I just ran a test that gave what I think are interesting results. I was looking for the graininess and sharpness differences between 5x4 160PortraVC and 5x4 400PortraNC. I'm interested in the 400 speed film for when I need that extra stop of speed in windy conditions.
What I did was to expose a sheet of each to a scene that has lots of detail (leafless trees in the distance). I then printed a small section out of each negative that calculates out to about a 10.25x enlargement (that is, about a 30 x 23 cm (12 x 9 inch) chunk out of what would have been a print of about 130 x 104 cm (51 x 41 inches).
What I'm seeing is most notable for what's missing. And what's missing is any real difference between the two. Graininess is almost exactly the same (almost invisible -- I guess I should have gone for more enlargement, eh?). Tonality is nice and smooth from both films in the blue sky areas and clouds. And detail is about the same with the bare limbs of the distant trees. I would give just the slightest edge to the slower film, but mostly because I know it *should* be better.
Based on what I'm seeing, I could easily justify making 400Portra my only color film. Except for the $0.75 USD per sheet premium Kodak charges for 400Portra .
Still, the performance of the faster film is unexpectedly good. Am I just seeing things, or is this film really this good?
Bookmarks