----- Original Message -----
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 2:04 AM
Subject: RE: EOS Portra UC?
>
> Just got some samples I am trying out. But have not developed them yet.
> Will keep you posted, but if someone has already done this I too would like
> to know what the results were.
> Allegedley, the film delivers ULTRA Color but does not tint skin tones
> orange as does Agfa Ultra 50 or Velvia.
>
> Peter K
it's a bit off topic so didn't want to reply in the EOS list
I found this in google :
From: Lewis Lang ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: Overdetailed Review of Portra 400UC - L
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 2002-11-06 15:18:32 PST
>Subject: Overdetailed Review of Portra 400UC
>From: Bill Tuthill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, Nov 6, 2002 5:29 PM
>Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Portra 400UC
>
>By the datasheets, it looks like Kodak just tamed the contrast of
>Supra 400 and made it available in medium format. But after testing,
>it appears they did more than that. Red/pink block-up is lessened
>or eliminated, as is yellow overproduction in bright-white areas.
>
>The offical PGI numbers say 400UC has the same grain as Portra
>160VC, but it also seems finer-grained than 160NC in shadow areas
>or underexposures, despite higher contrast than NC. Blue sky grain
>seems finer than Supra 400, which was already commendably uniform.
>
>Resolution and sharpness are excellent. Although I have not learned
>how to numerically measure resolution, the USAF chart goes as deep
>with 400UC as it does with 160NC. The newly-available Kodak MTF
>graphs show 160NC and 160VC to be marginally sharper than 400UC,
>which is about the same as 400NC, surpassing 400VC by a wide margin.
>
>In sunlight, Macbeth chart (and my PFD test) color accuracy is good,
>even with regard to purple-magenta-pink and blue-teal. In shade
>however, dark blue and brown lose vibrancy, grays turn somewhat blue,
>and purples are slightly less accurate. This behavior is more like
>Portra NC than Supra, which tests out less well, but Reala and NPZ
>have better adaptive sun/shade accuracy.
>
>For mixed lighting, 400UC equals NPZ under fluorescents, and is
>nearly as good under tungsten. It's hard to say because my poor
>color-balancing skills could skew the test one way or the other.
>Anyway, it's much better than Reala or Superia 400.
>
>Skin tones are good: smooth and somewhat warm, neither as pale as
>160NC, nor as cool as NPZ, nor as orange as Agfa Vista. I did not
>test any but pale (autumnal) Caucasian flesh tones.
>
>Macro shots of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet and pink
>flowers showed no significant color blocking. Unfortunately I forgot
>to test magenta. So maybe you won't have to break out the Reala
>next time you go flower-hunting.
>
>I rated exposure latitude at a very competitive +5/-3, bounded by
>scanning difficulty (due to density; Agfa Prestige prints were fine)
>on the overexposure side, and grainy minilab prints (oddly, scans
>looked fine) on the underexposure side. Unlike most films, blue sky
>showed increased saturation until about +6! Color balance turned
>somewhat cyan on overexposure, but it was largely correctable.
>Bracketed shots at -.33 and -.67 were almost indistinguishable for
>RGB grain, with reduced shadow detail the only visible difference.
>
>Overall I'm rather stunned, and will definitely stop buying Supra 800
>and switch to either 400UC or NPZ, depending on near-term results.
Thanks Bill for the detailed review:
Why go w/ NPZ if it has, as you say, cool skin tones? Also what are the pluses
and minuses (film qualities/traits) of the UC 400 vs. the Supra 800? Is the
Supra 800 essentially the same as the most recent generation of Maxx Zoom 800
speed film?
TIA and thanks again.
Regards,
Lewis
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
