Great for extremes of contrast. A white wedding dress next to a black suit on a sunny day, for instance.

Scans well.

Good latitude.

A tad pricey.

Really needs to be processed by a lab who knows what they are doing.

This is a great film for what it is designed for, namely portraiture and the accurate reproduction of subtle colours. One reviewer in this thread mentions it didn't perform well shooting colourful flowers in his local park - and I can well image this is the case. If that's your thing, pick a transparency film like Velvia or EliteChrome, or try Portra VC for more punch.

I shoot on Portra 400 NC when shooting documentary. It has everything I like in a film. And the newly released stuff from Kodak (as of Spring 2007) has ll the same properties, except it is easier to scan, having finer grain.

Customer Service

Never had cause to use it.

Similar Products Used:

Other Kodak Portra films, namely 160NC. Also Fuji NPH (or whatever it used to be called, I forget. The low contrast one...)

No grain.

Dull colors, expensive.

I first tried this film when I wanted to try out my aunt's old medium format camera that she gave me. I would have preferred Provia 100F, however the local photo shop that I went to before the shoot was completely out of 120/220 slide. Unfortunately I am not too familiar with print films so I wound up with 2 rolls of 400NC, selected essentially on a whim. The first roll was shot at a local park and the second one was shot around town. Both suffered from the same problem: very dull colors. I realize that I wasn't using the proper film for the job, however I expected a little bit better than what I got out of it.

NO GRAIN for a 400 speed film. Great exposure latitude. Roll to roll consistancy. I always know the results I will get. Skin tones are dead on.

Perhaps the contrast is a touch flat ( but it makes exposure easier!) A bit pricey

I just pulled the calculator out and tallied up the number of frames of Portra 400NC that I have shot in the past three years... over 40,000. With that said, I can tell you that I believe that I understand the limits of this film! Portra NC gives absolutely increadible skin tones. Exposure latitude is increadible though personally I believe that this is a 200 ISO film not the ISO 400 that Kodak claims (better sharpness at 400... better shadow detail and saturation at 200... you choose what you want). Grain... None, period. When properly exposed, this film is increadibly fine grained. If you underexpose it, please don't bash the film and claim its grainy when it wasn't the films problem... It was the operator... (that goes for underprocessing too...) Anyway, I routinely make 20 X 24" prints from 645 and 6x6 negatives and have never taken issue with the grain... Writer seen stepping off soap box!!! Colors are accurate. If you are after vivid, buy something designed for vivid colors, not this! Contrast is great... This film handles the great variation in contrast that outdoor weddings and portraits present.

Customer Service

Excellent. If you ever need help, call the toll free kodak customer service line. They are a great asset!

Similar Products Used:

Kodak and Fuji print films

- Colour rendition - Little grain when properly exposed with good lightning

- Unpleasant grain when underexposed

I used this film a few times already mainly at family reunions and weddings. I also used it during a safari this summer in Kenya and Tanzania (I wanted accurate colours). I processed those at a lab where work is done with care. The results are mixed : - with good lightning and proper exposure, there is no grain, I enlarged some views to get 20x30cms prints and the results are very good, with nearly no grain visible. - under poor lightning or when underexposed, grain is apparent even on a 10x15 cms print. This is very visible for areas where the contrast is low and the colors a bit dull. Grain is visible and unpleasant. On a side note, the manager of the lab told me all my films were underexposed by half a stop. Either my metering is inaccurate (but I used my camera with slides with good results) or the film could use a slight over exposure. In conclusion, a very good film in terms of colour rendition. But tricky to use, especially in adverse lightning situations : beware of the grain.

Similar Products Used:

Superia 100/400, Velvia, Provia 400F, Kodak Royal Gold, Superia 800

Superb skin tones in varied lights

Perhaps difficult to process?

I have used this film at two different wedding shoots, the first time, I used a well respected pro lab in the UK to do the processing and the results were very grainy, noticable at 8x6, unbearable at 10x8 (from a 645 neg!). The second wedding I chose a different lab and am delighted with the quality of the processing, almost grain free in this instance. If you have problems with grain in your results, try a different lab to process it next time, honestly, the difference was incredible.

