Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,997   Posts: 1,524,301   Online: 833
      
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51
  1. #11
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    Those look very natural and realistic, but I think the scans might be a bit blown. I would suggest that you try overexposing by a stop because those clearly show high contrast. If you overexposed that film you'd probably find that you liked it better.

  2. #12
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,697
    Images
    23
    Maybe you should shoot a roll of Portra 160VC instead of 160NC
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  3. #13
    airgunr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    120
    I would use the Kodak Portra 160 or 400. I recently shot a couple of rolls of Ektar 100. Nice crisp film but I'm not sure it would be good for weddings.

    I love Kodachrome more for landscapes, macros of flowers, etc.
    WJS/wi/usa

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD., USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    230
    Ted, I recommend that you give the Portra NC another try. You mentioned that you found it lacking in saturation and contrast. This is precisely why I shoot this film (under certain conditions).

    I just now linked to your samples and think maybe you should give them another look. I think they look great! To me, they have a very good balance between color saturation and overall contrast.

    If you prefer a little more saturation and snap, try shooting a roll of the Portra VC under the same conditions.

    I should mention that I shot Fuji 160S & 160C for years before I switched to the Kodak Portra. I expose both Fuji & Kodak at around 100-125 ASA. I prefer printing a thicker negative and I like a little boost in the color saturation.

    I don't scan my film, I print it, and have found the Portra much easier to balance than the Fuji. I print on Fuji Chrystal Archive.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    If you allow another lab to scan your negs, you may not be getting all that your negs can achieve. Just the same as allowing a lab to make your proof prints. The only way to extract full quality from a given negative is to get a very expensive "custom" scan, or learn to do it yourself, or make your own prints. Only YOU know exactly what you saw when you made your photos. Only you can extract the vision you saw. (My humble opinion).

  6. #16
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    732
    My choices when covering weddings on medium format back during the 90's were:
    b) Fuji 160NPS - Soft film, really smooth skin tones (does that mean it gives that 'out-of-focus' look or does it just mean its a dreamy looking film.
    d) Fuji NPH400 - a fine grained fast (ISO400) film that is more neatural than Reala


    Why even think about using a color slide film for wedding coverage, when prints are the desired output?!

  7. #17
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,697
    Images
    23
    90% of all the photos I take, prints are the desired output. I shoot slides with prining in mind. Slides are pretty much all I shoot.
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by tiberiustibz View Post
    I would use Fuji 160S. Kodachromes may be hard to get printed, but you will be able to get very nice results with that film. I love using kodachrome for fun but I would stick with a good negative film to make prints.
    Given the fact that virtually NO lab on the planet does optical prints by traditional methods these days, there is little reason why negative film MUST be chosen over slide film if prints are your desired output. Unless, of course, you plan to DIY. If you prefer the look of Kodachrome to negative films, there is absolutely no reason not to shoot it, given the fact that 99.99999% of labs will scan and print.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by StorminMatt View Post
    Given the fact that virtually NO lab on the planet does optical prints by traditional means from negatives these days, there is little reason why negative film should be chosen over slide film if prints are your desired output. Unless, of course, you plan to DIY.
    There certainly "IS" a valid reason for choosing negatives, and that is latitude. Evn though modern digi-print labs can produce good prints from slides, the negative films can resolve more detail in shadows and highlights at the same time. Even with digi-printing this extra detail in both the lightest and darkest parts of an image can greatly enhance the photo.

  10. #20
    CGross
    I use Porta 160NC and Fuji Pro 400H with a couple of rolls of Porta 160VC in the bag for any shots that would require nice saturated colors. These have rendered superb skin tones.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin