Portra 160VC: poor scans?

I have tried everything to get a decent scan out of this film using my
Konica-Minolta Dimage ScanDual IV, but it just doesn't seem to want to
play nice. Scans look really flat and devoid of contrast or fine detail.
Is this film known for this or is it just my lack of technique that's to
blame? I don't normally use colour negative, but I had this lying
around, so I thought I would try it.
--
http://www.nikongear.com/

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Thanks Mark; I naively thought 'RMS' meant root-mean-square, but it seems
to have 2-log properties too. Homework to do!
-- Hans

HvdV

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Complete avoidance of topic (along with the usual refusal to post even
a single example of those 'lies') noted.
It's over, Douglas. You are discredited and alone. Enjoy your insanity
and delusions, while the rest of us get on with life.

Mark.thomas.7@gmail.com

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

You're kidding, right?
How about apologizing for all the lies you posted about me? Seeing as
you're in the mood to correct your mistakes... Hell will freeze first I
think.
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Ya see, Douglas, the difference between you and me, is that when *I*
make an error, I have no problems in admitting it, and I correct it
immediately. It's called being responsible for what you say - perhaps
you should try it one day. And that little cut and paste error doesn't
even come *close* to your efforts - you've embarrassed yourself on
every topic under the sun, from exposure to perspective, from image
stabilisation to enlargement. And when you toss in the constant
harping about how wonderful you are, and all those woeful
'qualifications' you have, the positively mediocre photography you
post, and then add all that to your predilection for attacking and
stalking anyone who points out your errors.... well, there you have the
full picture of Douglas MacDonald.
To get back on topic, are you still claiming Portra is the same as
Vericolor? It is *nowhere near* the same emulsion, as shown above by
my corrected post - and already someone else has also chimed in to
point out your error.. If you had actually used it as you claim, you
would have known that. By the way, here's a couple of threads at
photo.net about VC160 and it's odd behaviour under some lighting
conditions. It seems I am not alone.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000fry
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000hjV
Any more comments, Doug?
Oh, and I see you have now added hyperfocal calculations to the stuff
you don't understand... (O: And you have avoided every singe point I
have made above, as usual, for you would have to admit your errors (see
first sentence above..) You're a waste of electrons, and pretty well
everybody now recognises you for what you are, as witnessed by all of
your recent postings.
Goodnight, Dougie.

Mark.thomas.7@gmail.com

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Not off by heart, and there is no actual formula as the two are subtly
different...
But if you visit Bill's site, I think it has the formula and some
relevant links.
Here it is:
http://www.cacreeks.com/films.htm
Scroll down to the bottom.

Mark.thomas.7@gmail.com

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Hey idiot... Can't even get that right, can you?
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Mark, do you know how to translate Kodak PGI into grain RMS?
-- Hans

