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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice?
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice?
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice?
They are excellent films for certain needs but will probably deliver poor results for other needs http://www.jonlayephotography.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice?
Carlo wrote:
Yes, Sorry... I wanted to listen to different tips... I have to make to types of pictures: 1) Buildings, achitecture (maybe not good conditiuons of light) 2) People, People inside their houses (light of ambience... no flash) Maybe Kodak 160VC and 400VC are good for people... not for buildings... Portra 400VC is very grainy for a 35mm film, but if you are shooting 4x5 sheet film, it's one of few choices. For architecture I recommend Portra 400UC (ultracolor) instead. It is less grainy than Portra 160VC, significantly less grainy than 400VC, and works well in overcast weather. For people I recommend Portra 160NC, or if you have medium format, 400NC. NC is an excellent low-contrast film with more-neutral skin tones than Fuji NPS and lower contrast than Fuji NPH. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice?
Carlo wrote:
: are Kodak 160VC and 400VC a good choice? I used to use Portra 160vc. I have since switched to Fuji's NPS160. I don't have any problem with Portra but just prefer the Fuji. Of course I switched to Fuji at the time I was upset with Kodak for discontinuing their Royal Gold 100. -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|