160PortraVC vs. 400PortraNC

[Lazybones]

Ok… But what EI?

[Frank Petronio]

I just shoot it at 320 but will say it is 400 or 640 when I run out of light.

[MJSfoto1956]

Ok… But what EI?

I always shoot at 400 -- no problems with thin negs (unless I metered wrong).

On a related question, anyone have any luck pushing 400NC? I tried it once as a test but the colors sucked and the grain was noticably higher. Perhaps the pro darkroom I outsourced to just didn't do it right. Thoughts?

[Frank Petronio]

I never saw pushed C41 work out

[Lazybones]

Not to be a turd, but I just shot some 400NC, and I do see increased grain over 160NC. On my lightbox, with a Schneider 6X, it is pretty obvious. These 4x5 sheets were stored properly, not expired, shot at box speed, and were processed by a professional custom lab.

In comparison to 160NC, looking at the film base, the 400NC looks much more grainy. Am I missing out on something here? I guess people who shoot 8x10 don't have to worry about this at all, but in 4x5... Or am I doing something wrong?

[CXC]

If it's not in ReadyLoads, I can't be bothered.

[Bruce Watson]

...I just shot some 400NC, and I do see increased grain over 160NC. On my lightbox, with a Schneider 6X, it is pretty obvious. These 4x5 sheets were stored properly, not expired, shot at box speed, and were processed by a professional custom lab.

In comparison to 160NC, looking at the film base, the 400NC looks much more grainy. Am I missing out on something here? I guess people who shoot 8x10 don't have to worry about this at all, but in 4x5... Or am I doing something wrong?

Interesting. I just pulled my two sheets and put them on the light table. With a 10x loupe, I can't see any increased graininess. I would be hard pressed to tell them apart. The prints I made are nearly identical in terms of graininess. My brother actually picked the 160 print as being more grainy, and he's not a stranger to this stuff either.

So either I got lucky, or maybe your lab did something interesting. I don't know what to tell you.

[Bruce Watson]

If it's not in ReadyLoads, I can't be bothered.

I know the feeling. I really do wish that Kodak would get their corporate head out of the sand and give us some 400 speed films (B&W and color negative at least) in readyloads.

Sigh... It's weird how we can wave money in their face and they refuse to take it. It's not like they have to invent anything new or build new packaging machines. It's not like they have to license anyone elses' patents. There's hardly any costs to them, and in return they get more than a $1.00 per sheet. I'm just shakin' my head...

[CXC]

Bruce,

Another thread suggested that there are technological reasons why neither Kodak, nor Fuji, for that matter, put faster film in quick/readyLoads: 1) static electricity problem loading film to envelope; 2) Envelopes not opaque enough for more sensitive fast film. Maybe it's not that both companies are staffed by complete idiots, maybe it's impossible...

[Bruce Watson]

Impossible? Surely you jest.

Don't wanna? That I'll believe.