New Kodak Portra 400 in the pipeline...

[italy74]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It should be released in november and if you look at the FAQ, you should see how it's displaced (more or less half way) between actual NC and VC settings.

 

KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 400 Film

[andybarton]

Excellent news. So long as it doesn't _replace_ NC & VC and doesn't look anything like Ektra

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wattsy]

Excellent news. So long as it doesn't _replace_ NC & VC

 

From the FAQs:

"What will happen to the existing KODAK PROFESSIONAL 400NC and 400VC Films?

The new PORTRA 400 Film replaces the existing KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 400NC and 400VC offerings."

[Stealth3kpl]

Excellent news. So long as it doesn't _replace_ NC & VC and doesn't look anything like Ektra

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

From the FAQs:

 

What does it look like?

Ektar.

 

Bummer!

Pete

[earleygallery]

160 still comes in NC and VC flavours. This new film seems pitched roughly between the two according to the Kodak charts.

[noah_addis]

From the FAQs:

 

What does it look like?

Ektar.

 

Bummer!

Pete

 

It doesn't appear to be anything like Ektar, thankfully.

 

I'm still not sure how to feel about this. On one hand it's good that Kodak is introducing more films and transferring technology from motion picture film to still camera film. The fact that they're introducing a new film at all is good news.

 

However, we've lost choices and that's always worrisome.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think one film makes sense. The fact is that the majority of film shooters are scanning their work, and subtle changes in color saturation can be made easily when scanning. The new film seems to have the lower contrast of 400NC, which is good for scanning.

 

I don't need a lot of choices, in fact I only shoot 160NC, 400NC and once in a blue moon I'll shoot a roll or two of Portra 800. But whenever we lose options it makes me wonder if there will be more losses in variety or film formats. For example the new film is not available in 8x10.

 

I figure the 160 films will probably go down the same path. I wonder if they'll introduce a 400-speed Ektar, so that the Portras will be the low-contrast, low-saturation film and the Ektars will be the high-contrast, high-saturation films.

 

I'll definitely switch to the new Portra 400 Pro (not that I have a lot of choices). If it's as good as they say it is, maybe I'll shoot everything with it and not bother with the 160...

[tgray]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I already don't bother with the 160 Portras. Not that they are bad, they are quite good. But I find 400NC is way more flexible for me.

[italy74]

I figure the 160 films will probably go down the same path. I wonder if they'll introduce a 400-speed Ektar, so that the Portras will be the low-contrast, low-saturation film and the Ektars will be the high-contrast, high-saturation films.

 

If i'm allowed, this might have a sense: when you shoot 100 iso? When you have plenty of light and you're probably outside or in a controlled light environment. Especially in the first case, landscape shooters may want a more vivid tone in their shots, while shooting with a 400 iso means you're shooting in a less lit or dimly-lit environment, where side lamps may occur. In this case you may want a less saturated film than VC on skin and reddish/pinkish tones but you may like a bit more on blues/ greens than regular NC.

I think we all have to gain from this new couple of films, especially if grain is kept low as for Ektar

[noah_addis]

If i'm allowed, this might have a sense: when you shoot 100 iso? When you have plenty of light and you're probably outside or in a controlled light environment. Especially in the first case, landscape shooters may want a more vivid tone in their shots, while shooting with a 400 iso means you're shooting in a less lit or dimly-lit environment, where side lamps may occur. In this case you may want a less saturated film than VC on skin and reddish/pinkish tones but you may like a bit more on blues/ greens than regular NC.

I think we all have to gain from this new couple of films, especially if grain is kept low as for Ektar

 

I tend to like my colors on the soft muted side, however if the new film is too saturated (and I'm not sure it will be), that's an easy fix in PS.

 

I do big prints, and while I like some grain and the texture of film, I don't want the 40x50in. print to be TOO grainy. I tend to use the 160 when there is enough light and/or if I'm using a tripod, the 400 gets used the rest of the time.

 

Even the current 400NC looks good in big prints. To be honest at 40x50 it's not as big of a difference as I would have expected and I don't think non-photographers would notice. So if the new film is indeed less grainy, I may not bother with the 160 at all. It would make my life easier and I could travel lighter, since I often bring enough of each film speed to do my whole assignment since I never know what lighting conditions to expect.

 

Keep in mind I don't really belong on this forum, I shoot 6x7:cool: For 35mm I would still shoot slower films if I wanted big prints.

[wblynch]

I

 

...I wonder if they'll introduce a 400-speed Ektar, so that the Portras will be the low-contrast, low-saturation film and the Ektars will be the high-contrast, high-saturation films.

 

 

Excellent proposal !

[sfage]

Damn. I like the NC just the way it is.

[ezc203]

Gotta second sfage here. Been shooting the 160NC lately and boy, what a dream.

 

And I'll be sure to try this new Portra when it comes out.