HvdV

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Off topic. Just more bandwidth wasted on the Thomas/MacDonald feud.
Yes, my 'thievery' is still up Douglas:
http://www.geocities.com/chrlzs/flinders-20D.htm
Sue me. What is taking so looong? Still using that incompetent
private dick? Yahoo not interested?
Nope, it's all true and verifiable. Notice how I post links and
quotes, and you post. errr.. no supporting evidence whatsoever.
There is NO franchise (and never was) for 'Techno Aussie Digital Print
Centres'. You can't be prosecuted for promoting a fantasy business,
sadly. (O:
Why isn't the *address* of that shop on your website, Douglas..? All
you have is a picture of your lame sunday market stall. Here is what
YOUR site says, as the contact details:
"Douglas, Post Office Box 2116,"
"Wellington Point, Qld 4160, Australia"
"On Sundays: At The Cleveland Craft Market opposite Iluka arcade, in
Bloomfield Street."
In other words, according to YOU, you work out of a post box, and from
your little market stall. Perhaps you should fix up the website?
As I stated on that thread, any twat, even you, can get such a permit.
YOU were boasting that it meant you were some sort of accredited
genius. And they are NOT for photographic 'tours', they are just to
photograph for commercial purposes.
Haha! You wanker. When you first claimed this you said I was taking
pictures - I didn't even have a camera, you twerp. So what do I look
like Douglas? I have a couple of highly distinguishing attributes -
say what they are...
Well, I'm, sure whoever *that* was had a lot of fun. I didn't take any
photos (if I did it would have been on an 'air-camera'), and actually
sat opposite your stall for quite a while, with a friend, having a
coffee and a laugh at the quality of those enlargements.
I've never said you couldn't make bad enlargements and sell them....
You clearly do - anyone living in Brisbane can visit your stall, or the
Redland Times office in Cleveland and see a sample of just how bad they
are (just ask the receptionist if you can go behind the counter to take
a look - they were very helpful when I visited, and it's only when you
get to within about five feet that you realise how bad it is..)
Sounds like psychosis to me. I *do* routinely print 13x19's, and
photography isn't how I make a buck. Why does that upset him so?
I haven't ONCE attacked or commented on your 'warranty conditions', you
cretin. Look it up, check the posting details - I started taking an
interest in you only when you posted the Graham Hunt crap. You seem to
have upset many other folks with your warranty stuff *way* before then.
Your memory is so shot it isn't funny, and when combined with paranoia
and psychosis...
I couldn't give a rats @#$% how well-behaved you may be in the
community, it's your disgraceful behavior on usenet that is the issue.
Douglas' identities and sockpuppets on *usenet* include:
ryadia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug,
douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested
bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones,
alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on
canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt,
healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong,
wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple
of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple,
not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, Dmac, wraped in canvas..
Yes, they are *all* Douglas, and I'm sure I have missed some.
When did I slink? I'm always here to keep you honest - just think of
me as your conscience. And I have never made any comment on your wife,
just you. Paranoia again.
Why repeat yourself? And here I am. Do something about it. Post just
ONE EXAMPLE of my 'lies'. I've posted several of yours. But you never
manage to actually quote one of mine. Why is that? (Rhetorical
qestion..) (O:
It's just mark t now. Haven't you noticed that chrlz vanished, as i
said it would, when I posted as my real name? - I had to drop Chrlz as
Go.com no longer run their free email service. I only need one
identity, not 45. So here I am, Chrlzless.
Your 'court papers' have already been proven as a fantasy, just like
your Techno Aussie business. Why not post a copy of them so we can see
what you are charging me with? (O: You're *great* entertainment,
Doug.
Huh? Why pick Helensvale? Are you going to pick random suburbs until
you guess the right one and hope I'll give myself away? And then what,
would you give me a summons.... or maybe key my car at 3am in the
morning, or something similar? I think I know which one is more likely
from someone like you. (O:
Again, all true. Others on the thread pointed out that you were
bullshitting again, and when asked to back up your claims that the FTA
affected copyright, YOU disappeared. Go back and answer the bloody
questions, oh slimy one.
Wrong. Here's the thread. Go read it yourself (as if anyone else
cares).
http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/tree/browse_frm/thread/5b210174d68d0b7a/
Which post/s are you referring to, Douglas? - I can see NOTHING backing
up your version. You're hallucinating or lying - which? You still
haven't responded to the points raised in that thread.
Here's *that* thread:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/tree/browse_frm/thread/b98878572b846b8f/
Where is the laughing stock bit? More selective memory?
Again, instead of making stuff up, why not post links? Prove your
claims, Dougie.
Oh, God, you really are a barrel of laughs. Yes, of course they do,
sweetie. You go on over and tell them what you want them to do, and
I'm sure they will be *delighted* to help you out. Here's a bit of
help - it was about 4 years back, and it was in South Australia. Good
Luck!
I just love that fantasy world you live in, Doug. You are so
*believable* with all your huff and puff and private investigators and
access to electoral rolls and license databases and Rural Press
records, and.... you are sooooooo CSI... And we will all believe every
word when you come back with the results. Let me guess, according to
ever-truthful you, RP will have never heard of me!!! The same RP that
you didn't even know were Australia-wide (see below).
(O:
You just get stupider. Rural Press is a NATIONWIDE organisation. But
surely you knew that - you keep telling us that you are one of their
star contractors... How could you know that much about what film they
may or may not use, and *not* even know they are Australia wide? Nice
one. (O:
Exactly. back at you, Douglas. You blew it *again*. Foot in mouth
personified.
And keep posting that great photography of yours!

