Upgrading to FILM :-)

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's annotated as Portra rated at 50.

Pete

 

Yes, quite correct, but to late the edit now, so just to clear the confusion it is Ektar.

 

 

Steve

[wattsy]

I'm sure they"ll return them if you ask for them and pay the postage:confused:

Pete

 

I think the idea is that they haven't got to fanny around sending the negs back very often (hence the bit about a year or an inch thick's worth) so I'm not sure they will welcome the idea of sending them back simply on request. If the scans are very good, the missing negs can be considered less of a problem but I'm still not sure about this approach (apart from the possibility of wanting to have even better scans made of any real keepers, there is also the possibility of the company going out of business, etc.).

[Mijo]

I started the same way as the OP, but with an M-E instead of an M9. Last year I added a M6 and a membership to community B&W darkroom. I prefer using the M6 and the whole darkroom process and the only time I use the M-E is when I want color. Lately I've been considering selling the M-E, buying a back up film M body and just having a lab develop my color rolls. The community darkroom has a digital lab so I could scan in my color negatives. I rarely print from the M-E anyway.

[leicaphilia]

You guys apparently have not gotten the memo: Film is dead!

[xalo]

Any one care to comment as to whether there a lot of difference in grain between Portra 160 and 400? Thanks.

 

Actually, developed and scanned in my standard lab (negatif+, Fuji chemistry, I think) I found Portra 160 disappointingly grainy. It might need more light than I thought, but since that experience I stick with Portra 400 or even went back to Fuji 400H — note, that's for the colours, not the grain. I tend to prefer the Fuji in mixed, dim city light like we have it now and for the next couple of months around here...

 

Alexander

[250swb]

It might need more light than I thought,

 

Alexander

 

I think you are right, I rate Portra 160 at 80 or 100 ISO, and the grain is much less evident than at box speed without loosing sharpness.

 

Steve

[A miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi XV - Good move, although I'm a little curious as to why you splurged for the MP when you could have paid a tiny fraction for a wonderful M3 or M4, which is the same build quality.

 

The single best film out there for anything having to do with people is Portra 400. I would go out and stock up on this more than anything.

 

Then there is slide film, the most readily available is the Fuji Provia 100. It is AWESOME film for any kind of shooting. It really blends the best of both worlds from film and digital. The only problem with this film is that the highlights blow VERY easily and so really need to use in those situations in which you can be sure of your exposure. Flowers, landscapes, and portraits in controlled settings all qualify - street shooting most certainly doesn't, unless it is cloudy in a consistent manner and you have a fast lens.

 

Don't bother with portra 160. It doesn't give you anything that Portra 400 doesn't and costs an extra fstop.

 

Cinestill 800 is a special film that is special for tungsten and indoor lighting. It is a must have for anything indoor or outside at night. There is a distributor in t e US as well as Europe. You should try to get your hands on some.

 

Kodak Ektar is also very nice for anything other than people, particularly architecture and landscapes.

Fuji 400H is also quite nice, but its saturation rendition isn't conducive to people as the skin comes out orange.

 

For general purposes, I really don't see the reason to shoot B&W film where the negatives will be digitized. Any color film scan can be processed in B&W (using color channels). There are certainly subtle characteristics of each of the types of B&W, and some of which may not be present in a color film converted. I frankly don't think they are that meaningful in everyday situations, particularly street situations - again assuming that you will digitize your negs. Another caveat is that using color film with the intend to converting to B&W wont' allow the use of colored filters. Having said all of this, if you are inclined to learn the art of developing your own film, B&W is most certainly worthwhile; and Tri-X is the place to start. This can be very fun and rewarding.

 

For street shooting in the daytime, portra 400 is hands down king for color or B&W. Any other film is fun to play with, and should be played with. But my bread and butter is portra 400. I shot 3 rolls just this morning before work and 4 rolls yesterday; and I have negatives for 3 rolls at home waiting to be scanned.

 

What scanner will you be using? This is a critical part of the workflow. I have the nikon coolscan 9000. A very good machine and worth the investment.

 

Looking forward to seeing your results!

 

Best,

Adam

[CalArts 99]

 

The single best film out there for anything having to do with people is Portra 400. I would go out and stock up on this more than anything.

 

Don't bother with portra 160. It doesn't give you anything that Portra 400 doesn't and costs an extra fstop.

 

For street shooting in the daytime, portra 400 is hands down king for color or B&W. Any other film is fun to play with, and should be played with. But my bread and butter is portra 400.

