just how "vivid" is 160 vc?

stupid question that I'm sure has been answered a billion times before but it's all the had at the store (I went in looking for 160s but I'm open to trying new things).

My only other color film experience is with the new Ektar which I think I've relegated to cloudy day duty and some badly stored 160s which printed like a dream. This will be my first experience with 4x5 color as well.

I'm making RA-4 prints, not scanning for the time being. Obviously the real answer is to just shoot it and see but who has time to take pictures these days?



oh p.s. I don't really do people, just outside stuff.

I believe the 160 vc is Kodak, and the 160 s is Fuji. Correct? They should be comparable but they will not look the same in the print. I have shot the 160s, c, vc, and nc, and all gave radically different results under nearly identical conditions. Fuji film tends to have slightly higher color saturation (almost cartoony), colder tones, looser grain structure, and the curves tend to cross when shooting under indirect and mixed light.

I would warn against going with Fuji because of crossed curves. I don't know why it happens, but it makes color correction essentially impossible for an amateur (or anyone in there first year of serious color printing). The dark midtones (dark grays) turn magenta and lighter midtones turn cyan. you can imagine this makes for some pretty atrocious prints. It is unreasonable to expect consistently high quality prints from negatives that have crossed curves without using a prodigious amount of paper. As you can imagine no two frames are going to be identical in the degree to which this problem is manifest.

I have shot much more fuji then kodak, and have recently made the switch.

Then again, if you are not having trouble with crossed curves then ignore me!

one last thing. with color negative film ALWAYS double the recommended exposure. C-41 film loves over exposure! you get richer blacks, better midtone contrast, higher saturation, and tighter grain! start with 1/2 the manufactures recommended ISO.

Congrats on the color work! keep it up! RA4 prints can be exceedingly beautiful and its being abandoned for the convenience of digital.

Hope I was of some help!

Christopher Breitenstein

Great to hear someone switching from the Fuji films (not a Fuji fan)! Long live Kodak! All of the Portra VCs are pretty vivid. I think it is all a matter of opinion....

Thanks guys. very helpful.
any examples would be great too. I know it's sometimes hard to talk about these things and pictures can be worth a thousand words and all.

The portra vc series renders colors naturally, but with just a bit more punch than Fuji 160S. I find the latter to be a bit more "neutral" in its color rendition than the former; it is my "slow" everyday go-to film, just as Fuji 400H is my go-to "high" speed film. I also use Portra 400VC regularly.

Contrary to Chris's experience, I find that these films do NOT need quite so much overexposure to work out. At most I might add a half-stop, or a third; usually I shoot them box speed with plenty of shadow detail resulting and highlights not blown completely. They are pretty forgiving, though, so you should try it both ways and see if you like it. You have no real effective contrast control via development adjustments with C-41, so your N+ or N- options don't really exist as with B&W.

Lovely films, all. It's a matter of taste, but those are my fave four.

The 160S is to 160C as 160NC is to 160VC IIRC, as in the 160S is less saturated.

We need a REAL color comparison, as in someone to go out and shoot all negative (and maybe positive) films and compare them and then publish them.

Chris, I don't think 160C is "cartoony." I shoot it in 120 and don't overexpose by a full stop (or more as you suggest). I expose somewhere around 125 for simplicity's sake, and have been happy with the results. Sorry to stray from the OP's question, but I thought the comments about 160C and negative film in general needed another viewpoint.

I would give you examples, but I have no way to scan....

160VC is pretty vivid. I haven't used 160S, but the Fuji films are often a bit more vivid for darkroom prints than Kodak. At least for me, digital prints tend to be more vivid than regular enlargements using Kodak materials.

I have not used 160VC. I have used 400NC, 400VC and 400UC. NC and VC I would use for a wedding. I would not use UC for a wedding. I use VC and UC for landscapes.

Steve

well, I shot 8 sheets, I'll drop them off tomorrow and if the lab is quick enough I'll be able to print them tomorrow too. I'll let y'all know.

people photography is my main interest and I prefer either the Fuji Pro 160 S or the Kodak 160 NC in reasonable lighting because of their gentle accurate rendition of skin tones and lack of excessive contrast, if I use the more contrasty versions it would be on overcast days with flat lighting to give the shots more punch.