File :-(, x, )
Teus !QbSstcPD6U
experimenting with color negatives a bit. Fuji Reala stank badly, didn't like the look of Fuji 160S/400H very much when I shot it a year ago.

Kodak portra 160VC seems to be good: contrastier and warmer than Fuji films. got myself 2 more rolls of it, along with a roll of Fuji 160C

some protips to see comparison charts of films and their use:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103nf/e103nf.pdf
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/prophoto/pdfs/Pro_Film_One_Page_Guide.pdf
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:04:16 20:18:46
>> Anonymous
It looks terrible to me.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
It looks not terrible to me.
>> Anonymous
The lines look good to me, but the colors do look bland.
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
colors aren't too wild but I like it like this. photo got some editing, but I can still bump up the contrast and everything. I'll try some Kodak UC, not too great for portraits but should be more vivid for allround stuff
>> Anonymous
painfully oversharpened dribble.
>> Anonymous
OP pic looks like the film equivalent of HDR.

Any of the films you mentioned should be pretty good. Its just personal preference, but I've shot all 3 and gotten ok results.
>> Anonymous
Very good by my standards, and the colors are fine.
>> Anonymous
>>163407
I think the sharpness gives the picture a good texture
>> Teus !QbSstcPD6U
>>163570
>>163569
thanks, good to know my feeling was right. sharpening is a bit aggressive here alright

>>OP pic looks like the film equivalent of HDR.
what do you mean?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>163574
No shadows + weird hilights tend too look HDRish.

This is ofc because film IS HDR compared to digital, which was exactly the point of HDR to begin with.