Portra 160 NC vs Porta 400 VC

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

hallo everbody

I‘ve got a problem that could‘n been resolved by either the kodak national pro support, or the kodak world support, its unbelivable, but after more than two hours surfing, calling, etc, I know as much as I did before. -->They just don‘t care !

For some fast, handheld shootings of architecture, I‘ve the choice between SLR and 6/9. When using Neg films as the Portra, I have these two options: either SLR with portra 160 NC, or the 6/9 (120) Portra 400 VC (as these lens need more speed)

The question: In which way will I have the best resolution, (lines per mm) negative, for scanning afterwards ?? (Therefore the Kodak print grain index (diffusor enlarger) doesn‘t helps.)

Is the 400 VC instead of the 400 NC a good choice, to compensate the lower contrast of the 400 ??

Thanks for your help.

-- montespluga (montespluga@mac.com), May 28, 2001


Assuming the lenses of both cameras are decent, you're better off using the faster film on the bigger negative. However, if you're handholding then all bets are off.

-- Mark Parsons (Polar@thegrid.net), May 28, 2001.

First, bear in mind that you're asking this question in a forum where the audience is obviously biased in favor of the larger format. Still, the grain in 400 Portra is not 250% larger than in 160 Portra, so the 6X9 is the right choice if grain is your concern. As observed above, however, whether you can hand-hold the bigger camera as well as the 35 is another issue, that may matter more to image quality.

I happen to really like the Porta 400NC myself, and have found it to work beautifully for scanning and digital printing. As long as you're shooting negatives for scanning, I'd go with the NC. You're not going to be viewing the film image, and if you think you need more contrast or saturation, it's a simple matter to pump it up in Photoshop.

-- Lyle Aldridge (dridgee@aol.com), May 28, 2001.

My limited experience of flastbed scanning is that the inherent grain and sharpness of the film does matter. Here, the slower films excel-in fact, the best color neg film I have found so far for scanning is Konica's Impressa.

-- David F. Stein (DFStein@aol.com), May 28, 2001.

Hi If you really has to shoot handheld then is the larger neg better, it is anyway better because of the havier camera! But it gets better with a tripod even with a one leg tripod! And don`t drink ten cafés bevor! Good luck!

-- Armin Seeholzer (armin.seeholzer@smile.ch), May 28, 2001.

Since you haven't stated your intended output size, but have mentioned your fast shooting style, with obvious apparent abandon of caring about converging verticals or any other LF movements concerning perspective's, I suspect that your best bet is your 35mm system with a couple of lenses. With a decent wide angle on a 35, you'd be able to literally run your way thru your shooting, and your scan/cost ratio would probably be cheaper if having to be bought. FWIW, this would have been better posted in the Medium format or un-moderated forum at www.photo.net. LF is a slower and more considerate way of shooting.

-- Wayne Crider (waynec@apt.net), May 30, 2001.

thanks everybody for the responses.

Sorry for asking in a LF-forum, but I didn‘t wanted to add another forum to my list, and as I useually use the 4/5........ the purpose of my question has been to check-out the right film for handheld shootings out of a chopper, where the use of a light tele and a high speed film is queit recommended. Obviously, LF, changing lenses, shift (PC)-lenses are to complex for this duty, but if scanned, progs like Panotool can correct the perspective on the computer. Did‘nt you Armin did that air-photography-job for a while ??

Then: I don‘t mind to have the choice between the NC and the VC : in 6/9 I could even load two film folders, just to „correct“ the contrast depending on the „dust“ in the air, and depending from the different p.o.v. (the sun position will not really move during these shootings) Mark made a reasonable statement, about the quality of the lenses, the tests show, that these are plus minus equal. Regards

-- montespluga (montespluga@mac.com), May 30, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