Re: OH GOD JAN DON:T SAY ANYTHING :-D

[Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess we’re gonna fight in public. Portra was designed the fill the tail end of the wedding/school portrait market. You know - the market which was well on its way to becoming 100% digital before Kodak woke up? Portra also did a great job of losing the market to that Japanese company which makes a better film (in the eyes of many). I expect you to stand up for Kodak, as you went to Kodak University.    

On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:35 PM, Randy Little wrote:

portra was designed from DAY 1 to be scanned.   Its fine film  used by A LOT of people to create GREAT images.   Ektar which is AMAZING is basically the same film with different dye layers to be more saturated.  Porta as its name implies was design for wedding and portrait photographers that wanted a flat film that they can pull if they want to get the extra contrast or scan it like it was designed for.  

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Portra was renamed and redesigned to fill a gap in the Koo-duck lineup and they fiddled with the ISO ratings so they could hopefully fill all the gaps. They had to compete with that Japanese film which was killing them in sales. If you got suckered into using that rubbish, that’s on you. Yeah, flat! That says is all. Why would anybody be doing retouching on these negs in the 21st century? Ever imagine that?

On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:40 PM, RsLittle wrote:

Portra isnt that bad I shoot portra 160 at 125 and its very nice flat because its designed for scanning and retouching.

From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.

-------- Original message --------
From: Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11/13/2013 6:24 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: OH GOD JAN DON:T SAY ANYTHING :-D

It’s scanned on a Kodak/Creo/Scietex and run through their spotting and dust elimination software. It’s still better than digital unless of course you like flat tones and soft details. Good thing they didn’t pick a really good film, as Portra 160 is crap. NOt that I am God, but I haven’t shot a roll of it in a decade and many of my peers hate it too.

On Nov 13, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Randy Little wrote:

interesting no?   obviously off a good scanner.  

http://clorstudios.org/2013/01/26/film-vs-digital-comparison/

Randy S. Little
http://www.rslittle.com/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm

ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/

.

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm

ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/

.

Art Faul

The Artist Formerly Known as Prints

------

Art for Cars: art4carz.com

Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com

Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com

Camera Works - The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/battlefieldparks/front_qt.htm

ArtNet: http://www.artnet.com/artists/jan+w.-faul/

.