Similar Products Used:

Various

Accurate colour, the good shots are really good

Grain, price

In general a good film with accurate colour reproduction, but given its price it better be. With regards to grain, I cannot really gauge whether it is good or bad. I should say it is pretty inconsistent. I had a semi-pro shot my own wedding, the results were kind of mixed with some with no grain and some were so grainy that I thought his Nikon system was bad. I later tried two rolls of this film myself (I have a Contax system with Zeiss lenses) and my conclusion is the same: accurate colour, but given enough light the grain doesn't show, but if you underexpose it a bit and it becomes very grainy. It looks like my subjects have very big pore on their faces. Not good for flattering portraits

Customer Service

Huh?

Similar Products Used:

Almost all of Kodak's consumer "Gold" (=crap) line and the Royal Gold series.

Consistant Very sharp, shows texture well Amazing skin tone reproduction

Pricey!

Okay, so I''m not a professional photographer...but I do develop photographs for a living. One day a woman brought in three rolls of Portra 400 NC and one roll of Fugi Superia 800. Even on my computer screen I could tell the difference! (We color correct at our store) Fugi looked washed out and foggy compared to the Portra film. Not only does it pick up skin tones amazinglying well (skin is the hardest thing in the world to color correct), but it also picks up the suble tones of animal fur too. Most people in our store agree: Kodak for people (picks up warm tones best), and Fugi for nature (picks up cool tones best) But of course, what do I know? :-

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Max/Gold/Royal Gold Fugi Superia

accurate colors under mixed lighting consistency from roll to roll and speed to speed exposure latitude is great and proved to be lifesaver. relatively easy to find

cost. at more than 4 dollars a roll, it hurts.

i just shot a wedding with this film after some disappointing colors with the fuji series. i don''t know what you guys are talking about regarding grain, but i don''t see any at all. i shot 4 rolls of 160NC and 18 rolls of 400NC and there is no difference between the two in terms of grain. there were a few shots that showed a little grain, but that was due to my flash not recycling to full power before i popped again. i highly recommend this film. the skin tones couldn''t have been better. i even accidentally overexposed a few shots by more than the two stops kodak recommends (1/60 at f/7.1 outdoors in full sunlight) and the images are just slightly less saturated than properly exposed shots. simply amazing!

Customer Service

none needed

Similar Products Used:

fuji nph

Color reproduction, medium contrast

Horrible grain! IMO not true ISO 400 film.

I wish I had read Mr.Monzani (from Switzerland) before I purchased this film and used it at my friend''s wedding. Grain is so distracting that for a while I thought I made a journey in time back to the ''80s when ISO 400 film were that bad. And I exposed the whole film at ISO 320 which should have helped. The only rescue for this emulsion is to expose it at ISO 200-250, the grain is quite normal then. Kodak Portra 400NC SHOULDN''T BE SOLD as 135 type film. AS 120 film it may be ok. Its color charakteristics are great but effect spoiled by grain. How to explain the fact that for almost all my photographic needs I end up with a Fuji emulsion and Kodak always leaves some bad impression? (One exception: Kodak Portra 160NC is GREAT, with only minimally to big grain)

Similar Products Used:

Kodak Portra 160NC

Contrast range, highlight details, skin tones

cost

Portra is the latest professional color neg film from Kodak, and as such it is designed for lower contrast and saturation than consumer films. This is a good thing, trust me. The 400NC ('normal color') excels at people photography: smooth, pleasing flesh tones combine with excellent highlight detail. Highlights do not blow out, even under direct flash. This is the film for you if you are shooting weddings and other event photography where direct flash is the most common lighting used. The grain is smooth, and unnoticeable up to 8x10 (especially in medium format), though of course this depends on who is doing the noticing.

Overall a good film for portrait photography in low light situations. (In good light or in the studio, the 160NC is probably a better choice.) Not just for professional photographers -- anyone can get good results with it, though you may want to use a lab that has experience printing this film.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used:

pretty much everything out there