I looked at the Q&A for Portra 160 and judging by the scales it is even closer to 160NC than the new 400 is to 400NC. In fact, the only difference seems to be grain which is now finer (a moot point for me - I never see the grain on 100 speed films anyway). I printed another 400 Portra neg last night and got a really nice print. This was a photograph of elderly relatives and it did a good job of toning down the various blotches and ruddy marks that people get as they get close to 100.
Film is NOT dead: NEW Film PORTRA 160 Film from KODAK
-
A
- Thread starter laser
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome Veliva 100 and Fujifilm 4x5 Fujichrome 64T. EXPIRED
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
Sold Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros 120 and 4x5
- Started by Renato Tonelli
Forum statistics
Well, it's as I predicted when Portra 400 came out. That is too bad. Such a huge loss of four excellent color films within such a short span, and not too far behind Fuji's massive axing of C-41. So we have a 160 and a 400 C-41 film from Fuji and Kodak, plus Portra 800 and Ektar for Kodak and Reala for Fuji (with Fuji's single 160 pro film not on the market as of yet). We are down to six professional-quality C-41 films in existence, and one more (Fuji 160NS) supposedly forthcoming for about a year now. Portra 800 will be next to go, I would assume. C-41 shooters and analog printers have lost so much control just in the past 2 to 3 years that it is sickening. Finer grain be damned; how fine do we need it to be? There was nothing lacking in the 160/400 NC/VC films that makes their replacement by a single film with "superior technical qualities" an easy pill to swallow. And to top it off, I just found out today that when the photography department at school moves in to the new art building that is being constructed, analog color is being abandoned completely. What a crummy day!
Last edited by a moderator:
160NS is available now, although I think it's only a re-branded 160S:
http://www.macodirect.de/fuji-120br5-filme-p-1335.html
http://www.macodirect.de/fuji-120br5-filme-p-1335.html
Again the sad thing for us is that scanning seems to be the main reason for the fine grain. Ektar, Portra 400, both advertised as being great for scanning, not printing. Scanners do indeed have a hard time with grain, the autosharpening algorithms often give you a real horror show for something which actually prints just dandy with a real enlarger.
I'd rather have a smaller number of films, than none.
I too will miss the choice of VC or NC, but really, it must have been difficult for retailers to stock twice the film. This is a batten-the-hatches market. Film is a product with declining sales. Most Western economies are in a prolonged recession that has hit the retail sector very hard. While they may be promoting these newer versions as "better for scanning," I'm sure the real reason for changing the line is to simplify distribution in the face of lower sales. As Fuji also has been forced to do. We are lucky, in my opinion, that Kodak also has improved the product. Because my use of Portra 400 demonstrates clearly, to me, that it is improved. And it was already an excellent film.
The only constant is change. I'm old enough to resent that, but I hope I stay young enough to adapt.
-Laura
I too will miss the choice of VC or NC, but really, it must have been difficult for retailers to stock twice the film. This is a batten-the-hatches market. Film is a product with declining sales. Most Western economies are in a prolonged recession that has hit the retail sector very hard. While they may be promoting these newer versions as "better for scanning," I'm sure the real reason for changing the line is to simplify distribution in the face of lower sales. As Fuji also has been forced to do. We are lucky, in my opinion, that Kodak also has improved the product. Because my use of Portra 400 demonstrates clearly, to me, that it is improved. And it was already an excellent film.
The only constant is change. I'm old enough to resent that, but I hope I stay young enough to adapt.
-Laura
I can understand your school's decision, in some ways, but it's still a shame. I don't know whether your school specializes in fine art or commercial photography. But I'll just say that earlier this week I looked at some newer prints by some very prominent fine art photographers. The digital color prints, while they had the advantage of larger scale, had noticeable artifacts and other digital characteristics. They broke up when you looked at them up close. No doubt you could say, don't look at them up close. But it was startling. In contrast, there were a few analogue c-prints, which, while smaller, were beautiful, from up close or from far away.
-Laura
Hopefully, someday, a few more people will figure that out.
Agreed. And it's nice that they threw in some improvements to the film as they downsized, instead of just tossing the VC variety. 400NC was my go to color film, and the new 400 is a welcomed improvement.
Something that I've noticed with the last three releases of Kodak film (Ektar and the 2 Portras) is that there is a VERY positive vibe about these films online, with very strong reviews coming out about them. I really like the new Portra 400 and do see it as a positive development, but some of the statements about it smacks to me of hyperbole and marketing. The film buying, internet dwelling public though seems to be buying it though. So Kodak's marketing of releasing the film to internet reviewers seems to be paying off.
Has anyone else noticed that none of these rave reviews compare the new Portra 400 to 400NC? I get the feeling that some of these guys haven't shot the previous Portra 400s much in the past couple years, when they've gone through several revisions.
It seems to me that color film in general is all about digital output these days. The level of control you have with digital image editing tools can never be approached in darkroom printing, no matter how good you are. I think it's just a fact of life. A few years ago I might have considered darkroom printing of C41 materials, but these days, with the limited paper qualities out there, like a nice matte paper for instance, is just not there.
So I second that using internet reviewers to boost the appreciation of the new Portra films in that part of the photography world is a smart move.
With that said I really love how a good projection color print looks. I have a few from when I was good friends with the master printer at a prolab, and they are stunning indeed. It's sad to see the trend, actually, and I feel like a hypocrite for contributing to it by using digitevil means of outputting my color prints.
But I do welcome a move from Kodak to try to rationalize their ways of keeping inventory, both at their own distribution warehouse, as well as distributors and dealers. I live in a world where inventory levels are closely scrutinized, and over-stock costs an amazing amount of money. Understock does too, because if you run out, usually shipping is expedited, and that in turn becomes a burden on the bottom line. By having fewer SKUs to manage, they have a lot to gain, and if that can help in stabilizing Kodak's future in the film business, then I am all for it. It's better to have a healthier company producing fewer, but really good, products, than to have a sinking ship with a multitude of options that are perhaps not viable to the company to continue with. Give them credit for trying to find a way.
What we want as consumers and users isn't always what Kodak and Fuji can provide us with, no matter how bass-ackwards it may seem at first glance.
- Thomas
So I second that using internet reviewers to boost the appreciation of the new Portra films in that part of the photography world is a smart move.
With that said I really love how a good projection color print looks. I have a few from when I was good friends with the master printer at a prolab, and they are stunning indeed. It's sad to see the trend, actually, and I feel like a hypocrite for contributing to it by using digitevil means of outputting my color prints.
But I do welcome a move from Kodak to try to rationalize their ways of keeping inventory, both at their own distribution warehouse, as well as distributors and dealers. I live in a world where inventory levels are closely scrutinized, and over-stock costs an amazing amount of money. Understock does too, because if you run out, usually shipping is expedited, and that in turn becomes a burden on the bottom line. By having fewer SKUs to manage, they have a lot to gain, and if that can help in stabilizing Kodak's future in the film business, then I am all for it. It's better to have a healthier company producing fewer, but really good, products, than to have a sinking ship with a multitude of options that are perhaps not viable to the company to continue with. Give them credit for trying to find a way.
What we want as consumers and users isn't always what Kodak and Fuji can provide us with, no matter how bass-ackwards it may seem at first glance.
- Thomas
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,896
- Format
- Medium Format
As for almost-viral marketing, it's the new reality. Are they shills? Maybe. I shot quite a bit of the last "new" Portra 400VC and loved it--more importantly, my lab's scan-print line loved it, too. Suspect the "newest" Portra 400 will be just as useful.
These compressed product ranges are here to stay--some good films or no film at all are the options now. Drink up, folks.
Also, please remember that a few years ago there were only two medium-speed pro color neg films - Portra 160 NC and VC - with slightly different saturation (and contrast). The situation is actually similar today: Portra and Ektar. The gap between the two films made bigger (regarding saturation), and now they are marketed for different purposes; neutral for portraits, Ektar for landscape etc. This makes much more sense to me than "two very close films for portraits, one for a bit more saturation".
Also, I find it easier to interpolate than extrapolate. There are ways to fine-tune contrast and saturation in RA-4, too, so IMO we don't need the fine-tuning in the film selection so much; it's better to have two distinct choices, then the total scale of choice is longer. Just IMHO.
Of course I understand that those who wanted exactly the in-between VC variety, will miss it. And, for some time, there were three varieties available. Now we are back to two, but it's completely different than having only one, and I'd bet Ektar is not going anywhere in the near future. I know these words do not comfort those who don't like Ektar, but everyone cannot like everything.
I remember some people complaining that when the new Portra 400 was made a bit more saturated, they lost the least saturated version. But, that was understandable because if only one remains, it's best to have "average" product. Now, for the 160 variety, Kodak didn't make it more saturated but kept it at NC. I'm sure it's because there is Ektar for those who want extra saturation. They think the situation as a whole.
Also, I find it easier to interpolate than extrapolate. There are ways to fine-tune contrast and saturation in RA-4, too, so IMO we don't need the fine-tuning in the film selection so much; it's better to have two distinct choices, then the total scale of choice is longer. Just IMHO.
Of course I understand that those who wanted exactly the in-between VC variety, will miss it. And, for some time, there were three varieties available. Now we are back to two, but it's completely different than having only one, and I'd bet Ektar is not going anywhere in the near future. I know these words do not comfort those who don't like Ektar, but everyone cannot like everything.
I remember some people complaining that when the new Portra 400 was made a bit more saturated, they lost the least saturated version. But, that was understandable because if only one remains, it's best to have "average" product. Now, for the 160 variety, Kodak didn't make it more saturated but kept it at NC. I'm sure it's because there is Ektar for those who want extra saturation. They think the situation as a whole.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I wouldn't quite call them shills, but it is amazing to me about all the crap I've been reading online in forums about how you can underexpose the new stuff 2-3 stops and have 'amazing' quality. Yet no one seems to acknowledge that you could do the same to the previous versions and get basically the same results.
Back to Bob - you mentioned that Kodak could switch on the fly between VC and NC coatings. What were the actual differences (in layman's terms) between the two? I it was something in the couplers and the final dyes, and not in the sensitization. Also, was the difference between NC and VC a uniform saturation increase, or was it localized to a certain portions of the spectrum?
Yeah, that's true. But this has always been the case - between two successive version, the differences are not ground-breaking, but after two or three updates, they start to show. Well, an internet comparison with Fuji 400H and new Portra 400 actually showed almost groundbreaking results in some difficult underexposure situations, but what if they compared 400NC-3 and the new 400 instead? Hard to guess.
But are these updates really needed? The products are good. Are they "good enough"? Surely they are good enough for almost any purpose. The previous Portra was also good enough. The first Portra was good enough. Vericolor was good enough... .. etc...
People tend to be "happy" with what they have, which is a good trait... But then, some people resist any changes. However, this can be a completely unsustainable attitude, because usually these people want to have the product that has undergone those updates for decades, and that's a total paradox. They may have been thinking in the same way decades ago, but in the end they still wanted to have the updates if they are asked decades later if they would like to revert the product now. Everyone wants to stop the wheel at a different point, so IMO better keep it running. And I'm surprised it can run this well even in the current situation today...
Agreed. I see it as a positive development, especially considering the current state of things.
I just got some Portra 400 for my brother's wedding. Can't wait to see the results.
There should be at least two things to think about here!
1. R&D is ongoing at EK and the new film mentioned in the OP is evidence of that.
2. Analog was better than digital and due to this small improvement, shows that it can be made even better!
Maybe I should add that this does save on costs in inventory, packaging and etc, as said earlier, and this will serve to extend the lifetime of analog in the face of decreasing sales.
So, rejoice! Go shoot some film.
PE
1. R&D is ongoing at EK and the new film mentioned in the OP is evidence of that.
2. Analog was better than digital and due to this small improvement, shows that it can be made even better!
Maybe I should add that this does save on costs in inventory, packaging and etc, as said earlier, and this will serve to extend the lifetime of analog in the face of decreasing sales.
So, rejoice! Go shoot some film.
PE
What a beautiful mantra!
Agreed. Here's another: Go print some C-prints!
Oh yeah. Um.
Can anyone point me to a lab that regularly prints analog color/RA-4 here in the US? I seem to recall there was someone. My pro lab rarely does it and I'd love to find someone to send special work to. Maybe I need to start a new thread....
Tim, The Small Darkroom in NYC does my c-printing (optical).
There are a number of other labs here that do them.
There are a number of other labs here that do them.
MattKing
Moderator
There probably is an advantage as well inherent in replacing both the 400 films and the 160 films with films that use the same technology updates. If the lines differed too much, there would be less benefit from the economies of scale (such as they remain).
Which may either bode well for enhancement of the Portra 800, or bode ill for its continuation.
Which may either bode well for enhancement of the Portra 800, or bode ill for its continuation.
Jeff, Aker Imaging (formerly AZ Photo Lab) in Houston does analog color/RA 4 printing.
http://www.azphoto.com/
http://www.azphoto.com/
Praus (Rochester) and Color Services (Needham, MA) come to mind as offering traditional color printing. I haven't used them, but I know they're out there.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,896
- Format
- Medium Format
More on the new Portra 160, this time something concrete:
http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/0...-portra-160-film-new-negative-c41-scan-hybri/
Hard to believe so many here can't grasp that this is a new and truly improved film available in<<GASP>> 5 formats.
http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/0...-portra-160-film-new-negative-c41-scan-hybri/
Hard to believe so many here can't grasp that this is a new and truly improved film available in<<GASP>> 5 formats.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |