A Site for Photographers by Photographers

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

Featured Equipment Deals

Basic Photo Tips: Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO Read More

Basic Photo Tips: Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO

Just as it was 100 years ago and just as it is today, every camera—be it film or digital—is nothing more than a lightproof box with a lens at one end and light sensitive film or a digital...

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

Getting Started in Video Read More

Getting Started in Video

Photographer Ted Kawalerski made the transition from still to motion and has never looked back. Ted takes you through the steps to get started in a medium that will open your photography business to...


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