Agfa Agfacolor Portrait XPS 160

At this price I can afford a new camera body every year! My clients don't care if I use kodak.I would like to know why there is such a huge price difference. try it you'll like it.

I use this film with my outdoor portraits(120). When sunny the lower contrast works great for me. I'm making 24x30 from 645 and they look great.

The printer has to know how to work with this film but once they get it the images look great.

kodak and fuji

the bottom line is you have to work towards the film, this film is known to be soft/flat, but you have no idea what it can do if you work against flat pictures, try harsh lighting and super sharp/contrasty lenses, you will be amazed by the results, keep in mind also that this film is on the warm side which produces very pleasant darker warmer skintones, that the person your shooting fantasises!!!!!!!!

everything you want in taking photograph of people

none i would say , maybe just a little grainy

all portrait films

I did not write anything in the strengths and weaknesses columns because that is hard to do with this film. This is a film designed for portraits, with reduced saturation. If you went ahead and shot regular photos, you'd probably be unhappy at the complete lack of punch. Its dull flat and boring.

But if you took portraits outdoors (higher contrast light), and had it printed well, you'd be blown away by the colors. This film imparts a luminous, milky quality to colours IF and only IF printed well. Skin tones are soft, smooth and milky. Excellent yellows and reds. Somewhat dull greens and blues. The way I do portraits, I use the sharpest lenses I can find (180/2.8 Nikon) and this film. As you know, there is a difference between sharpness and resolution - this film does not have high resolution but has high(ish) sharpness. That translates to smooth colors but fairly sharp portraits. Its a nice look, which I prefer to soft lenses or softening filters.

As for grain, if you blow up to 8.5 by 11 (my standard size), you do notice the grain. I usually prefer printing to matt paper, but with this film, glossy or supergloss works better.

So, the bottom line is that you have to know how to use it to be able to get the maximum benefit out of it. If you learn how to do this, you will be well rewarded, however.

None

None

Kodak Portra

?

A versatile, soft color film. It can appear almost pastel/dreamy in some situations. A little on the flat side, but it's a good quality film. As is the case with most (all?) Agfa films - it is reasonably priced. For color negative non-studio portraits I would choose this film. I shot my first serious portraits with this film with nice results.

A "soft" film. Nice color, not too bold. Fine grain. It's neutral enough to handle almost all outdoor portrait situations, while maintaining relatively good saturation (the background will come out nice also). Note: My opinion is strictly based on non-studio situations.

As others have said, it has quite poor contrast. Your negs can come out flat if your not careful. Try a flash with this film.

Kodak 160NC

Very nice film with a definite area of use. In that area it can't be beat. Just don't try to make it be everything in every location. This is one of my favorite films (other favorite is Optima 100 .. and the now non-existant Optima 125)

This is a wonderful film in the right application. Candid portraits, natural light have come out amazingly wonderful with this film. It does have lower contrast than possibly the Optima line, and definitely less than the Fuji line but that makes it super for me in my purposes. It offers a certain charm through it's color balance and grain structure in portrait work. I've even substituted it once when I couldn't get my hands on any Optima 100, doing existing light horse photography for grey horses, came out very well.
Try a roll and see what I mean. It doesn't deserve bad press, but it does have it's own best applications. Pairs up really well with good lenses like the Canon L series and the Zeiss stuff.

Not meant for landscape in my opinion, nor for super saturated shots where you want the colors to scream. Might be disappointing when using lower quality lenses, the subtleness of this film might just get lost. (i don't think these are weaknesses, just points to keep in mind)

Most all of the Agfa and Fuji Lines. (I tend not to like the Kodak color balance overall)

n/a