PDA

View Full Version : Kodak Portra 160



SCHWARZZEIT
21-Feb-2011, 03:23
At the WPPI convention Kodak announced the new Portra 160 replacing the NC and VC, just like they did with the 400 a couple of months ago. I only read about it this morning in a German press release (http://www.profifoto.de/news/rubrik/news/26271?nl=pf&id=7056) but haven't found any other information on the web.
The new Portra 160 will be available in 35mm, 120/220, 4x5" and 8x10".

-Dominique

Sascha Welter
21-Feb-2011, 05:46
Interesting quote from that press release: "Insgesamt liege die Nachfrage nach Film aktuell allerdings nur mehr bei rund zehn Prozent des Marktvolumens im Jahr 2000, als in Deutschland cirka 150 Millionen Filme verkauft wurden."

Translated: Totally the demand for film is at around 10% of the market volume of the year 2000, when in Germany 150 Million films were sold.

So they're selling 15 Million films in Germany (well, "they" might be Kodak, or all manufacturers together) per annum.

Tim Gray
21-Feb-2011, 06:17
Try this link too:
http://www.kodak.com:80/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/160main.jhtml?pq-path=2986

theBDT
21-Feb-2011, 07:51
Let the whining, hand-wringing, navel-gazing, and bed-wetting commence!

BrianShaw
21-Feb-2011, 08:02
If things turn out as good as the did for Portra 400 there will be little need for that!

Ben Syverson
21-Feb-2011, 08:43
Yeah, sounds great to me!

If history is any indicator, they'll flat out deny that it's ever coming to 8x10, and then three months later, they'll announce it for 8x10.

Tim Gray
21-Feb-2011, 09:01
They've already said it will be out in 35mm, 120, 220, 4x5, and 8x10 (from the official Kodak page). There was a note in another article that other sizes would be available from Canham.

Ben Syverson
21-Feb-2011, 09:42
Sweet.

But it's distressing that they misspell "Portra" (http://www.kodak.com:80/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/160QA.jhtml?pq-path=2301065) on their own site. I guess the copyeditors were the first to get canned.

SamReeves
21-Feb-2011, 09:53
I suppose Ektar 100 will effectively replace the VC then?

I'm expecting this new version to follow "160 no color" more closely.

Bob Kerner
21-Feb-2011, 10:01
Good question Sam.

Funny: last month I was wondering whether to get a freezer to store film and sort of got talked out of it (people suggested freezing causes the emulsion to separate). Portra 160 VC is one of the few films (ever) and only LF film I could say I "love" to the point that I'd want to buy a bunch and store it for the future. I've shot the Ektar but there's something different in the Portra that speaks to me.

Oh no! I've become one of those guys whining about losing his favorite film!

Ben Syverson
21-Feb-2011, 10:02
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
21-Feb-2011, 10:56
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
21-Feb-2011, 11:58
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
21-Feb-2011, 12:38
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
21-Feb-2011, 17:27
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
21-Feb-2011, 17:38
Dan, give the new stuff a try—I bet you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference.

Drew Wiley
21-Feb-2011, 18:32
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
21-Feb-2011, 18:44
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
21-Feb-2011, 23:48
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
22-Feb-2011, 03:44
Here is a review of the new film

http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/02/21/new-kodak-professional-portra-160-film-new-negative-c41-scan-hybri/

letchhausen
27-Feb-2011, 10:46
Let the whining, hand-wringing, navel-gazing, and bed-wetting commence!


Damn it! Stupid Kodak! I just started in color last year and was starting to like it and now Fuji has dumped Super C for a lower contrast paper (Type II) and now Kodak is dumping VC for a lower contrast film. Stupid digital ruining our lives! Waaaahhh!

How's that?

Drew Wiley
27-Feb-2011, 16:52
Where do you get the idea that Fuji only offers a lower-contrast paper? Type II has
just as much contrast, maybe a tad more, with slightly improved blacks and whites.
Don't confuse this with portrait paper. And Kodak now has the option of a higher
saturation sheet film - Ektar. No need to panic.

Daniel Stone
27-Feb-2011, 22:19
I've been wanting to try the super-gloss that Fuji now only offers in rolls, but I don't print big, 16x20 max(and thats VERY seldom). Anyone want to cut 10-20 sheets of it in 8x10 for me :)?

anyone used it? After seeing some cibachromes the other day, I'm hooked on the super-glossy surface, along with the higher contrast look vs standard c-papers(even with contrast enhancing masks).

