Hey Joe, Thanks for the first peak at this new film. I've got to go out and shoot some (just sitting in the fridge). I wonder how it compares to the 400VC product?
Thanks again, Bruce Friday, December 13, 2002, 10:01:43 AM, you wrote: JT> I spent November in France, during which I shot six rolls of Portra 400 JT> UC (and other films, of course). I thought I'd share my impressions. I JT> have not yet had a chance to scan the negs, so the following comments JT> are based on machine prints on Fuji Crystal Archive. (They are good JT> machine prints, but they are machine prints only.) JT> Color saturation is good but not over the top. This is not Ultra 100. JT> OTOH, some pale blue tones came out with quite low saturation. (Blue JT> skies were fine.) On one occasion I shot a scene (outdoors, good JT> sunlight) at the end of a roll of NPZ 800, then put in the Portra and JT> shot the same scene. On the prints, the saturation of both films seems JT> similar, with the NPZ being perhaps a bit more saturated. Shooting the JT> same scene with Provia 400F resulted in images with noticeably higher JT> saturation than either of these C-41 films. I haven't used Portra 400 JT> VC, so can't compare. JT> Caucasian skin tones were good, as one would expect. Professional JT> portraitists might be more discerning on this topic than I am, though. JT> The film seems quite sharp. JT> Judging from the machine prints, I expect that sky grain will be quite JT> noticeable upon enlargement. JT> Contrast is quite high, but some of that may be the paper. JT> Overall: I'd use it again, but I'm not shouting "Eureka!" JT> Joe
