Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 7/2/99 12:00:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sneeker@erols.com writes: > I have shot Portra 160VC and Portra 400VC back to back in the same > light/location and IMHO there are no distinct differences except the > additional f/ stop + in the 400VC. The lens was an APO f/2.8 100mm and > an R7 body. I cannot really see any loss in colour or any more grain in > the 400VC prints. Hmmm. I can see I will have some more fun testing which print film I want to standardize on in the future. > For a more extended trial, I just picked up another brick of Portra > 400VC -- 36 exposure rolls -- at Penn Camera @ $6.30/roll. Where do you get your color processing (print and slide) done here locally? And your B&W? I've used Penn (very good with color prints, slides and B&W), Kodak Premium through CVS (pretty good; the Portra was done here and looks pretty decent), and Ritz Camera (mediocre to bad; the Kodak Royal Gold came back with everything looking cyan like old Ektachrome 200). > FYI, I have not shot either Portra film in really low light. I shot some of the Portra in National Cathedral. Wow! I love cathedrals and have taken photos of them since high school, but this is the first time they actually look like what I saw. I shot a mix of the Noct and the Summaron on tripod. > Best regards and may it be dark for your Noctilux! Thanks, and the best of light to you! /Mitch