Scanning kodak portra 400NC

[drums1977]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey guys,

 

I just came back from a trip in Norway with some film to scan, mostly kodak portra 400 NC. I'm scanning the 35mm film with a Nikon Coolscan V, with wich I'm still not too familiar. In fact I recently posted here about my dislike with the amount of grain I was getting from it in BW scans. But anyway, the thing is that I'm facing two puzzling situations:

 

1. Many frames in the rolls are quite underexposed. I set the ISO to 400 on my M6, and followed the built-in meter's indications, which in general are very accurate. The frames that are under exposed correspond, oddly enough, to very bright scenarios (sometimes even facing the sun). In this ocasions, the camera indications were always f22, 1/500, but, as I said this exposition is too short, at least a couple of steps. That happens in quite a lot of frames, does it mean that the meter is not so accurate in very bright situations? Or maybe the REAL iso setting for this film is 200? Did you ever have that?

 

2. After scanning, and when zooming in the files at 100% size, I can see that some of the grains are magenta (when the colour of that part of the film is not). Is that a normal feature of this specific film?

 

Hope you can help me!

 

J.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest nephilim]

I hope I've understood you correctly...

 

So you always set the camera to the speed indicated by the meter, regardless of the brightness of the subject? Then I wouldn't worry about the meter but your metering technique ;-) Remember that usually a meter suggests the correct exposure for a medium grayish target (18% grey). So if you point the camera at a black subject, the indicated speed would lead to an overexposed image, with the black regions rendered as gray. In case of a very bright subject (snow, sun) the image will be underexposed and the whites in the scene become gray again.

[drums1977]

Hehehe... No, I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I follow the indications of the meter for exposure, and yes, I take into consideration the nature of the subject/scene in order to correct the exposure given by the camera meter. As I said, I never have exposure issues in general. I was wodering if maybe the real iso for portra 400 is not as fast as 400...

[Stealth3kpl]

Perhaps this advice applies (from the slide film new ball game thread here )?

Julian,

It seems with the loom shot that you have got it all sorted.

When I first started using slide film I think I had the same issues that you had with exposure seeming to be underexposed. Here is my advice.

 

1) Trust your meter on your M and don't try this 1/3 under exposing but try and get it right by being more careful with selecting your mid grey tone for metering. I use grass, or tarmac to get the metering correct then re-frame the shot and press the shutter. You are probably getting too much sky when you setup the exposure, tilt the camera down a bit and you'll get the exposure correct. Also your images may not be the typical mid grey average as there may be much darker or lighter parts in the viewfinder. Search around for a mid-grey area to meter off.

 

2) Take notes of the exposure number and your settings, No.12 Tree on hill f5.6 1/125, No.13 Tree on hill, f4.8 1/125 etc do this for a film or two and then look at your results and see what works best for the results you want.

 

3) Bracket. Yes slide has very limited exposure lattitude, +/- 1/3 stop but Mechanical M only have +/-1/2 stop on lens and +/- 1 on shutter. But M6TTL and MP both can give good results. I usually get between 4-10 usable slides from a 36 exposure (38 actually back from lab).

 

4) Stick with and learn your slide film so you get more of the experience of the loom room shot giving you an image that looks like you remember. Soon you will see a shot and imagine the result on your slide. Then a week or so later you'll see the same thing on teh slides back from the lab. Honest it will come soon.

 

5) A projector has a very bright lamp so it is important to check your slides on a bright light box or projector. If you just hold the slide up to a light window you will think your slides are too dark. A slide viewed through a projector on a 2m screen in your lounge is a wonder to behold. You'll almost be able to hear the sea when you show your beach holiday shots, as the light of the day is reflected back to you watching.

 

6) Scanning: This will show that the image on the slide maxes out your scanners DMAX very dense to very light , while a negative seems to have used only fairly dark to quite light 20-80% of the scanners DMAX range. Slide film like Velvia 50 and Kodachrome64 have boosted MTF graphs so they effectively boost the contrast on the image but can block out the shadows and blow out the highlights on a bright day in lower lattitudes. Provia is very nice for nature and does not boost the contrast too much allowing for perfect scans. Astia seems to be very good for people shots having the finest grain and accurate colour rendition. Kodak E100G gave me underexposed slides the first time I used it, but I was out in a high contrast park with sea (bright reflected light causing underexposure) in an area I was not used to.

Yes some tweaking of the S curve may be needed (what you call gamma adjusting is one way). I now find I'm boosting contrast and saturation on digital and negative print film images so that they are more like my slide images now I'm used to slides.

 

 

7) As someone else suggested the slide image seems to be a true representation of the actual event, so you can't make a wet dull day seem any better. Your images will seem to show a wet dull day. But on a bright sunny day then you can experiment with a little underexposure for more dense slides and even greater saturation.

 

With the new TVs the trend is for deep blacks as a sign of picture quality. When did you last see deep blacks on a print film shot or digi shot (without post process)?

 

Stay with one slide film for a while so you can get used to it, recording your exposures then see how the number of good shots (exposure wise) increases.

 

A darker slide projects well but a lighter slide scans more easily.

 

Enjoy it. You won't be going back to colour negative film, it'll be B&W print film or colour slide from now on.

Regards, Lincoln

[stunsworth]

The frames that are under exposed correspond, oddly enough, to very bright scenarios (sometimes even facing the sun

 

this is exactly the situation where I would expect the camera to underexpose the subject as the camera's meter is likely to be fooled by the bright sun. I realise that you've mentioned you were compensating for this, but it sounds as if you weren't compensating enough.

 

I can't really see there being a problem with the film, as if that was the case it would have been reported far more often. Sounds more like a metering issue to me.

[tgray]

Just by going with sunny-16, ISO 400 film, and a bright sun outdoors would lead you to 1/500 and f/16, not f/22. If you were going with a reading of f/22 and 1/500, I would say the sun tricked the meter (you) and you underexposed by at least a stop. Especially if you were taking a picture of something with it's back to the sun - the face of the subject, person, or object is not directly illuminated by the sun, so even f/16 would probably be underexposed.

[drums1977]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I suppose that, as you suggest, I didn't expose correctly. I'll be more careful next time I shoot colour. I very rarely have exposure problems when shooting TriX, I suppose BW is much more indulgent. Thanks to all!

[ndjambrose]

You may or may not realize this.... but don't take your scans at face value.

 

Depending on how you've set your curves, you can scan the same frame as nearly entirely white or nearly entirely black, and anywhere in between. In other words... what you get at face value is not to be trusted, since you're getting only the scanner's guess at what the image is supposed to look like.

 

You have to adjust your scans for correct colour and density. A good tip is to turn off all settings and scan with no software correction. The gamma will be wrong, but can be adjusted with a levels correction in Photoshop; similarly, you can also use separate curves for black point, white point and neutral, in order to set correct colour.

 

I wouldn't reach any conclusions about exposure or metering based on scanning a negative. The only means of conclusive evaluation is on a lightbox with a loupe; otherwise, there are too many variable factors.

 

Be aware also that the dynamic range of colour negative (and Porta 400 is a good example) is huge. I routinely shoot Portra 400 around 2 or 3 stops over-exposed as I think it looks nicer, and the range for under-exposure, while not as wide, is still reasonable.

[alun]

It sounds like under-exposure. I shoot Portra 400NC at the box speed and have never had any reason to suppose it is other than this. Shooting into the sun I always incident meter and although my experience is prevailing light conditions in the UK, I can safely say that using my staple 400ASA film I have *never* shot anything ever at F22/500th! My guess is that a more 'accurate' reading would have been at least two stops more, say F16 at 250th, and maybe three stops more. What this probably means is that I consistently expose Portra very generously indeed, but I prefer that as nothing looks quite as ugly as under-exposed colour print film.

[rob_x2004]

Well there is something else you might consider.

When you havent been using the camera outdoors take a meter reading indoors in the subdued light.

Take the camera outside take a meter reading of the sky, give it a good blast into the bright light.

Immediatley take the camera back indoors and meter again and see if the meter is behaving itself.

If you are unlucky and the meter is on the way out, you will get meter readings hanging round the outdoor bright light reading.

The only other time I have noticed this effect iswhen the batteries are low, but before the blink warning, and the meter is still working, so you figure the meter reading is accurate.

Hopefully you are just suffering from operator error.

Good luck. Owning a Leica is like owning an alfa romeo....

[andybarton]

Owning a Leica is like owning an alfa romeo....

 

Your cills will rust through...

[Stealth3kpl]

Your cills will rust through...

 

and your electrics will let you down LOL

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello drums 1977

 

I don't know anything about scanners or scanning but I do know a little about negatives and exposure.

 

Perhaps if you read the DX markings on the cartridge of film you have it might help you to determine where the problem lies.

 

I have here with me a roll of in date Kodak BW400CN. The box says ISO 400. Reading the DX code on the cartridge (I have a DX reader next to me as I write this.) it says: Exposure Index for greatest latitude with normal development for an average subject in 18% reflected light: EI 200. Exposure, same circumstances, for safely maximalizing EI while possibly not recording as wide or appropriate a latitude in some situations: EI 400. This second Exposure may have marginally finer grain.

 

You should read the DX code on the cartridge of film you have. Perhaps this might be a help to you in resolving this situation.

 

Also: Assuming an appropriate EI: If you are reading a Zone III mountain and exposing it as if it was Zone V your negatives will be thin. If you are reading Zone VII water and exposing it as Zone V your negatives will be too dense.

 

I hope these observations are useful to you.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[tobey bilek]

I expose it at 400 and it prints and scans very well. Film speed is not wrong.

 

When you have a bright light source in the frame, the meter sees it and recommends too short an exposure.

 

When you are working in bright sun, use 1/500 between 11 & 16. Or use an incident meter. Reflective & TTL meters are thrown way off by different colors and recomment too long and exposure for dark subjects and too short for bright colors.

 

There is a possibility the shutter is running slow or fast.

 

I scan for color balance and exposure so as not to get clipping at either end. Photoshop does the rest.

 

Underexposure on any color neg will look like too much grain. A decently exposed frame on that film is first class.

[drums1977]

I expose it at 400 and it prints and scans very well. Film speed is not wrong.

 

When you have a bright light source in the frame, the meter sees it and recommends too short an exposure.

 

When you are working in bright sun, use 1/500 between 11 & 16. Or use an incident meter. Reflective & TTL meters are thrown way off by different colors and recomment too long and exposure for dark subjects and too short for bright colors.

 

There is a possibility the shutter is running slow or fast.

 

I scan for color balance and exposure so as not to get clipping at either end. Photoshop does the rest.

 

Underexposure on any color neg will look like too much grain. A decently exposed frame on that film is first class.

 

 

HI,

 

first of all, thank you for al the advice and wisdom. Definitely, it is mainly my mistake. I knew the meter is fooled by very bright -or dark- scenarios, but I didn't know it was "that much" fooled. Tobey, you are so right, the underexposed film is very grainy, while the properly exposed frames are, as you say first class (maybe, as someone suggested, 1 or 2 stops overexposure would have looked nicer...)

 

I have to say, in my defense, ( ;-) ) that in that trip I was shooting with my M6 and my Mamiya 7 in identical situations, and using portra 400NC in both bodies. I trusted the built-in meter and used my (apparently very poor) technique with both cameras, but the frames from the Mamiya are properly exposed...

 

 

Conclusions: I think next time I'll shoot Portra 400 I'll shoot it at EI 100 or 200, for starters. I'll be much more careful when metering, and I'll avoid framing any strong light source while metering. I might change the M6 batteries too. Oh, and from now on I'll show more respect for the meter in my Mamiya (it is so slagged off everywhere...).

[noah_addis]

As others have said, while color neg film has some latitude, it is still best when exposed correctly or overexposed. I think the Portra films can be shot at their nominal ISO. They don't need to be overexposed, but if you intentionally overexpose by a stop it may get even better.

 

I shoot my Portra 400 at the nominal speed since if I'm using that film, I probably need the speed. The 160 I shoot at 100 since it's a nice round number.

 

I've been doing some scans from Portra 160NC and 400NC on my LS 9000 and I've been very happy with the results.

