Jump to content

Ektar 100 v. Portra 400


M9reno

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The two images were taken last weekend, minutes apart, during a walk in which I noticed the flooded meadow with water more still than I'd ever seen it.  I used the same lens (an LTM v. 1 Elmarit 90mm f/2.8) mounted on an M3 loaded with Ektar and an M4 loaded with Portra.  Portra is the image above, Ektar below.  Both processed at home (in the same film container) using the Tetenal C-41 kit on a Jobo.  I've done minimal work on the files in Lightroom, and applied white balance using the same white cloud on both pictures for reference.  The pictures express the differences between the two films perfectly, to my mind.  Ektar produces a fine-grained, painting-like dreamscape - Portra is more 'realistic'.  I'd very much welcome members' observations.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Useful and interesting comparison  I wanted to do when I see in " I like film" thread 

Adam often posted pictures of NYC in Ektar and before Portra .
Thanks for this comparison. :)
Color clouds, water color, color trees and green grass a little different
What color is the day of the shooting ?
That is the question I ask Reno :)

... perhaps more defined with Ektar (trees,edges of the bond) but is it a real color ?

Best

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have never seen quite this difference in color palatte before, the purple in the Ektar makes me wonder whether the color balance is correct. Between the two I prefer the portra in this example, simply because the reds make for a scene unlikely to have been seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting.  Aside from the colour differences, the aspect that strikes me is the amount of visible grain in both.  Have to admit I always send colour film away for processing but the results from either film show much less grain.  Presumably "Both processed at home (in the same film container) ", mean simultaneously, or have I misunderstood?  If they were, did that mean a compromise on timing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Keith, What I meant was that the two rolls were processed simultaneously, so that colour differences cannot be ascribable to differences in processing, though in developing C-41 film, developing time is in theory the same regardless of ISO.  Perhaps the more visible grain is attributable to the agitation by rotation of the Jobo, though it is also by far more noticeable in landscapes than other subjects.  Here, for comparison, are two flower shots from the same two rolls.  The tulips are from the Ektar (using the Elmarit 90), the daffodils from the Portra roll (this time using a DR Summicron).  I must admit that I find the grain on both of the landscape shots attractive.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by M9reno
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting comparisons...thanks.

 

I'm seeing green in the Portra, (in the bare trees)  and magenta in the Ektar cloud reflections in the top landscape pics.

I'm still trying to understand colour film on a digital screen and workflow. So please don't see me as someone criticising.

 

 I've shot some Ektar and found the blues and reds pretty ferocious.  At the moment I'm trying some Portra in my M6.

 

Would my observations be close??? Pretty sure my monitor is OK.

 

cheers  Dave S

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, what's interesting is I get almost the reverse color effect (once I correct for Ektar's known habit of going blue/magenta in shadows). On Portra, my dark and desaturated greens (evergreen trees) and similar architectural colors pick up enough red to become brown or gray or yellowish (at which point I have to shift the other shadows too green/cyan, to get them back).

 

I use Kodak's own Flexicolor chems in a Nikor metal tank. And 120 (not that format should make a difference, AFAIK). If I were getting those greens out of Portra, I wouldn't dis it so much.

 

Here's a representative sample of what I get (Ektar left, Portra 160 right) - small since there's no point in wasting bandwidth on "Swedish Instamatic" pix, and all we need to see is the color. WB off the white areas of wall paint. WITHOUT shadow correction (Ektar black window frame is bluish)

 

Whichever you prefer, the cool colors are more faithful on Ektar, the Portra reds are slightly more true (less magenta)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The two films' colour rendition seems indirectly to depend on subject - landscape, flower, or wall - or, more precisely, on the exposure decision made to accommodate the range of highlights and shadows.  In the case of the landscape, the clouds make the picture, and the idea of protecting their highlights led to the slight underexposure of shadows resulting in what Adan calls Ektar's habit of going blue/magenta in those areas (especially in the water and tree-line).  Exposure was, from memory, 1/500 sec at f/11 on Portra and 1/250 sec at f/8 on Ektar.  Without concern for the clouds, I would have opened up one more stop on Portra, maybe even two on Ektar.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Thanks Andy for the informed analysis (as always).

 

An interesting thread, because I've been slowly working through old rolls of Ektar. I find it a difficult film, and the way it renders some colours are just, well, dirty. I can fiddle with the colour balance in PS to get the right corrections, but that's the point - I always have to. On the right subject and the right light it can really hit the spot (a non-Leica link here https://www.flickr.com/photos/101126703@N05/26178151004/in/dateposted-public/ .

 

The fine grain is impressive, but not a winning feature as I'm a bit of a grain-lover. Portra 160 and 400 (though different themselves), always look 'right' out of the box. Although I'm sailing back to Fuji Velvia for E6, and Superia Xtra 400 for C41 as my colour staples as they produce just the saturation I like without looking wrong - 'the colour of memory', as they say.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am approaching this question from a position of deep ignorance of scanning colour negatives.

The film has a colour response "balanced" in the emulsion for a colour temperature fixed by the maker, yes? 

When scanned the digital file has a colour balance fixed at a nominal value (selected by the scanner and variable or fixed?) which can be manipulated in software, like a RAW file from a digital camera, yes?

