Portra VC substitute

[Leonard Evens]

Due to spinal stenosis, I hadn't been doing much large format photography, and that which I did was with out of date film. I've just gotten rid of my old film and I am trying to figure out what to use now.

For b/w I used Ilford HP5 which is still available. For color I used Kodak Portra VC 160, but apparently it is no longer available in 4 x 5 sheet film at Calumet Photo in Chciago. Portra Professional film 400 is available in 4 x 5 film. It is described as a portrait film, so I assume it is similar to the old Portra NC. That is what I used when I started, but when I switched to VC I didn't notice any significant difference. But I wonder about going to an ISO 400 film. Is it likely to be grainier than I want?

Do I have any other choices for a color negative 4 x 5 sheet film? I would rather not switch to transparency film, but if I have to, are there any choices in such film which have decent latitude?

Calumet seems to be selling Portra VC 160 in 8 x 10 film size, so I guess I could buy that and cut it down, but I doubt very much if I could do so to yield film which would fit in my film holders.

I notice that Amazon is selling Kodak 4 x 5 Ektar 100 sheet film. I am not familiar with that. What is it?

Also, Portra VC 160 seems to be available from some retailers? Is it really available? And, how safe is it ordering color negative film over the web, particularly in the summer?

[Oren Grad]

Any Portra NC or VC being sold now is old stock. Kodak discontinued NC and VC as separate lines, and replaced them with Portra 160 and 400. This page has a graphic showing how the characteristics of the new films are supposed to compare to those of the old - scroll down toward the bottom of the page:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/160QA.jhtml?pq-path=2301065

[sully75]

The new films are extremely fine grained as far as I know. I think you will be pretty happy with Portra 400.

Ektar is a new sheet film, I think it came out 2 years ago. Also extremely fine grained. Perhaps better for landscapes, not as good for portraits.

If you order film from one of the major retailers, I would be suprised if you had any problems.

[Daniel Stone]

Ektar 100 is kind of (IMO) a slide film in negative film form. Not bad, but frankly, I still prefer 160VC when I want to shoot color negatives. The last generation of the NC/VC lines was almost identical IMO, finely not the difference of circa ~2000 color negative films from Kodak.

The closest thing (again, IMO) to 160VC is the Porta 400. Scans great, since that was what it was really designed to be done with it, not optically printed like 10yrs ago.

I'm still shooting thru a stash of 160NC/VC in 8x10 and 120/220, so I don't have much experience with the newest emulsions like others here might, but for scanning, the new Portra 400 scans great!

Dan

[Leonard Evens]

I finally ordered some Portra Pro 400 and HP5 from Calumet. The former had to come from New York, so I had them ship both to me. They told me they had some Portra Pro 160 on order for some customers but they had been waiting for it for two months.

It is certainly getting harder to find film, but I'm glad to find I can get something approximating what I am used to.

I had surgery fusing three vertebrae in my lower back in January. I am hoping that will help with the stenosis so I can go back to large format photography in a serious way.

Perhaps I should move to a completely digital setup, but that would require getting a new camera in a small format and a whole new set of lenses and would cost a fortune. I am more willing to do that then I was when I was younger because, at age 79, my retirement accumulation doesn't have to last as long.

Any suggestions? I would want something where all the equipment including tripod and meter would weigh less than 15 lbs. I can't imagine wanting to make prints larger than 16 x 20.

[Corran]

Re: digital setup for prints up to 16x20, you could easily get fantastic results up to that size with the new Nikon D800. A set of good lenses will depend on your preferences, but if you don't need autofocus you could get fantastic lenses for little to no money. Personally I would grab an older manual focus 28mm f/2, a 50mm f/1.8, an 85 f/1.8, and the venerable 105 f/2.5, and be done. If you need longer I hear some of the older 80-200mm manual focus zooms were excellent. With easy focusing using the LCD screen and "Live view" you'd be using the camera kind of like a view camera too.

More specialized lenses will of course be much more. Some options would be a super-wide 18mm or whatever you prefer, a macro (a ~100mm macro could replace the 105mm f/2.5), or if you went whole-hog, some T/S lenses or soft-focus stuff, whatever you might want.

*Of course a Canon 5DII could suffice, I'm just a Nikon guy :)

[Brian C. Miller]

Any suggestions?

A decent quality micro-4/3rds camera. Some articles from The Online Photographer:
The $19.95 Micro 4/3 Print Offer (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/print-offer-small-sensor.html) (for a 17x22 print, sale is over)
How I Made the $19.95 Print (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/04/how-i-made-the-1995-print.html)
What Does It Take to Be a Good Printer? (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/05/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-good-printer.html)
A Specific, Detailed Program for Absolutely, Positively Getting Better as a Digital Printmaker (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/05/a-specific-detailed-program-for-absolutely-positively-getting-better-as-a-digital-printmaker.html)

[Leonard Evens]

I have a Nikon D90 which I am happy with.

But I should have specified that I want a "view camera". So although I am happy to make do with a smaller format with a large number of pixels, I don't want to give up on tilts, swings, rise-fall,and shifts. It used to be possible to buy a small view camera of sorts to which one attached either a digital camera or digital back.

Of course I could just put a digital back on my 4 x 5, but I would then still have to get a new set of lenses appropriate to the format provided by the digital back. And I would still have the problem of weight.

[Brian Legge]

You could always pick up a tilt-shift lens for a Canon or Nikon SLR. They're expensive but would give you some movements on a cropped sensor or full frame SLR.

[Korona]

This may be a total left turn here, but instead of replacing all your hardware, have you considered getting an assistant? This would allow you to continue using the gear and materials you’re familiar with (w/o the learning curve associated with new equipment). Or maybe you could find some smart young photo student / art student who’d be willing to intern with you, exchanging your accumulated wisdom (and the chance to work with quality LF gear) for schlepping your gear around occasionally? (Or at least for reduced pay?)

Might be a better investment, on the whole time vs. money spectrum, than starting over with a new set of equipment.

Best of luck with your back issues… hope your recent surgery mitigates your problems!

Cheers,
Mark