Kodak Portra 160

[Ben Syverson]

According to Kodak, the NC and VC were never very different (they were both introduced as wedding portrait films, after all), and they made them progressively more similar over the years as people stopped printing. The last revision of NC and VC were virtually identical. So if you were a fan of VC, I would imagine you would like the NC and the new Portra 160.

If you print photochemically and want the punchiest prints, Ektar 100 is fantastic.

If you scan, you can make any negative film look like anything you want, in terms of contrast and saturation. That's why there's a saturation slider in Photoshop! Ektar has even finer grain than 160NC, but that mostly matters for small formats. It's hard to imagine printing large enough to see that difference in LF.

[Drew Wiley]

The tech sheet pretty much spells it out. I'm not sure something basically between
160VC and NC is ideal, but with Ektar in the lineup they probably have their bases
covered. Allows them to make one less film, so improves cost efficiency. So far their neg film engineering has been impressive.

[Ben Syverson]

I'm not sure something basically between
160VC and NC is ideal, but with Ektar in the lineup they probably have their bases
covered.

Drew, I'm curious—what would be ideal?

[Tim Gray]

As I read the information about this new film, it sounds like it's pretty much Portra 160NC with finer grain. Kodak's little comparison chart gives it the same saturation as 160NC. This is in contrast to the new Portra 400, which they put it somewhere between NC and VC.

[Daniel Stone]

damn....

getting to love 160VC, now it won't be around anymore. And I don't have a freezer, let alone room for one.

as Winnie the Poo says: "Oh bother"....

-Dan

[Ben Syverson]

Dan, give the new stuff a try—I bet you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

[Drew Wiley]

Ben - I'd guess that the new product will be skewed to the skintone/portrait type
market, with Ektar going the opposite direction, and slightly bridging the gap toward
the kind of color saturation we expect with chromes. I'm new to Ektar and have only
made a few contact sheets from 120 film to get a general idea. VC was a different
animal from NC, so don't know what to expect now. Not worried, however. All color
neg films have trouble correcting certain hues due to the orange mask. Ektar seems
to have trouble creating a deep blue, but renders turquoise wonderfully. Was just
beginning to get comfortable with VC; but it had trouble distinguishing between muddy pinks and yellowish tans - but not as bad as the old Vericolor, which tried to create fleshtones out of anything neutral. Just takes time to get used to a new
palette. Two less old choices, two more new ones.

[John NYC]

I had been worried they were just going to keep the new Portra 400 and Ektar 100 in their portfolio and ditch the 160 Portras all together. So, I think this is great news.

Now if they will just keep E100G... (sorry, I had to throw a whine in there).

[Ben Syverson]

I think Kodak and Fuji are settling into their natural roles, as determined in the mid 90s... Kodak for C41, Fuji for E6.

Unfortunately, it seems like Fuji is uninterested in the North American market...

[asnapper]

Here is a review of the new film

http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/02...41-scan-hybri/