Upgrading to FILM :-)

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Miller , look at these two threads :

Mat Marrash: Pushing Kodak Portra | Film Photography Project

https://cookingfilm.wordpress.com/category/kodak-new-portra-400/

Best

Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[Stealth3kpl]

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).

 

It seems odd advice to me. I try to avoid underexposure of the subject at all costs. Look at the 3rd and 4th set of images in this article:

Kodak Portra and Fuji 400H comparisons and exposure tests | UK Film Lab

 

The under exposed colour neg has dull colours. If you're running your Portra400 through at 800 you're underexposing it a stop then trying to compensate by developing the film differently. Surely, Kodak wouldn't be advocating that? I wonder what effect running it through at EI 250 with normal development would have on your images. i.e. don't tell them to pull process, but tell them you shot it at box speed.

Of course, if it's a particular image style you're looking for, it makes sense to shoot at 800 or whatever, and develop at box speed or push. It's part of the fun of film to introduce colour shifts which often make an image. These images I shot under exposed to try to convey some of the feeling of the place:

 

20131006-00900026 by Mr Chombee 67, on Flickr

 

 

20131001-00880011 by Mr Chombee 67, on Flickr

 

 

Pete

[A miller]

Thanks, Doc and Pete. Will look at your links later with devoted interest

To be clear, my lab would process portra exposed at a one stop push at 640, and would recommend a 640 EI even if the film was exposed at 800. Still seem odd?

[Stealth3kpl]

Thanks, Doc and Pete. Will look at your links later with devoted interest

To be clear, my lab would process portra exposed at a one stop push at 640, and would recommend a 640 EI even if the film was exposed at 800. Still seem odd?

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm ill at the moment and I didn't read your post properly. I thought you were saying that your lab had advised you to shoot your film, not at box speed but at 800, rather than shooting it at 400 or 320 or slightly more overexposed. You're saying that, at times you want to shoot at 800, they will push process one stop if requested, and they take their one stop to be at 640.

Yes, that makes sense if they consider the box speed should be 320. They consider it to be 320 rather than 400 to give a little over exposure. I think all c41 colour film benefits from a little over exposure.

I shoot Portra 400 at 250 because I tend to shoot "Sunny 16" and my shutter speed dial doesn't have a 400 or a 320 setting

In my case, if I were under exposing the roll by a stop, I would be running it through at EI 500, so I wouldn't bother asking them to push develop it a stop. I guess you've to liberate yourself a bit, get to know how to meter your subject (be consistent - I'd advise an incident light meter), decide at what EI you're going to run your film through, see how your lab develops and scans the image, then decide when you need to ask them to push or pull a film, and by how many stops. In the earlier link, UK Film Lab suggests over exposing by +2 in certain lighting conditions. I would inform them I'd followed their advice, and ask them to use their experience/judgement in developing it for the type of effect I want. UK Film Lab seems set up to do this. Unfortunately, most labs develop and scan on auto, so you may be met by a blank expression.

Pete

[sblitz]

I have more often than not shot portra 160 at 120 and 400 at 340 but developed at the box speed. What it seems to do is enhance the pastel like quality of its colors. If you prefer a stronger, more saturated look shoot at the box speed. Ektar 100 is also better at 64 but it is a finicky film in terms of color/exposure when compared with portra.

 

btw, Kodak recommends portra 160 for portraits and commercial shoots and 400 for out in the street -- so Adam you and Kodak are on the same page. Of course we can all do what we want and usually do

[Stealth3kpl]

Over exposing colour negative reduces grain and increases colour saturation but you do loose a bit of sharpness,

 

Steve

 

Steve,

Are these effects when developed normally or when pull processed?

Pete

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some very nice examples of Kodak Ektar and Fuji 400H here, under-exposed then push processed.

Honestly, I think Ektar ought to be shot this way all the time. I've seen some very nice examples recently. I've avoided Ektar since I got a film back from either Palm labs or Peak prcessing with really hideous colours. I think I'll give it another shot.