-Dan

letchhausen
27-Feb-2011, 23:48
Where do you get the idea that Fuji only offers a lower-contrast paper? Type II has
just as much contrast, maybe a tad more, with slightly improved blacks and whites.
Don't confuse this with portrait paper. And Kodak now has the option of a higher
saturation sheet film - Ektar. No need to panic.

Well, it was kind of a joke if you read the lead in quote. That being said, everyone that's used Type II that I know including myself thinks the new discontinued (though those knuckleheads at Fuji still have it on their web site) Super Type C is a better paper with more contrast and more vibrant colors. In fact, I've been liking the Type II because it has lower contrast. It tends to work with how I shoot. Unfortunately there are some things that don't look as good on it. All of us at school are using the Type II and many are glad they stocked up on Super C. Some have said that with Super C and Portra VC gone they will now switch to scanning and digital printing. So perhaps this is a case of YMMV? Dunno, I only know what I and my cohorts at school see.

My school is ditching it's Colex in June to force us to jump on the Epson bandwagon so for the students the viability of those papers will be moot. However for me it means I will no longer take any color classes. Luckily I go to San Francisco pretty often, so hello Rayko! And yes, I will be testing out Ektar and the new Portra to see how things go with the Type II and yes, I will survive with my sense of humor intact. I'm just thankful that there is paper and film available at all.....

Daniel Stone
28-Feb-2011, 08:18
I much preferred the Kodak Endura glossy paper, but have loved what Fuji has given me so far. I'm down to my last 3 boxes of Type C in 11x14(which I've found some freezer space for :)), and after that, IDK.

roll with it I guess, or learn how to make contrast-increasing masks. I can't seem to get a handle on Ektar, with VC Portra, it was a perfect pairing(for me) with the Endura glossy. Yellows, reds and blues were all so vibrant, and the saturation was terrific! It was always a little more on the warmer side, but it was better than shadows going blue....

but we all know that Endura in cut form is long gone.

now to find one of those pesky point-source color enlargers.... I know they've been made, but where to find one.....

-Dan

Drew Wiley
28-Feb-2011, 10:23
Point source enlargers will probably just be a nigthmare with dust spots etc. Masking
is a better answer. Fuji Supergloss is lovely stuff, but the blacks don't have the punch of Cibachrome; and of course, trannies come out with more saturation than color negs.
But my enlargers are different than the usual, so the better saturation I get on Type II
might be due to narrow-band additive (RGB) filtration, which behaves a lot like the colored lasers which this paper has been optimized for. I've never tried printing it on
my old Chromega substractive (YMC) colorhead. Even with Cibachrome the two different light source systems come out quite different, with additive being conspicuously cleaner and more saturated.

Ivan J. Eberle
28-Feb-2011, 14:55
Back to the film... The problem with Portra 160VC hasn't been in 4x5 and larger, it's been in the smaller formats. These require scanning in the realm of 2800-5000 dpi where the interference effect shows up (grain aliasing, where the grain can start to look like ball bearings). Makes folks think they're scanning at the level of grain, or that there's no more to be scraped off a neg. There most certainly can be, well beyond 5000 dpi, at least with the best available lenses in the smaller formats, under the right conditions (such as images shot with greater contrast and specularity, for which neg film is more ideally suited than transparency).

I really liked Portra 160VC color in 4x5, better than Ektar, where the larger grain is not such an issue. Ektar is great but for a relatively low-contrast emulsion Fujicolor Pro 160S is vastly better than Portra regarding grain, however, and that's their real competition here. It's been available in all formats for some while now, and in Quickloads until recently.

Finding Grafmatics that still work and keeping them light-tight is a PITA. I'd rather Kodak came out with Readyloads again, in both Ektar 100 and Portra 160/400. That'd be more significant, at least for me.

Daniel Stone
28-Feb-2011, 15:17
The Readyloads were packaged by Polaroid IIRC, so, packaged in Denmark. Hence the increassed costs(shipped back and forth, plus extra materials to encase the film).

someone was working on getting the mido holders(or a derivative of some kind) produced for the "mass market". You might want to look into those if you don't like regular double-dark holders or grafmatics.

-Dan

Daniel Stone
28-Feb-2011, 15:20
But my enlargers are different than the usual, so the better saturation I get on Type II
might be due to narrow-band additive (RGB) filtration, which behaves a lot like the colored lasers which this paper has been optimized for.


so you're using an additive head Drew? I've only ever used a subtractive system

-Dan

Drew Wiley
28-Feb-2011, 16:19
Yes, additive. I've got an 8x10 version, and a 5X7/4x5-down one too. These are tricky
to design.

letchhausen
1-Mar-2011, 14:12
Does anyone know the status of Fuji Pro 160 NS in the US? I see it for sale in Japan and the UK but no shops here have it.....