Mark.thomas.7@gmail.com

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Still the same image thief, I see?
Still posting lies and defamation about me?
Lies and threats about your non existent 'mates' you are going to get
investigating me in the securities commission?
What happened to that lot of bullshit?
Oh that's right. You moved your center of attention to my shops you said
publicly I didn't have and was all bullshit about... Right up until I
posted a picture of the Cleveland shop. Apologize? Nah... Not you.
Just moved your attention to "exposing" me for not having any permits to
take photographic tours in National parks and restricted areas. What
happened when I posted the permits? Went silent again, did we?
Then there was the day I got you on security camera loitering around the
Cleveland market until the lady watching my pictures went for a pee.
Didn't take you long to photograph all the pictures on display and run
off like a coyote, did it?
And now there's the bit you still can't grasp... My enlargements. Live
with it turkey... I do for a living what you and a couple of other
narrow minded idiots cant believe is possible. Why? Because you can't do
it yourself. How brilliant is that? How does it feel to hide like a
common thief while the bloke you are stealing from and telling lies
about, makes a killing doing what you can only dream of.
The truth (as if that is in any part of your make up) is: You started
out a couple of years ago (under the name of Stevens) disputing my
warranty conditions - which have been used in the battery and tyre
industry for decades and haven't let up on me since.
All this time I publish my identity, pay my taxes register on the roll
Contribute to charity and participate in the local community and make no
bones about who I am and where I am.
You on the other hand, slink away in the shadows of Usenet like the
mongrel you are and take pot shots at me and my wife as if you'll never
be discovered. Keep it up fool, the noose it tightening.
Still posting lies about my company and business activities which when I
post the documented evidence to dispute your bullshit, you go silent and
crawl back under your rock until you think it's safe to come out again?
You really are a serial pest. Stevens - Thomas or whoever you want to be
today.
Wouldn't it be good if you registered on the Electoral roll in one of
those names? Then we'd know for sure which one you really are. I could
serve you with some court papers then. It might also be a good idea to
get yourself a local driver's license in one of those names too.
Particular if you intend to stay in Helensvale for long.
Tell us about the latest attack from you in aus.Photo last month? That I
was into abuse of copyright at one of my print centers and even posted a
load of bullshit about what I wrote on the subject on one of my web sites.
You know the one I mean, the one which does the enlargements you can't
believe possible. Another poster corrected your lie about that one...
And what did you do? Nothing, zilch, zero except slink back into the
shadows of Usenet waiting for another opportunity to target me. The
least you could do is apologize for the lies and slander but no, you
come out like some drunken prize fighter and try to make out you are the
one being done badly by.
No threats to Tony Polson. Just expect him to cough up with the issue
number of the Paris Match magazine he claims to have shot the cover of.
While I'm at it... How about you coughing up with the name of the
Professional studio you claimed to have done all that wedding
photography for? No? Just more bullshit from the master of bullshit, eh?
Isn't it odd that you and him ganged up on me about a "soft" picture I
published, only to be confronted with the pin sharp original which made
you both the laughing stock of the group?
As for your saintly existence... You are on record as having claimed to
be a fellow in SA going under the name of Stevens, long before you
started frequenting the photo groups. Now you claim you really are and
have always been Mark Thomas. How good is that for lies and deception?
Just who are you? I'll ask RP tomorrow who they gave out VC film to.
They keep a database that goes back 10 years, you know? They haven't
used film for 5 years and as far back as 12 years ago that I can recall,
never used VC film. According to your latest story, you weren't even in
Queensland at the time they were using film anyway.
How believable is your story then? Oh that's right. Everyone is expected
to just believe my pet troll. No need for him to identify himself, no,
just believe his well proven bullshit and all will be well in Camelot.
Good one mate... Who are you really? Why are you hiding your identity
and lashing out at those who don't? Not a coward by any chance, are you?
--
From Douglas...
My photographic site: http://www.douglasjames.com.au
Canvas Archival and Metallic Prints: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au

Dmac

Re: Portra 160VC: poor scans?

Whoops, sorry, gave 400VC instead.. Try again:
Name Kodak PGI resolution? sharp latitude blue
green red code
old Vericolor 3 160 39 ? ? 18 -0/+3 2.8 2.5
2.0 VPS
Portra 160 VC 40 ? ? 30 -2/+3 3.0 2.5
2.0 160VC
The point still stands, clearly they are very different films!!