Dan, My experience with Max 400/800 has been poor. Pretty good color - bad contrast (too contrasty) and crappy grain.
I know that Tom V. has not had good luck with Portra 800 - so now I have to pull out the proofs from the few rolls of it that I have shot. In looking them over, the contrast is lower than Max, grain much smaller and cleaner. The color is more muted, but not unnatural. I should mention that I am looking at 67 proofs. I do have vague recollections of shooting some Portra 800 in 35mm and not liking it very much. It seemed quite dead. Probably needed to be rated down some in speed. Just looked at the Fuji NPZ 800 that I have shot for comparison. Grain looks better than Superia 800, color is a bit on the cool side (that is what I usually get from Fuji and my lab). Slightly contrasty but not bad. I would say that either film is an improvement over Max. The Fuji may be slightly faster. I mostly shoot Kodak Portra NC films when doing people (weddings/portraits) and would use the Portra 800 over the Max 800. But you should probably also give the Fuji NPZ 800 a try. I find that the lab can have some impact on the film chosen. Bruce Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 3:35:26 PM, you wrote: DS> On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 04:36 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> So, to actually talk about something on topic for a bit. I just >> recently received from B&H some Kodak Portra 400 UC and some Agfa >> Ultra 100. I haven't had a chance to shoot either one yet but was >> curious if anyone else has any reports >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Bruce >> DS> Related question--Portra 800? Anyone have any comments about it? Lately DS> I've been using Max 800 instead of Superia 800, but Portra 160NC has DS> displaced my other print films and I'd like something similar. DS> Dan Scott
