Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I have not used NPS much. I do recall speaking to a rep about Portra and he said that a lab really needs to set up a dedicated channel for Portra processing to get the best out of it, and that many labs do not as there is little comsumer demand. I use a pro lab in London and they manage to produce excellent prints and enlargements. I guess ones view of the merits of a film are a matter of personal preference as much as the films technical merit, but at least we are both pleased with our results which is what really matters. Simon Douglas Cooper wrote: > > Funny, I just scanned one of the images, and did get better results than the > lab gave me -- it's on the Web at: > http://www.dysmedia.com/Photography/edennomad.html > > Not great, but better than what the lab turned out. > > I'd love to hear your thoughts on this film compared to Fuji NPS 160, which > is my choice for skin tones. For some situations -- overcast days, for > instance -- I prefer NPS to Reala. > > On 2/23/01 6:50 AM, Simon expressed the following: > > > That is an interesting view of the Portra 160. Doing some portraiture last > > weekend I shot 15 rolls of 35mm 160NC (using M6 and 50mm/90mm Apo Asph) and > > 10 rolls of 120 400NC (using Hassy 503CW and 180mm f/4) and the results were > > stunning. The flesh tones were exact in their colour and contrast and the > > glow of the Leica and Zeiss glass was definitely there. Yes, I agree that > > the colour saturation is less (and I would use the VC Portra if colour > > saturation was an issue) but I believe that accurate rendition of skin tones > > is worth the sacrifice, especially when the commission is to produce > > portrait work. The clarity and fineness of detail was (IMHO) exceptional.