 

The meter in the Mamiya 7II is very good, but it's more of a spot meter than the meter in Leica M cameras. The Mamiya meter is not TTL, so therefore the spot size doesn't change depending on your lens. In addition, on both of my M7II bodies, the meter spot is not *exactly* in the center of the RF patch where you would think it should be. It's a bit off. But it's consistent, so once you get used to it the meter works very well. Of course the Leica M meter is also very consistent, but it's center-weighted.

 

Having said that I usually carry a small Seconic L308S as my primary meter, both for the Mamiyas and the Leicas.

[jplomley]

Noah, how do you deal with half stop increments on your Mamiya? Myself, I actually measured the half-way mark between full-stop aperture detents on the lens and used a white indelible marker to note the positioning. Using chrome film, this works extremely well. Perhaps it is not as much of an issue with neg film???

[pes084k1]

Hey guys,

 

I just came back from a trip in Norway with some film to scan, mostly kodak portra 400 NC. I'm scanning the 35mm film with a Nikon Coolscan V, with wich I'm still not too familiar. In fact I recently posted here about my dislike with the amount of grain I was getting from it in BW scans. But anyway, the thing is that I'm facing two puzzling situations:

 

1. Many frames in the rolls are quite underexposed. I set the ISO to 400 on my M6, and followed the built-in meter's indications, which in general are very accurate. The frames that are under exposed correspond, oddly enough, to very bright scenarios (sometimes even facing the sun). In this ocasions, the camera indications were always f22, 1/500, but, as I said this exposition is too short, at least a couple of steps. That happens in quite a lot of frames, does it mean that the meter is not so accurate in very bright situations? Or maybe the REAL iso setting for this film is 200? Did you ever have that?

 

2. After scanning, and when zooming in the files at 100% size, I can see that some of the grains are magenta (when the colour of that part of the film is not). Is that a normal feature of this specific film?

 

Hope you can help me!

 

J.

 

1. Negative film has a lot of MTF and a lot of grain. So denoising will level out most of the texture and sharpening must be made looking either to the print or to a softproof (e.g., Focalblade2). In fact, eye will reduce both details and grain when looking at a print . A 4000 dpi scanner creates grain aliasing at will: please use a 5400/7200 dpi scanner for some improvement.

 

2. A center weighted light meter will underexpose in bright, reflective scenes. It's normal. However 1/500 f/22 is too much in "bright sun". Use f/11-16 with slides and even more on negs.

 

3) The grain colouring might depend on scanner noise or miscalibration of channels (use IT-8 targets for this) or... by the film (use a loupe and a light table for checking it)

 

Bye

 

Elio

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[noah_addis]

Noah, how do you deal with half stop increments on your Mamiya? Myself, I actually measured the half-way mark between full-stop aperture detents on the lens and used a white indelible marker to note the positioning. Using chrome film, this works extremely well. Perhaps it is not as much of an issue with neg film???

 

I don't shoot chrome much, but really, I don't think any special technique is needed no matter what film you're using.

 

I meter, set the shutter speed and if a fractional aperture stop is required, I do it by eye. I guess marking the half stops could help, but really estimating it on the spot seems to work for me even with chromes.

 

Sure, if I had the choice the Mamiya would have half-stop clicks on the aperture ring (and shutter dial!), but it's a small tradeoff for the huge negs and great lens quality.

 

I know this is the wrong forum to say it, but I haven't shot a roll of 35mm since I got the Mamiyas:eek:

[jplomley]

I know this is the wrong forum to say it, but I haven't shot a roll of 35mm since I got the Mamiyas

 

The Mamiya 7II and Coolscan 9000ED using SilverFast AI Studio are a notch above the M9 IMHO, especially when using chrome film. I only shoot the 35mm when I'm looking for atmosphere inherent from the grain of films like Neopan 400 and TriX. The 7II gives very clean B&W so if I want grain in 6x7, I have to jump to Delta 3200.

 

I meter, set the shutter speed and if a fractional aperture stop is required, I do it by eye

 

Thats how I used to do it, but I wanted something a bit quicker, hence the demarcation.

 

Noah, do you have any of your recent Mamiya work on your website? Would love to have a look.