liked 400VC's skin tones and colours, but always found it too
grainy. Now that 400UC beats it on colour and grain and still has
good skin tones, I'm also having trouble imagining what 400VC is
for. *shrug* That's Kodak's problem, not mine :-)
--
Stephen M. Dunn
---------------- http://www.stevedunn.ca/ ----------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/