New Portra 400 Film

[Ben Syverson]

What about Ektar? ... Just two stops slower, and available in 8x10.

Ektar is ISO 100, which I would rate at 50, vs ISO 400 which I rate at 200. So yes, it's just two stops, but ISO 50 is really tricky if you're not shooting landscapes on a bright sunny day. It's much harder for a portrait subject to hold still for 4 seconds instead of 1. Even if I'm using 160NC, I'll need to take another safety of every shot, which means my film & processing budget just doubled. And the shots still won't be as sharp as they'd be on 400.

[Frank Petronio]

I use 400 film for everything and now there is no fast color alternative. I suppose you could push it a stop and thin negs scan OK.... but it sucks.

Big color is too damn expensive anyway, they want >$5 a sheet for 5x7 Portra 160VC.

Oh shit, I guess this means no 5x7 color either....

[Ben Syverson]

Oh shit, I guess this means no 5x7 color either....

Yeah, what a disaster... I haven't had much luck pushing C41.

Guess it's time to sell a kidney and stockpile.

[sully75]

I use 400 film for everything and now there is no fast color alternative. I suppose you could push it a stop and thin negs scan OK.... but it sucks.

Big color is too damn expensive anyway, they want >$5 a sheet for 5x7 Portra 160VC.

Oh shit, I guess this means no 5x7 color either....

I'm confused...this is 400 film, isn't it?

[Frank Petronio]

Portra 400 is 400 ISO

Portra 160 is 160 ISO

In practice most people rate it a bit slower, like 200 and 100 respectively.

[SW Rick]

Portra 400 is 400 ISO

Portra 160 is 160 ISO

In practice most people rate it a bit slower, like 200 and 100 respectively.

Frank,

I'm confoosed- 400NC and 400VC were presumably then 200; why won't the new 400 also be 200, and thus no loss of speed vs. NC/VC? I didn't see anything re. Portra 800 in the announcement. But I'm not upwind...

Rick

[Ben Syverson]

I didn't see anything re. Portra 800 in the announcement. But I'm not upwind...

The point is that a 400 speed color film is no longer offered in a size above 4x5". No more 5x7, no more 8x10.

It's a huge loss.

[Bruce Watson]

Good on Kodak! They already had what is arguably the best color film ever made, but they aren't content to sit on their laurels. Where the bar is already impossibly high, they succeed in raising it still higher.

I'm serious here guys. This is *good* news. Kodak is still doing the R&D, still releasing new emulsions. Still pushing forward, making ever better films.

Y'all can really be a group of Gloomy Guses when you put your mind to it. This from a guy whose wife has been known to address him as her "little ray of darkness" so I know whereof I speak.

Change isn't always bad! Lighten the frell up already!

[David Luttmann]

Agreed Bruce. Ektar has proven incredible in 35mm through 4x5. This new 4x5 color film has kind of peaked my interest in trying some portraiture in color as opposed to staying in B&W.

[Ben Syverson]

Change isn't always bad! Lighten the frell up already!

Bruce, I am so confused by this message. How about we eliminate film altogether and then we'll see how chipper you are.

No more color 400 ISO 8x10" film = bad thing. There are just no two ways around it.