Kodak's VC film vs the NC offering.

[Wayne Crider]

I'm about to start a personal project where I would prefer to shoot a faster 400 speed film (in sheets) due to the usual windy condition's here in FL, but am wondering as to the qualities that VC may give me over NC to help separate an abundance of the perennial greens I expect to encounter. I use to shoot NC often enough in the smaller 35mm format but haven't for quite awhile now and I think at least one or two upgrades have taken place since. The old VC I shot I never liked and except for one roll of outdated stuff (unknown version) this last 2007 year I haven't since introduction. I expect 65% of my pictures will be in forests with heavy foliage. Thoughts?

[Wayne Crider]

An update; Having done some reading last night thru various forums concerning the latest editions of NC and VC, it appears that 400NC would be probably preferable to the VC version. In the responses I've read, NC was touted by most as being very good whereas VC, although liked by some, had it's drawbacks on some occasions. What I'll probably do is order and shoot some sheet 400NC at box speed and a roll of VC in a rollfilm back as a comparison. Here's a thread over in APUG with some examples and remarks concerning both if your interested. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/4...landscape.html

[PViapiano]

Wayne, I shoot both in medium format (6x7) on my RZ, and the VC just gives a slight edge in color and contrast, to my eyes. It's nothing like the pop one gets from a slide film like Velvia. It's definitely more subtle. The current versions of the 160/400 Portras scan and color correct beautifully...

I'm looking forward to shooting some in 4x5 soon...

[SamReeves]

A few of my friends kid around with the meanings of "NC" and "VC." NC would mean no color. VC means very crappy. However with the limited choice of C-41 based large format, I'd probably choose very crappy over no color.

[Bruce Watson]

An update; Having done some reading last night thru various forums concerning the latest editions of NC and VC, it appears that 400NC would be probably preferable to the VC version. In the responses I've read, NC was touted by most as being very good whereas VC, although liked by some, had it's drawbacks on some occasions. What I'll probably do is order and shoot some sheet 400NC at box speed and a roll of VC in a rollfilm back as a comparison. Here's a thread over in APUG with some examples and remarks concerning both if your interested. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum40/4...landscape.html

Some of this choice depends on what you intend to do with the film. If you are going print in the darkroom, film choice will be more of a match up with paper choice. IOW, if the paper needs the VC film, then that's the film to pick, yes?

If on the other hand you'll be scanning, other considerations can come into play. I scan my 5x4 film. My standard color film is 160PortraVC. Because 160PortraNC doesn't come in readyloads. On the other hand, when I need a 400 speed film I use 400PortraNC. It's just an amazing film. Hardly any grainier than 160Portra, nearly as sharp, and both have good reciprocity characteristics. I'd use nothing but 400PortraNC in 5x4 if 1) it came in readyloads, and 2) if it weren't so much more expensive then 160Portra.

[Bill_1856]

I LOVE 400 Portra NC here in Florida for the beautiful skies without burned-out clouds (or white beach sand). To tell the truth, I can't really tell much difference between the 160 and 400.

[Anthony Lewis]

I now shoot Porta 160NC and think its beautiful. I used to shoot VC - great in some lighting situations but too contrasty in others - so I've just standardised on NC and have not been dissapointed.

[Stephen Willard]

I shoot only 160 VC for landscape photography and love it. I shoot 4x10 and 5x7 and cut my film from 8x10 sheets. It is not good for people or skin tones. The colors are reasonable close to real life in the great our doors. However, I personally feel no modern day film comes very close to how the human eye sees the natural world.

[PViapiano]

I shoot only 160 VC for landscape photography and love it. I shoot 4x10 and 5x7 and cut my film from 8x10 sheets. It is not good for people or skin tones.

I get great skin tones from this film...here's a recent image, shot on my RZ:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/2112632306/

[Anthony Lewis]

Great shot, but I rekon I can see the VC in it. The hair is going a bit dark around the face, and overblown backlit hair. But the shot is fine because it is backlit. If the sun was in her face, which you wouldn't do in the first place, all the shadow areas would be too dark.

I prefer the NC, it will have a larger colour gamut, less contrast, and therefore more ability to manipulate the shot in Photoshop to exactly what you want. No dark shadows. And I think the facial tones are a little better than VC.

If you are shooting on an overcast day, or deep in a valley, etc, the VC is fine. I'm probably splitting hairs here, but I prefer the NC.