plasticman Posted February 9, 2011 Share #21 Posted February 9, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I appreciate that the comparison shots were metered carefully - nevertheless the quality of the light seems significantly different in the new Portra shots than the Portra400NC (for example). I'm not questioning the test (really I'm not), but would it affect an under-exposed shot that has direct sunlight falling over it, in comparison to one that is mostly in shade (and yes - I know how metering works), in making this sort of visual evaluation of color and grain? Anyways, so far I've only had MF back from the lab, but for me the film is like night and day in comparison to the old 400. I'm hoping to find time to pick up some 135 before the weekend (shot with the CL) - that's gonna be very interesting. If it's anything like the MF, it's gonna be awesome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Hi plasticman, Take a look here Shooting Film Backstage at Fashion Week NYC. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tgray Posted February 9, 2011 Share #22 Posted February 9, 2011 Yes, unfortunately the light changed while I was running the test. I had already gone through two of the rolls though and figured I might as well finish. The tungsten shots should all be the same though. I made an effort to put the targets in direct light though. They all should have been - ignore the backgrounds. In these shots, I just really didn't see a HUGE difference in grain, which kind of agrees with Kodak's literature. And the shots under tungsten (with and without partial filtering) seemed to bear this out. Anyway, the real point of it was to see how these films acted with varying amounts of over and under exposure, and not necessarily to compare 400NC to Portra 400, etc. That being said, the actual photos I took with the new stuff were very impressive. Of course, I didn't shoot 400NC or 400VC side by side with those. Maybe another time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPerson Posted February 10, 2011 Share #23 Posted February 10, 2011 Eddie - Keep an eye out for Jamie (a fellow Tumblr) and her Leica, whilst you are there, she is covering it too. Also a her New York Fashion Week- a Retrospective from last year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share #24 Posted February 11, 2011 Here's a few examples of the new Portra 400 pushed 3 stops. Not the best results, because my V600 really killed the scanning. More at my blog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share #25 Posted February 13, 2011 After a couple of shows, I have come to realize that it is relatively BRIGHT backstage. Between the make-up&hair mirrors and the stage lighting, I rarely had to move off native 400ASA. That said, I found the Portra basically unusable. I really hated the color rendition with the magnesium and tungsten lighting. Everything was super yellow. GROSS! However, after desaturating it to B&W, all was good again. And needless to say the Tri-X400 turned out as Tri-X400 does - AWESOME. Here are some examples from the Feb 10, VENA CAVA show. First two are desaturated Portra, second two are Tri-X400. These are some low-res preview pictures for my editor, so don't expect too much. Just to give you a jist of what I got. Personally I'm pretty happy with the results. What do you guys think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.