A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Film and Processing > Color negative > ISO 160: Fuji vs. Kodak vs....

Featured Equipment Deals

25 Exhilarating Photos of Airplanes Read More

25 Exhilarating Photos of Airplanes

By land and by air, photo.net members have captured stunning shots of airplanes at soaring heights, performing incredible stunts, and in breathtaking locales.

Latest Equipment Articles

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs Read More

4 Outdoor & Adventure Photo Packs

Photo packs have come a long way in the past decade, especially those that are targeted toward outdoor and adventure photographers. Alaska-based adventure photographer Dan Bailey takes a closer look...

Latest Learning Articles

A Brief History of Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial) Read More

A Brief History of Photography - Part II (Video Tutorial)

This video explores the second half of photography's history and development from the technological advances in the late 1800s through the beginnings of digital photography at the end of the 20th...


ISO 160: Fuji vs. Kodak vs. Agfa

Responses


First     Prev     1   |   2    

Scott Eaton , Sep 20, 2004; 09:21 a.m.

VC 160 works fine for skin tones provided you keep the film in open sun or combined with electronic flash. It's a studio film, so that's what it's going to excel at. Consider also that there are about 5,000 other print film on the market that are good with skin tones under open sun or in the studio as well. But of course Kodak says VC is 'strongly saturated film' so some people here actually believe it vs using films that have far more capabilities.

The choices here are Kodak Portra NC 160 or Fuji Reala (or NPS in place of Reala). Nothing wrong with NPS, but it's redundant using both NPS and Reala when the two film are so closely related. As mentioned above, Kodak print films will excel with Kodak processing and not do so well at a Fuji lab.

Chris Crevasse , Sep 20, 2004; 02:58 p.m.

Scott, are you saying NPS is like a slightly faster version of Reala? If so, is there any reason not to choose NPS over Reala?

Chris Haake , Sep 20, 2004; 03:02 p.m.

I have fairly limited experience with NPS, but in my experience NPS is less saturated than Reala (which is a medium-saturation film). Aside from saturation, they seem to basically share a color pallette. Both seem very sharp and fine-grained, though I can't comment more specifically than that.

Jeff Drew , Sep 21, 2004; 06:26 p.m.

I have used Agfa Optima 160 and Kodak Portra 160VC and NC a lot. Kodak Portra is my favorite overall at any speed choices, but since they offer a few speed choices (100UC, 160VC/NC, 400UC,VC,NC & 800) I do not bother with pushing or pulling for my tasks. I shoot it at the advertised ISO and have them printed at a Pro Kodak processor and the results are always consistent and colors are perfect! I have had excellent results with the Agfa 160 and usually rate it at ISO 125. It is sharp and has a neutral pallette, but I prefer the kodak flavor as does my pro lab. Fuji has good stuff, but I don't shoot it and leave the comments to those who do.


First     Prev     1   |   2    

Back to top

Notify me of Responses