I'm shooting 4x5, mainly outdoor landscapes in a variety of light. I've shot Kodak 160NC and Fuji 160S, and prefer 160NC for its general color rendering, but I am only going to be using Quickload or/and Readyload film packets in the future, and 160NC is not offered in packets (and I don't want to shoot tungsten film and have to use a filter for regular daylight shots). So, my choice is between Fuji 160S or Kodak 160VC. I own the quickload holder, and while I could buy a readyload holder and 160VC film to do comparison tests, it would be a bit expensive, and I thought I would try posting this question: What is 'closer' to 160NC - Fuji 160S or Kodak 160VC? I'm aware that the grain of VC is larger than NC although I'm not sure how much larger and what the impact on subtle smoothness there would be in prints around 20x24 size, and the grain of 160S is supposed to be less than NC, and that VC may be higher contrast than NC (or is it higher saturation, or both ?). I think I tried VC some years ago in contrasty light and didn't like it (harsh results compared to NC), but that memory is vague. Anyway, in general color rendering and contrast characteristics, for those of you who have shot all three films, what is your take on which is most like 160NC ? A secondary question is, would the larger grain of 160VC make a difference in subtle appreciation of tonalities (i.e. nose to the print) on 20x24" enlargements? Thanks!