160nc vs. 400nc

[franklphoto]

i shoot 8x10 400nc. is it worth going to 160nc? is it that much of a difference?

[David A. Goldfarb]

There's enough of a difference in grain and contrast in medium format that I prefer 160NC. For 8x10" the grain won't matter, but 400NC has a little more contrast and obviously more speed. If you're using older lenses, more contrast might be a good thing, and speed depends on how much light you have. It's an expensive test in 8x10", but not so bad in a smaller format. When the new Portras first came out, I posted some comparison shots in medium format on APUG in this thread--

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/33887-now-new-portras-whos-used-them.html

[Bruce Watson]

i shoot 8x10 400nc. is it worth going to 160nc? is it that much of a difference?

I've shoot both in 5x4. If they both cost the same I'd use the 400 as my only negative film. But there is quite a price difference so I only use 400 when I need the speed.

[Walter Calahan]

Each is a different tool. The best answer is your own personal side by side test. You'll be the best judge if a particular film works with your vision.

[franklphoto]

I like the latitude in exposure in 400nc but the grain in 160nc.

[Eric Leppanen]

I like the latitude in exposure in 400nc but the grain in 160nc.Then I suggest you try the latest 400NC emulsion (NC-3) that is just coming out. Kodak says they have reduced the grain size again.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/professional/products/films/portra/portra400QAs.pdf?id=0.2.26.14.7.14.22.5.14&lc=en