Hallo Landscapers,
does anyone use Portra 160NC for landscape work and how do you rate it? ISO 160, 125, 100? I know the characteristica of that film in the studio with flash (at ISO 125) but not in the field.
Thank you for your advice in advance!
George
PS: I have run a search through all post without success.
It's really a portrait film with softened color saturation. But I'd rate it at box speed (160),
provided you filter for any serious color temp issues and compensate for the filter. I'd have
an 81A and 81C handy for overcast skies or deep blue shadows. It is no longer offered in
a choice between NC and VC. All the 160 is the soft version. Portra 400 will be a little closer to the saturation of the previous VC.
Like most color negative films, you can overexpose for less contrast and saturation. With Portra in general, when I want less saturation, I rate at 2/3 to 1 stop slower than box speed without color issues.
Drew - New Portra is neither strictly NC nor strictly VC; it's a new emulsion. New 400 is definitely closer to 400NC than New 160 is to 160NC, though.Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
I love Portra 160 for Landscape, especially for soft light. I tend to rate it at 100 - but in reality there is little difference between that and box speed. The new Ektar and Portra has completely replaced E6 for me.
Kodak gives a nice chart comparing the characteristics of the current Portras to the new
versions and Ektar. There's no direct replacement for 160VC. You either go up the scale
with saturation using Ektar or down with the new 160. Depends whether you want more of
a traditional skintone look or something vaguely chrome-looking. The nature of the hues
in the scene will have a lot to do with it, and not merely the contrast range. I'm on a fairly
steep learning curve for the specifics. Ektar is pretty remarkable stuff, but I just don't know how much money I can cram into my freezer. Really don't know if there will ever be another 8x10 batch cut of Ektar again; and it there is, it will probably be triple the price.
The chart I found shows new 160 with exactly the same saturation as old 160NC:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...q-path=2301065
I prefer new 400 for general use (I also find the speed handy) or Ektar when I want (pretty dramatically) increased saturation. I've not actually tried the new 160, but this has tempted me to do so for portraiture.
This thread may be of interest -
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...k-160NC-and-VC
I shoot at 160 normally but will happily shoot it at 80 or even 40.
C41 flms typically have long straight line portions on their curves so shooting at 80 or 40 normally just changes placement moving subjects up the film curve a bit. Extra exposure means extra density in the negative so it will take a bit more exposure in the enlarger to print or slightly different manipulations from a scan.
Unless you use a non-standard film development (push/pull, expand/contract) the contrast rate doesn't change so you can get essentially the same print from negatives shot at 160, 80, or 40.
What does change is that more shadow detail is available with the extra exposure. If you straight print to keep more shadow detail the rest of the print will be lighter.
You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus. ~ Mark Twain
I love shadow detail.
I love mid-tone detail.
I love highlight detail.
I love micro-contrast.
I want to keep my cake and eat it too.
With today's emulsions and digital scanning technology I can have both.
No need for more than one or two exposures.
... at least I'm hoping so...
Thank you all for your help. The summary of the readings for me is, I stuck with ISO125 in the field either and hope the best.
George
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks