FujiPro 160c??

[stradibarrius]

What are the opinions of this film. It is available in 220 size.

 

[nocrop]

I prefer Fuji Pro 160S for its more natural skin tones and the S version isn't as contrasty--more natural-looking, I feel. I think it's available in 220 too. Buy both and compare. They are excellent films, though I would go with Ektar for anything other than portraits.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

I prefer the 160 S as well, the 160 C being just a little too snappy for my taste. I believe both are still available in 220. That's what I shot until last fall when I fell in love with the Kodak Portra 160 NC & VC.

I don't know about scanning, but for printing, I find the Portra to be much easier to balance than the Fuji. It's kind of ironic since I'm using Fuji chemistry and paper.

 

[jd callow]

It is a very good film I have about 50 or 60 rolls of 220 left from an original purchase of 100. This is the first time I've shot it in quantity since the formulation change. 160s is a different film with different intended uses. 160vc would be 160c's intended competition and the better film of those two is the one you like better. 160s is is intended to compete against 160nc. So if you like a longer scale, less contrast and saturation you will want to look at 160s or 160nc otherwise your options will be 160c, 160vc or (the winner in 120) ektar 100.

 

[zenrhino]

I like it. Its punchy and still gives good skintone. Good for effect. But if I'm shooting straight portraits or figures, I'll use Portra NC or Fuji 160S.