Hi Peter,

   It really depends on what you're planning to do once its developed.
If you plan to scan with a 4000DPI scanner and make large prints I
suggest that you use slide film. If you're making 8x10's or smaller, it
doesn't matter as much.  The slide film has substantially lower noise
from grain.  If you like the look of grain, by all means use print
film.  Neat Image plus selective blurring can remove most of the grain
noise, but its more work to clean up print film than it is slide film.

   I've used Astia which is Fuji's lower contrast ASA 100 slide film,
but it doesn't have as much dynamic range as Provia or Velvia. Astia
doesn't work well in bright sunlight because of its lack of dynamic
range.  For cloudy scenes, or shooting in subdued light near sunrise or
sunset, Astia if very nice.  Its level of detail is similar to Provia.

   For print film, I'm pretty happy with Fuji Reala 100 in 120 format.
It has a very wide dynamic range and detail that is just a tad lower
than Provia and Astia.  After cleaning up the noise I've made very nice
24"x30" prints from a 6x7 negative. Please see "Lower Falls Wine Co.,
Wellesely, MA - Oct 2006" at http://chasfs.com for an example of a
Reala image.

    Of the Fuji slide films, Velvia has the most detail, and I think
it has the most contrast.  Of course you can increase or decrease
contrast in Photoshop, but its more difficult to deal with a lack of
dynamic range.

     Provia 400F has less detail than the 100 ASA Fuji slide films and
Reala, but it has lower grain noise than print film.  I've pushed
Provia 400F to ASA 800 with very scannable results.  Provia 400F pushed
is very much better than Fuji Pro 800z, in my opinion.

     To sum up - print film has a lot more dynamic range, but higher
noise from grain than slide film.  Dynamic range and contrast both
increase as you go from Astia to Provia to Velvia. Detail increases as
you go from Provia 400 to Reala to Provia 100 or Astia and increases
further with Velvia.  Fuji has a lot of information available at
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/lineup.html. Click
until you get to the datasheets for the various films and compare them.

Hope this helps,
-chasfs
http://chasfs.com

The thing that proably makes it a portrait film is that it has relatively
low saturation. You don't want any trace of too much green in a portrait.

For scanning the low saturation doesn't matter as much, and 160NC does have
very nice grain.

160S is similar film from Fuji. It is very sharp, and for 35mm it may
have a little bit too much grain in shadow areas, but for 120 that proably
doesn't matter.

Of course, if you are scanning and the scene contrast fits, it is better
to use slide film.

Superia Reala is also a good print film that can handle large contrasts.

As ISO 400 print films go, Kodak's Ultra does seem to work quite well.

I like provia too but since I can't use grads with my mamiya 7 I've
been shooting portra 160vc with it and it has performed well. I've been
meaning to try NC for a while.

There is appreciably more grain in scans from it though, I have heard
fashion people using portra 400 all the time because the 160 didn't
have that much less grain. The new portra films are apparently better.

Scanners seem to increase grain making provia the perfect choice for
scanning. Much more latitude than velvia (which is prone to very dense
shadows that the scanner can't handle) and also finer grain.

IMOP - NPS is a very close match to Provia. Slightly more saturated
perhaps.

Portra 160NC is one of my favourite print films, and I take very few
portraits, so you are not alone.  I prefer slide film when I can use it, but
there are subjects for which the longer tonal range of negatives is needed:
for me this is especially so with plant and garden work, particularly if I
have to work on a sunny day, and can also apply to some architecture and
some interiors.  So I end up using a lot of 160NC.

The other print film I like is Kodak Ultra, which is much contrastier.  I
like this as a film to have in the little pocket camera that has to be ready
for anything: it gives punchy images but has more tonal range than slides so
is a versatile film.  Not usually a great landscape choice though.  Ultra
400 is basically the successor to Portra 400UC - I like it a lot more than I
like 160VC.

I find 160NC pretty easy to scan, so if you want a print film for
landscapes, I think it's a good choice.  I rate it at ISO 125, which gives a
bit more shadow exposure without 'over-cooking' the colours.  Some people I
know routinely rate it at ISO 100, but I do that only if I really need to.

If I can use slide film for landscapes I usually prefer it, but for gardens
I tend to use the 160NC for wider shots and for any individual plants that
are in sun, with slide film only for plants that have softer lighting.  For
landscape I use Velvia and Kodak E100VS mostly, with some Provia when I want
a slightly longer tonal range or 'milder' colours.  Provia is also the slide
film I load when travelling if I don't know what conditions to expect, but
can take only a single MF body.

In the studio I make rather more use of Provia, and also Astia, which I
don't use outside very often at all: for a low contrast film it has a
surprisingly short tonal range.  I see Portra 160NC's palette as somewhere
between Provia and Astia, though a bit less blue than Provia.

HTH,

Peter

I use two color films:

Kodachrome 64 Pro

and

Fuji NPH Pro 400 color neg