Tom, I suppose I'm experiencing what you experienced previously. NC 160 seems a little washed out, so I tried out VC 160 (I'm new to all these Portra thing). Haven't got the results back though. I suppose NC having that washed-out look is ok if you shoot portraits (that's what it's meant for, right?), but it can get a little frustrating when my flowers look like they were shot in thin haze. I'll try to rate that at 125 next time. Thanks for the tip. Anyway that led me to another question maybe you guys have the answer. How does the Royal series of film compare to the Portra VC series? I shot Royal 400 once and didn't quite like it. I felt it's too rich in color and that makes some shots a little artificial. I like to hear from you guys what you think, please. Regards, Kelvin --- aimcompute <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't shot Portra 160 NC. I have shot both the > 160 & 400 VC though. > When I did a side by side comparison of the Portra > to Reala and Fuji NPH (I > think), same subject, same lighting, I felt the > Portra stunk (why not be > frank?). I might have described it as washed out, > possibly hazy or misty. > > It was suggested I may like it better if I > underrated it. When shooting at > 125 for the 160, and 320 for the 400, I liked the > results very much, the > colors were better and the haziness went away. > > It's possible you're noticing what I saw. I would > never have used Portra > again if it wasn't for the rating advice from the > list. I know Kodak says > it's true to speed, and that some others like it > just fine at rated speed. > But not me. > > Tom C. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
