Wild colors of Kodak Portra 160VC

[Marco B]

Hi all,

Recently shot my first roll of Kodak Portra 160VC colour negative film. I once before shot two rolls of 160NC, both of which were screwed up during development by sending it through a non-professional lab (underdeveloped, desaturated colours, awful )

This time, I wasn't lazy and took it to a professional lab... I was flabbergasted by the results Of course, I knew the "V" stood for Vivid, but look at the attachment... What colours! Of course, weather conditions and time of day helped as well (a heavy rain that just stopped causing an initial thick haze at the end of the day and all plants soaking wet), but I would never have expected such saturated colours!

Is this the "normal" look of VC :confused: Not that I mind! Just a question...

 

[epatsellis]

the VC line is pretty nice, this was shot last weekend, straight scan out of vuescan, no PP:

 

[Marco B]

Yes, I recognize the same very highly saturated greens that I see in my scan, which has also not been post-processed by the way...

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used Kodak Portra Vc 160 sometime ago and it was quite good. I think I'm going to try some soon again.

Jeff

 

[Kent10D]

the VC line is pretty nice, this was shot last weekend, straight scan out of vuescan, no PP:

Love the color (and the detail)!
I guess I'll be picking up a few rolls in the next day or two.

What camera was that taken with?

 

[epatsellis]

Kent,
RB67, 127mm lens at around f11, Compendium shade, no filters (forgot the darn polarizer, makes the colors pop even more)

 

[gerryyaum]

glad to see the vivid colors...I did my ladyboy color stuff with Portra VC(have to develop the film yet)...it is a new film for me...got to like the VIVID stuff...now if I could only get nice scans like you guys manage....negative scanner?

 

[Marco B]

glad to see the vivid colors...I did my ladyboy color stuff with Portra VC(have to develop the film yet)...it is a new film for me...got to like the VIVID stuff...now if I could only get nice scans like you guys manage....negative scanner?

Canon 9950F flatbed/negative scanner. OK for low resolution (1200ppi) scans, and thus usable for LF 4x5 negatives, but a disgrace for 160VC 35mm negatives, it won't get the detail out of it. I usually go to a professional lab to scan on an Imacon 949 for that.

For this quick low resolution scan though, I did use my Canon.

 

[epatsellis]

Nope, 10 year old Umax powerlook III, not even wet scanned (my usual method for good scans). I was just proofing 2 rolls I had just shot and processed, the roll of 400 VC and a roll of Ektachrome 100GX cross processed.

 

[nworth]

Your VC example looks pretty much as I would expect, but I think the processing is still a bit off. epatsellis' example is typical 400VC, which is slightly less vivid than 160VC. I think you would be pleased with 160NC if it was properly processed. The VC films have there place, especially for vivid scenes like epatsallis' and landscapes like we have in Utah and New Mexico. For calmer stuff, NC looks better.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Your VC example looks pretty much as I would expect, but I think the processing is still a bit off. epatsellis' example is typical 400VC, which is slightly less vivid than 160VC. I think you would be pleased with 160NC if it was properly processed. The VC films have there place, especially for vivid scenes like epatsallis' and landscapes like we have in Utah and New Mexico. For calmer stuff, NC looks better.

When UC 400 was discontinued, I brought 64 rolls of 135-36 and 55 rolls of 120 UC 400. I wanted to keep it from the hoarders!

UC 400 is really great for southern Utah and Northern Arizona. I have to get to New Mexico before I use my stash up.

Steve