I've mentioned UK Film Lab a few times recently, and I'd like to point out that I've never used them and I have no involvement with them, financial or otherwise. I'm certainly going to send them my next holiday pics though.

Just for balance, here's another lab that caught my eye; Carmencita. I'm going to give this article a read, it might be interesting.

Pete

[Doc Henry]

It seems odd advice to me. I try to avoid underexposure of the subject at all costs. Look at the 3rd and 4th set of images in this article:

Kodak Portra and Fuji 400H comparisons and exposure tests | UK Film Lab

 

The under exposed colour neg has dull colours. If you're running your Portra400 through at 800 you're underexposing it a stop then trying to compensate by developing the film differently. Surely, Kodak wouldn't be advocating that? I wonder what effect running it through at EI 250 with normal development would have on your images. i.e. don't tell them to pull process, but tell them you shot it at box speed.

Of course, if it's a particular image style you're looking for, it makes sense to shoot at 800 or whatever, and develop at box speed or push. It's part of the fun of film to introduce colour shifts which often make an image. These images I shot under exposed to try to convey some of the feeling of the place:

 

Pete

 

Pete, with the Kodak Portra, a light veil sometimes is very pretty , right ?

Look at "Artistic nude colour portrait" picture here :

One Thousand Lux: How I shot it. Light Diagrams

 

Interesting thread

Best

Henry

[Stealth3kpl]

Thanks Doc, that was interesting.

Pete

[Doc Henry]

Pete , you are welcome

I forget to post this link from Kodak :

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4050/e4050.pdf

Notice that Kodak wrote at the beginning ... "At true Iso 400"

Best

Henry

[A miller]

most of all i would to thank Henry and Pete for taking your time to educate us on this subject and sharing your passion for film. I find every bit of this useful and I really appreciate it. Best, Adam

[CalArts 99]

I just want to add one last thing and only as 'food for thought.'

 

It doesn't really matter too much how each individual might use any of these films, or what results might be best for them (it's simply a personal choice.) But I feel something that is important (or at least has always been for me and all other photographers I know) is to maintain consistency in the workflow and keep all variables understood and well under control. We did this long before digital: working with a single lab, keeping our film flavors to a minimum and understanding their characteristics, knowing the materials we were printing on, etc.. Once the experimenting was over, one could then concentrate solely on subject matter, etc.. It was liberating in many ways to get the materials figured out as quickly as possible and then kind of forget about it all.

 

Today, with many film users tied into a hybrid workflow (and using commercial labs), some new variables have been introduced. It's still important to nail down a consistent and repeatable workflow. That can mean working with a single lab to build a relationship and also understanding the differences with scanning. This will keep the variables under control, and with repeatable results that one can depend on (and shift the emphasis from the materials to the images themselves; i.e., the content/context.)

 

I realize that we all pretty much know this, but I just thought it's worth repeating. fyi, here are a couple of articles about consistency and forming a relationship with your lab, and also the differences in commercial scanning between the Noritsu and the Frontier.

 

Johnny Patience

 

Frontier vs Noritsu Scans Comparison | Portra 800 with Window Light | Virginia + Destination Fine Art Wedding Photographers

[jmr237]

But I feel something that is important (or at least has always been for me and all other photographers I know) is to maintain consistency in the workflow and keep all variables understood and well under control.

 

I agree. I struggled with hit-and-miss results with film until I controlled for variables, conducted a few simple tests, and stuck with the settings that produced the best results.

 

My person system is to use *only* the following:

 

• Tri-X
  
• B+W yellow filter on at all times
  
• Lumu meter set to 1.5 stops of over exposure
  
• Processing and scanning at Richard Photo Lab
  

I am now very happy with my results and nearly always get what I expect when I download the scans.

