Great news, I think I'm now going to settle wholesale on Kodak for everything colour (and 50% black and white)
Portra 160 / 400 for portraits or flash
Ektar 100 for landscape (replacing Provia 100F, which is superb but virtually impossible to scan if exposure isn't within 1/3 stop of optimum)
Tri-X for virtually all Black & White (apart from experimentation with the Adox and Rollei films for interesting effect)
Still a bit odd. It would have been cheaper to simply continue to make 160NC and drop 160VC. Creating a new film, even tweaking an existing one takes some money. Good to see they're still spending some money on film R&D. Hopefully it will continue.
If I recall correctly back when the new Portra 400 was introduced, PE mentioned that the film had a lot in common with Kodak's movie film which greatly simplified Kodak's film production. I suspect that's also the case here with this new 160 film.
North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
Where is the love for Portra 800?
Lots of talk about Portra 160 and 400, Even Ektar, but Portra 800 is still being made also.
Has anyone even used Portra 800? Someone must because they are still making it but I would like to know what it's like as I have never used it myself.
"Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
"Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"
I've used it once or twice in medium format, for the indoors shots at a wedding. It was remarkably fine grain for 800 speed, but I did have trouble with colour correction in the highlights (mixed tungsten/daylight inside the church).
Some other shots, sunny conditions in daylight again gave relatively low grain, and good colour rendition, possibly a good film for handheld colour street photography?
I use Portra 800. I like it quite a bit. Grainier than the 400 varieties obviously. It works well for me in tungsten lighting though seems to be really sensitive to the green from fluorescents. What's odd about the green though is that it's not a sickly green but a really rich green. As a result, it's been pretty easy for me to correct out (digitally). I also find it to have a bit of a different color balance than the other Portra's and to be more saturated than it is stated to be. Again, I'm scanning, so take it with a grain of salt.
Here's a couple shots from the most recent version (800-3). If you right click on the photo and select original, you can see them at the full scan size - some are up to 4k x 6k. Portra 800-3 samples