Doc Henry Posted November 21, 2014 Share #41 Posted November 21, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I continue what Steve said... often used for these two films , I would say that the 400 is more vivid (vs 160) in color level. It reminds a lot the M8 and M9 For Ilford HP5 I do a test now compared to TX400 here : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/354353-fog-hp5-tooka.html Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Hi Doc Henry, Take a look here Upgrading to FILM :-). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Brenton C Posted November 22, 2014 Share #42 Posted November 22, 2014 I need to move my films faster. First one through my M3 was portra 160, and I was disappointed in the lack of saturation. I wondered if there was a development problem. I've just finished a roll of portra 400, I'll be droping off tomorrow. What I really wanted to emphasize, though, is how contrasting opinions here work together to give me a more nuanced understanding . . . Or expectation which, with some experience, I might hope to translate into understanding. Now my photo fantasy would be to get together with a bunch of folks on this thread, and do a film field trip to learn from each of you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted November 22, 2014 Share #43 Posted November 22, 2014 I need to move my films faster. First one through my M3 was portra 160, and I was disappointed in the lack of saturation. I wondered if there was a development problem. I've just finished a roll of portra 400, I'll be droping off tomorrow. First thing to establish is, what are you looking at when you say saturation is lacking. Variables to consider: The development. The scanning. The hardcopy. The screen. The film itself. If you are aiming at harcopy prints, you are fairly locked in with the processing and emulsion characteristics. If you are aiming at computer screen output, correct saturation to your taste in post. The 400 Portra may more directly satisfy your desire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 22, 2014 Share #44 Posted November 22, 2014 fwiw, when printing optically on RA-4 paper like Fujicolor CA, Porta 160 is less saturated than 400. It also has slightly less sharpness (but is finer grained; actually the grain structure is 'different' rather than 'finer' as we'd say in the conventional sense. Kodak calls it something like 'advanced cubed' whatever that means.) I find the colors to be more realistic with 160 (like Fuji's Astia reversal film) but I think most will prefer the higher saturation of the 400. It's simply personal preference and of course depends on subject matter, end product, etc.. When 160 was introduced (after the 400 made its debut), it was targeted towards commercial portrait photographers who wanted less saturation and even less sharpness. All of this doesn't mean as much if one is scanning digitally and doing post work in Photoshop. Obviously one can stretch pixels and make it look however they prefer, etc.. But with 'straight' optical printing (and printing large to the limit of 35mm) there is a visible difference in color saturation, sharpness, and grain structure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 22, 2014 Share #45 Posted November 22, 2014 I need to move my films faster. First one through my M3 was portra 160, and I was disappointed in the lack of saturation. I wondered if there was a development problem. I've just finished a roll of portra 400, I'll be droping off tomorrow. . Don't drop it off at the same lab. Send it away. Portra 160: 0126L by Sky-nerd, on Flickr Portra 160 0634AL by Sky-nerd, on Flickr Portra 400 1302AL by Sky-nerd, on Flickr Portra 400 1226AL by Sky-nerd, on Flickr I always ensure I'm overexposing the scene slightly - about half to one stop. I run Portra 160 through at 125 or lower, and 400 through at 250 or lower. I'm going to start over exposing by 2 stops to see if I like it. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted November 22, 2014 Share #46 Posted November 22, 2014 After pictures of Pete, for me, the 2 Kodak Portra (KP) are both good with a difference, the KP 160 is cheaper than the 400. The KP400 is more sensitive and a little warmer , a little more "vivid" as I said above. In both cases, it needs light (a little sunshine is better) if you want a beautiful rendering. Anyway, this is one of the best color films that currently exist in the digital age with its fine grain. In color fidelity, the KP is better than the M8 and M9. Look at post 1273 in this thread and many pictures with KP160 and KP 400 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread-64.html I'll post some pictures if you're interested.Remember that the CCD sensor of the M8 and M9 are made by Kodak, and that's an exploit to reproduce the same color as the film Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mijo Posted November 22, 2014 Share #47 Posted November 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) But with 'straight' optical printing (and printing large to the limit of 35mm) there is a visible difference in color saturation, sharpness, and grain structure. What would the traditional printing limit be, in terms of size, for 35mm? At 20x24 the enlarger i commonly use is at its maximum height, any larger and I would have to place the paper on the ground and have adjust the enlarger head to project the image on the ground rather than table. My other option would be to use a different enlarger and just switch out the enlarger lens but even then if I can't print much larger than 20x24 before I have to resort to a work around. The cost of paper is also a constraint. At what size does cost, effort and image quality hit the point of diminishing return? I'd love to hear the opinions from the seasoned printers... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenton C Posted November 22, 2014 Share #48 Posted November 22, 2014 Pete, that is beautiful colour! And nice pics too, btw. When you say you over expose, just to clarify, do you develop at box speed, as if it was shot "normally"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted November 22, 2014 Share #49 Posted November 22, 2014 I don't ask the lab to push it. They're dev and scanned by Snaps in Brighton. Cheap too. Take a look at this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/353602-over-exposing-c41-colour-negative-film.html Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted November 22, 2014 Share #50 Posted November 22, 2014 What would the traditional printing limit be, in terms of size, for 35mm? At 20x24 the enlarger i commonly use is at its maximum height, any larger and I would have to place the paper on the ground and have adjust the enlarger head to project the image on the ground rather than table. My other option would be to use a different enlarger and just switch out the enlarger lens but even then if I can't print much larger than 20x24 before I have to resort to a work around. The cost of paper is also a constraint. At what size does cost, effort and image quality hit the point of diminishing return? I'd love to hear the opinions from the seasoned printers... Although while I did say "to the limit of 35mm" I'd argue that there is no real "limit." It's dependent on subject matter and what (and how) you are attempting to represent . One can print with golf ball sized grain if that's going to be an integral part of the image and the interpretation (e.g., an abstract of color and/or shapes as the author's representation of a particular subject.) So there's no answer other than in relation to what you are trying to accomplish. Clearly if you are wanting to produce a conventional/traditional landscape image, then detail will likely be important along with print size (grand landscapes are normally printed large and with fine detail, i.e., high resolution and fine grain.) And so you'd be limited with the film size, film type, and the substrate you choose to print on (and there's viewing distance + viewing lighting, to consider, too.) 35mm may not work in that sense (at least not for a very large print as detailed landscapes can sometimes be hard to view if they are on the small size; again, traditionally speaking.) On the other hand, Lewis Baltz printed his New Topographics landscape photographs using 35mm film. He used super fine grained Kodak TechPan, and yet he still printed small. It was a different approach to the genre of "landscape" (as was his choice of 'landscapes'), and it was effective. Less calculated subject matter (urban/people, spontaneous sorts of stuff) can often work fine at large sizes with grainy high speed film. (I have several Jim Marshall prints that are from 35mm Tri-X printed at about 16x20. They're wonderful images to look at but I suppose they would be laughed at these days by the pixel peepers enamored with resolution. ) Again, there really is no "set of rules." You have to experiment on your own and do what works, but without distracting from your intent of how you personally want to represent your subject matter (and one will always also have certain logistical constraints to deal with, e.g., limits to equipment used or expenses for materials, etc..) There are certain 'conventions' in photography (and one can learn those conventions by studying and looking at photographs), but there is also a lot of room to break with convention (and hope that it's successful ) I'd suggest to try enlarging at very large sizes but use only small inexpensive test sheets on a few sections of the image before you commit to more expensive larger paper. And then piece some of them together and try to visualize what the the final product might end up looking like. But printing will still involve your own kind of experimentation as to what works; there's really no way around that. Producing work is about brainstorming, and lots of trial and error (even if you have a professional lab do the actual work for you; you still have to figure out what you want.) Anyway, that's just my own take on it all.....and sorry that it's kind of long-winded..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A miller Posted November 22, 2014 Share #51 Posted November 22, 2014 lots of very interesting and insightful comments here. One insight that I learned recently, which I'm sure most people already know, is that, Portra 400 is normally processed at ISO 320 and not 400. This is according to my lab in NYC (LTI), which showed me a chart that indicated this. T his makes sense as the 400 is really supposed to be a stop faster than the 160. I guess they indicate 400 given the significant latitude in the film. S a one stop push of portray 400 would be processed at 640 and not 800. The lab advised me to expose my shots at 800 and expose at 640 (one stop push), so that's what I've been doing, with good results in the street as a over-expose about a half a stop in any case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted November 23, 2014 Share #52 Posted November 23, 2014 Over exposing colour negative reduces grain and increases colour saturation but you do loose a bit of sharpness, and it also helps reduce colour shifts in shadows, so your labs advice is probably given to cover a wide variety of things that can disappoint customers. As ever though it depends where you meter from and the ambient light as to whether a general one stop over exposure is a good or bad idea, the principle if it works is sound. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XVarior Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share #53 Posted November 23, 2014 I'm getting a film school or academy here:-) amazing info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XVarior Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share #54 Posted November 23, 2014 lots of very interesting and insightful comments here. One insight that I learned recently, which I'm sure most people already know, is that, Portra 400 is normally processed at ISO 320 and not 400. This is according to my lab in NYC (LTI), which showed me a chart that indicated this. T his makes sense as the 400 is really supposed to be a stop faster than the 160. I guess they indicate 400 given the significant latitude in the film. S a one stop push of portray 400 would be processed at 640 and not 800. The lab advised me to expose my shots at 800 and expose at 640 (one stop push), so that's what I've been doing, with good results in the street as a over-expose about a half a stop in any case. Adam, can you explain more your lab advise? I don't seem I get it:-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
XVarior Posted November 23, 2014 Author Share #55 Posted November 23, 2014 Don't drop it off at the same lab. Send it away. Portra 160: 0126L by Sky-nerd, on Flickr Portra 160 0634AL by Sky-nerd, on Flickr Portra 400 1302AL by Sky-nerd, on Flickr Portra 400 1226AL by Sky-nerd, on Flickr I always ensure I'm overexposing the scene slightly - about half to one stop. I run Portra 160 through at 125 or lower, and 400 through at 250 or lower. I'm going to start over exposing by 2 stops to see if I like it. Pete Those images make me feel like shooting film and portra NOW. Beautiful Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted November 23, 2014 Share #56 Posted November 23, 2014 For color and as I said above , here are two photos taken with Kodak Portra 400 versus M9. Red and yellow correspond as green gray paint of wood ship , maybe the red a bit saturated with the M9 : hublot in yellow and red under the ropes This is what Erwin Puts said M9 with "vivid" color versus "neutral" color M240 The color of ropes and wooden pulleys are the same, a good point for the Kodak Portra 400 and M9. My conclusion : the film Kodak Portra 400 reproduces better the reality. Both pictures are not corrected "brut" Nikon scanner in Tiff > Jpeg (for post) and DNG > Jpeg Leica M7 Kodak Portra 400 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! Leica M9 320 Isos London August 2014 Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Leica M9 320 Isos London August 2014 Best Henry ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/237296-upgrading-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=2712530'>More sharing options...
erl Posted November 23, 2014 Share #57 Posted November 23, 2014 Henry, that is a hard call to make when not knowing the true original subject. I confess I would be happy with either. The Portra does exhibit some green in what I assume is a neutral gray in the woodwork. But that could easily be attributed to the film development or scanning or post processing. Or even the film itself. The M9 seems normal enough, but only you know the original. The bottom line is all can be corrected/fixed/adjusted in post, except the film if it is destined for hardcopy. Even then, home processing allows some measure of correction at the enlarging stage. In reality, there is some character associated with each medium that can be chosen to suit desire, but after that, bother are excellent, IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted November 23, 2014 Share #58 Posted November 23, 2014 Erl , I forget to tell you that C41 Tetenal development (of these pictures) is home lab. Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted November 23, 2014 Share #59 Posted November 23, 2014 Another example between KP 160 and KP 400. In difficult shooting conditions, both Kodak Portra keep their promise. Here are two pictures in the great Bay of our area , at low tide , at 6:30-7:00 pm in last september. in front of you is the Channel Picture uncorrected In my opinion "sand" have the same color KP 400 M7 Summicron 28 Asph 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! KP 160 M7 Summicron 28 Asph Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! KP 160 M7 Summicron 28 Asph Best Henry ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/237296-upgrading-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=2712585'>More sharing options...
A miller Posted November 23, 2014 Share #60 Posted November 23, 2014 Adam, can you explain more your lab advise? I don't seem I get it:-) Hi XV - The professional NYC lab which gave me this info indicated that the portra 400 really has a base of 320, which is one full stop more than the porter 160. This actually makes sense to me, as it seems logical that Kodak would make films that are separated by each other in full stop increments, not 1 1/3 stop increments. I hear what Steve is saying, and I am in not position to think he is wrong. But what I've read about the significant latitude (i.e., ability to push it up to two stops, or to slightly underexpose in difficult/tricky lighting conditions rather than push), it would make sense for Kodak to have built in a 1/3 stop of latitude in the film in order to make it more versatile. Perhaps this is what Steve is saying. All I know is that, unless the lab is specifically directed otherwise, they will develop a "normally" exposed roll of portra 400 at EI 320 rather than 400. I'm throwing my hands up here a little b/c I am basically an idiot and learn everything by trial and error. My current workflow is to expose portra 400 at 800 and push one stop, which is EI 640. After about 20 rolls in the past 6 weeks, this seems to work for me (I 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.