Portra 800 not what I hoped for...

[63strat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Instead of pushing Portra 400 to 1600 and not liking the grain, I tried a roll of Portra 800, not pushed. After one roll under incandescent lighting in a normally lit living room, the results were not so good. Lots of color shifts that I am not able to correct in Aperture. Selecting a white point in the image produced some strange color shifts. Outdoors, all the pics came out fine.

 

Also, I made sure not to underexpose any of the shots, yet more than half of them have too much grain. Any suggestions appreciated.

 

So far my experimentation in getting my MP to behave in the same ballpark in low-light indoor color settings as with my sold M9 is not working out very well...I have a week left to still return the MP, ending my brief return to film, and reinstating my order for the new M. I love film and my MP, but if it means no low-light normal indoor photos, then I'm back to digital. I don't want to carry 2 cameras - film+digital - to solve it. Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

Keep in mind that when Film was King - people used color films especially white-balanced for yellow indoor lighting. Fuji T64 Tungsten 35mm Color Slide Film, 36 Exposure 15531640

 

Or invested in 80 A/B blue filters to remove the yellow: 49MM 80B BLUE FILTER

 

Or replaced the normal indoor lights with daylight-balanced photo floodlights. Ushio 1000264 EBW PS-25 NO. B2/BLUE Projector Light Bulb at eLightBulbs.com

 

It was de rigueur to get the "white balance" correct in the camera, rather than counting on correction after the fact (software or printing filtration).

 

Color neg film has some leeway - but nowhere near as much as carefully calculated digital WB (and even digital can benefit from an 80A filter now and then). At some point you simply have to feed the film (or silicon) some blue light to get decent color pictures. Otherwise one of your color layers (film) or color channels (digital) simply gets no exposure at all - thus your uncorrectable color shifts.

 

Sadly, tungsten-balanced films (and even tungsten light bulbs it seems) are on the way out. It isn't always possible to relight every location. Leaving a filter as the remaining solution (not a perfect one - it cuts effective ISO by 2 stops, turning your Portra 800 into effective Portra 200 (but with much better color)).

[adan]

I presume, since you didn't mention scanning, that you are not making your own scans.

 

If you do your own scanning, that offers an additional step where you can correct the color and remove some of the yellow even before getting to Aperture.

 

If you are getting lab scans, talk to the lab people and see if they can adjust their machine settings for your particular indoor rolls, to eliminate as much yellow as possible before giving you the yellow "cooked into" the final scan jpg or tiff.

 

But on the whole, as with "IR contamination" with the M8, the best results will still be from corrections made in the camera.

[63strat]

Andy - thanks for the great reply, appreciate it. Last time I shot film was 12 years ago, and I simply used tungsten film. So now, I've been incorrectly under the assumption that I could correct the shift and WB after the fact. I do have an Epson V700 so will try to rescan and filter some of the yellow, thanks for the suggestion. Blue filters, I can't afford to lose any stops. I may just have get another digital for night...or shoot b&w. Times certainly have changed...thanks.

[erl]

My experience with film is that Portra, which is an excellent film in the correct environment, is easily surpassed by Fuji films in the scenario you are interested in.

 

Memory test for me: Fuji claimed to have a 'fourth layer' on their films that greatly improved their tungsten exposure characteristics. I used Fiji 400 extensively for stage work and the colours were always excellent. I think I also used Fuji 800. Memory a bit dim now.

 

In general, Portra is best for daylight portraits etc, as the name suggests, but Fuji400H is better for what I think you are contemplating.

 

I have never advocated pushing colour neg, neither have Kodak, but pushing Fuji 400H to 800 may be doable, pushing to 1600 is pushing it!

[63strat]

Thanks Erl, will give Fuji 400H a try. Seems to be no 800H, just 800Z

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not aware of 800Z but 400H can reasonably be pushed to 800.

I have seen reports of it pushed to 1600, but lighting quality, contrast etc will all play a part in the final result.

 

My advice, test before shooting critical stuff.

Good luck.

[StS]

One of the reasons I use film is, that I can get a look, which I perceive as pleasing, in a much more easier way compared to a digital image.

 

If the objective is to get a colour balance, which is as neutral as possible, a digital image might be a better starting point. However, from experience, I should warn, that one starts to discover then, that there are several light sources with different colour temperatures and one is compromising for an average colour balance with some slightly off-balance areas.

 

The more sophisticted the tools get, the less one is willing to accept small imperfections, which can have some charm of their own.

 

I'm not a fan of flash images outside controlled studio environments, however, this is another way to control colour balance in ambient conditions.

 

Stefan