[Doc Henry]

I'll want to add my experience of Kodak Portra which may very well be in b&w (depending on the subject of shooting), especially if you have Silver Efex software. The 3 layers Red Green Blue (RGB) of film give some relief to the picture in color and black and white (grayscale) , versus a single layer for sensor M8/M9 with RGB filters

Best

Henry

[Doc Henry]

As promised....

 

Kodak Portra 400

Leica M7 Apo Summicron 90 Asph

Monopod

Uncropped

 

I would like to add something important:

1- In my experience of 5 years of M8 and M9, the conversion of the digital "color > b&w" is significantly higher for the film

with more relief because the gray scale is more nuanced and richer (more details and information on the film than on the sensor)

2- flower petals are "thicker" and "softer " in film versus digital, with "non-smooth edges" (digital characteristics)

 

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!

 

>SE

 

 

Which you prefer ?

Best

Henry

[A miller]

very nice, Henry. The color is one of the nicest wildlife imges I've seen from you. The color scheme has a gentleness to it, and at the same time very real. the B&W conversion is nice as well, but I think the color is more special.

[XVarior]

As promised....

 

Kodak Portra 400

Leica M7 Apo Summicron 90 Asph

Monopod

Uncropped

 

I would like to add something important:

1- In my experience of 5 years of M8 and M9, the conversion of the digital "color > b&w" is significantly higher for the film

with more relief because the gray scale is more nuanced and richer (more details and information on the film than on the sensor)

2- flower petals are "thicker" and "softer " in film versus digital, with "non-smooth edges" (digital characteristics)

 

[ATTACH]470098[/ATTACH]

 

>SE

 

[ATTACH]470100[/ATTACH]

 

Which you prefer ?

Best

Henry

 

 

This is really amazing. I Adam said, with this comparison there's no way one can prefer B&W over color.

Now I got a question to you 2 Mr. Film tutors ;-)

We all know that film capture reality while digital render it. The difference is as Henry quoted it above, is visible and goes in favor to film of course. This is true if we make a print directly from film in dark room But, is that difference remains after scanning film to make it a digital file? Does a scanned film picture holds its magic against one produced by let's say an M9?

[sblitz]

Yes ...... But, in terms of time and workflow, if you get a digital and really love the picture you can then go to a more expensive route and either have a high end drop scan and/or have someone (or yourself) print the picture from the negative. Scanning doesn't eliminate the negative, it just gives you a very pliable way to look at your photo. In truth, I do very little with my shots from film unless the exposure and/or white balance is way off.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[PATB]

All of these posts about Kodak Portra make me want to take a break from B/W and shoot color in my MP.

 

Quick question: I have 5 rolls of Portra 400 that expired expired May 2013, kept in the fridge (not freezer). Is it OK to shoot them at box speed or should I shoot them at a slower speed to compensate for the fact they are expired?

[Doc Henry]

This is really amazing. I Adam said, with this comparison there's no way one can prefer B&W over color.

Now I got a question to you 2 Mr. Film tutors ;-)

We all know that film capture reality while digital render it. The difference is as Henry quoted it above, is visible and goes in favor to film of course. This is true if we make a print directly from film in dark room But, is that difference remains after scanning film to make it a digital file? Does a scanned film picture holds its magic against one produced by let's say an M9?

To reply to XVarior,

I developed on a brilliant photographic paper Ilford (not inkjet) with my enlarger Focomat this photo below (forgive me if what I post is not the color), the grain is still visible (better than this picture scanned)

This gives a fog atmosphere (water droplets on the face) true as I saw by taking this picture at 7:00 am . This picture is framed with a large margin and hanging on my wall office. My M9 can not give this atmosphere of granular fog but film grain yes ! Also notice the scale of gray shade of film vs digital

 

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!

 

Ilford HP5

Leica M7

Summilux 35 Asph

 

Your comment ?

 

Best

Henry

 

You can see my enlarger posts 26 and 29 :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/345543-my-new-companion-2.html