220 size C-41 Colour Film for landscapes

[aoresteen]

I primarily shoot B&W and use HP-5 most of the time. I have a Cambo 23SF view camera with a number of Horseman 6x9 roll backs. I'd like to load my 220 16exp (6x9) back with a colour negative C-41 film for the occasional shot that I would like in colour. ISO 160 is fine as I'm on a tripod so no need for the 400 or 800 speed films.

What is the best landscpe 220 C-41 film? If the new Ektar 100 film was available in 220 I'd use it. My choices seem to be:

Fuji Pro 160C
Fuji Pro 160S
Kodak Portra 160 NC
Kodak Portra 160 VC

I live in Florida and buy my film mostly from B&H in New York.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

 

[Bruce Watson]

My thought is that you can't go wrong with any of them. I've used both the Fuji and the Kodak films. They are strikingly similar. I like the color balance of 160Portra just a little more, so that's the one I use. But really I wouldn't give you $0.25 USD for the difference.

 

[mrladewig]

I've been happy with the results from both Pro160S and Portra 160NC for landscape photography. From a scanning point of view, I like the way Kodak color neg films scan better on my Nikon. I've also been shooting Portra 400NC and NPS160 in large format for landscapes scanned on an Epson 4990. I got the NPS because it was really cheap for slightly out of date quickloads. I actually like the Portra 400NC better, but it isn't available in readyloads which I take backpacking. I have no experience with any of these printed in a traditional color darkroom. Just looking at the negatives Ektar negatives look very different from any of the Portra negs.

Over the last year I've invested alot of time learning to shoot and scan color negative films specifically for landscape photography and I've tried alot of the films. If its available in 220, one of the films I like alot for landscape is Fuji Reala. I know it can be found in 120. The blue skies and green foliage look really good in this film. The dynamic range is more open than Ektar and its alot more flexible.

 

[2F/2F]

I primarily shoot B&W and use HP-5 most of the time. I have a Cambo 23SF view camera with a number of Horseman 6x9 roll backs. I'd like to load my 220 16exp (6x9) back with a colour negative C-41 film for the occasional shot that I would like in colour. ISO 160 is fine as I'm on a tripod so no need for the 400 or 800 speed films.

What is the best landscpe 220 C-41 film? If the new Ektar 100 film was available in 220 I'd use it. My choices seem to be:

Fuji Pro 160C
Fuji Pro 160S
Kodak Portra 160 NC
Kodak Portra 160 VC

I live in Florida and buy my film mostly from B&H in New York.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

You have answered your own question! Those are your only choices. Pick whichever one of these you think will work best for the photos that you want. Hopefully you will have enough time and be willing to devote the effort and money to try out one of each BEFORE you stock up for your trip. You can try them out in 35mm or 120 to get a feel for them. Have them processed and have real proofsheets made at a pro lab. Try to shoot the same subjects in the same light on multiple types.

If Kodak is printed at a filtration that works for Fuji, it will be very warm. If Fuji is printed at a filtration that works for Kodak, it will be very cold. Both can be filtered to be perfectly neutral. Kodak films do not employ a fourth color layer. If you must decide without testing, look at the data sheets for each film, and check out their characteristic curves.

Also, you may not NEED the 400 or 800 films, but you may like them a lot. Speed is not the only difference. They have different contrast and different color.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I think any of the Portra family of films will be your best bet for color negative in 220. You may want to try the diffrent natural color (NC), and vivid color (VC) and see what you like.

 

[keithwms]

Fuji 160s. Try Reala as well... although I only see it in 220 as "reala ace" on the megaperls site.

 

[Frank Bunnik]

I just bought a few propacks of Fuji Reala in 220 from Fuji in the UK, very cheap. I always stick to Fuji Film because it is almost half the price of similar Kodak film, at least here in the Netherlands and most parts of Western Europe.