But if the colour temperature of the scan is then manipulated the balance of the colours changes in the scene so, to compare the files, you are picking the same cloud in both shots but, despite the light being the same illuminating the scene, will the emulsions not have rendered those "neutral" areas differently according to their inherent balance so you will see different results? 

What if you fix the white balance on the scanned files to an arbitrary "daylight" point, or you could use a colour temperature meter and set it at what the actual illuminant temperature was, for both frames does that balance then better reflect the films character and colour rendering?

If you tested a neutral grey card on two different emulsions and looked at the colour temperature would the software give the same value for each?

Or does the scanner have an auto white balance and will try to normalise the result?

Bottom line is: are the results just down to the film or are they influenced by the process in getting the results on screen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this comparison very interesting. Thank you!

 

I have used both films side by side, though not extensively, on a recent trip to Japan. In overcast conditions I did find the Portra more "flat", though by all accounts Ektar likes direct sunlight to wake up, so it becomes a case of preferences. 

 

I did did rate the Extar at 100, as other have advised. The Portra I rated at usually 200, but allowed myself fairly generous latitude.  I suspect the shadow behaviour of Ektar is related to how one is rating it. Overexposure seems not to do it any favours, unlike most other colour negative films.

 

I don't scan myself, so I can't comment on this aspect.  Overall, I prefer Ektar for its punchy colours, but Portra can be beautiful, as in the landscape at the top of this thread. I will continue to use both, happily. 

Edited by Mute-on
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Chris - You ask what appear to be simple questions - but the answers would take a whole book chapter, to be accurate. (Believe it or not, this is the "short, short" version!) There are many scanners, there are many scanning programs, there are many films, and while color films are nominally "balanced" for daylight lighting (5500°K), they aren't always.

 

"Ideal world is fictional" alert: Films, scanners, scanning software etc, are not designed to be scientific laboratory-grade materials and devices. Consider just the filtering for color. There are:

 

- dyes in the film to sensitize it to all colors equally - approximately (native silver halides are only sensitive to blue and UV light)

- filtering between the color layers to record (approximately) only red, green or blue light in each layer

- dyes that form in the film with development to (approximately) pass cyan, magenta, and yellow light

- dyes that form in the film to correct for the "approximately" in the line above - approximately. They are the orange cast one sees in processed color neg film.

- chemicals in the color developers to form the dyes in the film in 3-5 minutes - approximately

- filters in the scanner to read the colors in the film - approximately (Silicon is sensitive to all light and does not distinguish between colors on its own). Laser scanners with coherent single frequencies of light are more exact, but still affected by age and other factors.

 

All of those "approximatelys" are there to prevent film costing $500 per roll, or scanners costing $100,000 each. They are very, very good approximations - but not perfect. And they add up.

 

Keeping that in mind: yes, daylight Pro films are generally "white-balanced" for 5500°K light by the manufacturer. Yes, the scanner and the software are set up to "know" their own color light source "balance" and make neutrals approximately neutral - at least with color slides and B&W film. With color negs, the orange cast has to be "factored out," and each software engineer (Vuescan, SilverFast, Nikon, etc.) will come up with their own algorithm to do that.

 

Scanner software can vary, and offer options - so what they can and will do regarding balancing the scan from the film comes under the heading of "it depends." One can - in scanning - click on a spot in the picture and tell the software "white/gray balance for THIS." One has to be careful, especially with 35mm, not to click on a single color grain - which may be strongly colored, even in a "neutral gray" part of the image.

 

Or one can tell the scanner "find the brightest/darkest points in each individual color channel, and adjust them all to just kiss white and black" - "auto-levels," which is what I use.

 

Or one can select from a preset "daylight" or "tungsten" or "cloudy" setting in scanning, just as in pre-setting WB on a digital camera before shooting jpgs. With about equal success. Or one can scan straight, with no "balancing" until opening the image for processing.

 

It is extremely unlikely that simply scanning two films' images of gray cards would produce exactly matching results - without human intervention. Because of all those "approximatelys." You have to remember that the whole color negative production flow (before scanning) - dating back to its invention - is designed around the idea that no one ever sees the negatives. Color neg images always go through correction to get to a final print.

 

If you have two negs from the same roll from the same shoot, you can probably expect them to produce identical gray card scans, assuming you turn off all scanner automation. Other than that case, don't count on it.

 

To your bottom line - yes, both. Careful, knowledgable processing of the scans can get the neutrals to be neutral, minimizing any "influence" - and should reveal only the differences between the films themselves.

Edited by adan
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Chris - You ask what appear to be simple questions - but the answers would take a whole book chapter, to be accurate. 

 

Andy

 

I sort of new that really, but genuinely, never having scanned colour negatives, was ignorant of the colour process involved.

Your generosity in response is greatly appreciated, and will be by others to timid to ask as well I am sure.

 

It should be possible, as you say by careful, work to be "true" to a films characteristics or indeed to manipulate two to appear closer than they "normally' would. If I may be allowed a digital analogy the CCD and CMOS both only detect photons regardless of "colour" information it is the Bayer pattern over the sensor, filter dyes, profiles, demosaicing etc etc that introduce differences in the appearances we see, or don't see. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...