So out of spite I have just bought a super-clean Nikkor-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 non-AI, for a whopping $189 all-in, which will work perfectly on my Nikkormat and is no different optically (it lacks the AI groove, but that's a non-issue) from the lens that shot Afghan Girl.

I'm very much looking forward to getting some Porta 400 and seeing just how beautiful people can be.

I no longer shoot film and hadn't heard of Portra 400. So I looked it up.

"Portra 400 is widely regarded as one of the best all-around color negative films available, largely due to its incredible exposure latitude. It handles overexposure exceptionally well, maintaining highlight detail and smooth tonal transitions, while still offering flexibility in less-than-ideal lighting.
The film is known for its warm, natural color palette, medium contrast, and excellent skin tone reproduction. Colors are clean and balanced, making Portra 400 a great choice for portraits, weddings, travel, landscapes, and everyday photography. Its versatility is what sets it apart – it performs just as well in
bright daylight as it does in overcast or lower light situations."
https://thedarkroom.com/film/portra-400/

Last edited Sat Jun 27, 2026, 10:47 PM - Edit history (1)

It does have great latitude, I tried pushing it to 1600 a few times but when it's processed for the push it looks virtually identical so, why bother. But the skin tones are what really make it, there's literally nothing out there that makes humans, of all colors, look so gorgeous. Even well-manipulated digital can't quite match its look…there's a reason it's not just 35mm, but available in sheets from 4x5 up to the full 8x10. I can't even begin to imagine what an 8x10 contact print would look like.

ETA, TIL you can't contact print a color negative since you need to filter out the orange background…large format color negatives are meant to be scanned. That said an 8x10 sheet on a drum scanner would be around 400-600 megapixel effective resolution.

What did you use to get this picture?

In all seriousness it's one of the best cameras I have, and not just because the best camera is the one you have on you at the time…it's sharp, the colors are gorgeous, it shoots up to 50 Mpix, the only real issue is the three fixed focal lengths.

It's late, so I'll share some of my photographic journey later on.

It started in 1970 and had a rather quick intersection with my Coast Guard days.

Since I had a physics degree, optics came naturally to me, and I self learned optical engineering (well, everything) and worked at that for some time.

I especially like the simpler lenses made up to the 80's or so, and can copy you the design forms for all lenses of that era.

Contained in "Photographic Lenses" by Neblette.

The 55mm micro nikkor was my first slr lens. It is ultra sharp.

Quiz. Do you know what the suffix letters, as in Nikkor-P, Nikkor-H, and so on signify?,No lookup or asking Claude.

Details at 11.

Ohh, I like you.

My turn…I have a later version of the 55/3.thats a P-C. What's the C for?

"C" doesn't mean apo, and I don't recall any lens that has no focusing helicals, like the Hasselblad 135mm (bellows only).

It's not "C" mount, because I actually have a Nikon F to C-mount (little video camera) adapter.

And that's all I can guess without cheating.

Looks like you stumped the band. I have all the old brochures but don't recall this.

But you never know. Having had a friend who worked in a camera store, I got a 500 mm f/5 "cat" that is not formally listed in my old literature.

I had a second busy day in a row today, so I may go through my living camera history museum a bit later tonight.