 

While I think it's great to be excited about the film one has personally decided to use (I mean that sincerely), and it's human nature to extol it as the "best" when it happens to work in one's own specific situation, there will still be a difference between certain products (in this case Portra 160 and Portra 400.) I think it's probably worthwhile to understand those differences and then choose between the two products depending on any given situation.

 

Both 160 and 400 are excellent color negative films but they do indeed have different characteristics. Not 'better' or 'worse' but different. And why they are both produced by Kodak along side each other. And why (myself included) use both depending on subject matter and desired output (and in 35mm, 120, and 4x5.) Two different films as part of one's toolbox....

 

Anyway, for anyone who might be interested, the diagram below is directly from Kodak and is a comparison of current color negative films (in red) and also past emulsions (in black.) Note that aside from other characteristics, 160 also has reduced acutance which is on purpose...

 

One can also download the .pdf data sheets here:

160: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e4051/e4051.pdf

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

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!

[A miller]

CalArt99 - You've helped me a lot in the past reagrding film, including leading me onto the CineStill product, so your views are always very valued.

 

Having said this, XV asked for peoples' opinions. I am happy as a clam with the films I regularly use, and I never took the technical tact that you suggested in analyzing the relative characteristics of each film prior to using them. It was all by trial and error. I have tried all of the films that I mentioned in my post. And I have posted numerous examples of all of these films extensively in the photo forum; and XV and I have even discussed them.

 

Sometimes, I find the most helpful input comes from unscientific views from people whom I trust.

[XVarior]

Hi XV - Good move, although I'm a little curious as to why you splurged for the MP when you could have paid a tiny fraction for a wonderful M3 or M4, which is the same build quality.

 

The single best film out there for anything having to do with people is Portra 400. I would go out and stock up on this more than anything.

 

Then there is slide film, the most readily available is the Fuji Provia 100. It is AWESOME film for any kind of shooting. It really blends the best of both worlds from film and digital. The only problem with this film is that the highlights blow VERY easily and so really need to use in those situations in which you can be sure of your exposure. Flowers, landscapes, and portraits in controlled settings all qualify - street shooting most certainly doesn't, unless it is cloudy in a consistent manner and you have a fast lens.

 

Don't bother with portra 160. It doesn't give you anything that Portra 400 doesn't and costs an extra fstop.

 

Cinestill 800 is a special film that is special for tungsten and indoor lighting. It is a must have for anything indoor or outside at night. There is a distributor in t e US as well as Europe. You should try to get your hands on some.

 

Kodak Ektar is also very nice for anything other than people, particularly architecture and landscapes.

Fuji 400H is also quite nice, but its saturation rendition isn't conducive to people as the skin comes out orange.

 

For general purposes, I really don't see the reason to shoot B&W film where the negatives will be digitized. Any color film scan can be processed in B&W (using color channels). There are certainly subtle characteristics of each of the types of B&W, and some of which may not be present in a color film converted. I frankly don't think they are that meaningful in everyday situations, particularly street situations - again assuming that you will digitize your negs. Another caveat is that using color film with the intend to converting to B&W wont' allow the use of colored filters. Having said all of this, if you are inclined to learn the art of developing your own film, B&W is most certainly worthwhile; and Tri-X is the place to start. This can be very fun and rewarding.

 

For street shooting in the daytime, portra 400 is hands down king for color or B&W. Any other film is fun to play with, and should be played with. But my bread and butter is portra 400. I shot 3 rolls just this morning before work and 4 rolls yesterday; and I have negatives for 3 rolls at home waiting to be scanned.

 

What scanner will you be using? This is a critical part of the workflow. I have the nikon coolscan 9000. A very good machine and worth the investment.

 

Looking forward to seeing your results!

 

Best,

Adam

 

 

Hey Adam, what can I say, you're post is like getting a personal tutor :-) thanks a lot for your tips and also all those of the others. Amazing feedback here, never thought a film post will generate such a cascade of inputs.

As per your question regarding why MP, getting a film camera was always in the back of my mind but never pushed to make it happen, then I got 2 opportunities one m6 and one for the MP. The MP came to me, instead of me going to her:-) it's one of those offered you can't reject.

Like you, I do like color too, and I'll be shooting color for sure. B&W for when I'll start developing myself at home. the scanner investment is definitely gonna be one of the best otherwise it will all be in vain. Will look for the Nikon one you mentioned to see if it's available here. Thank you so much again for the tips.

[plasticman]

While I think it's great to be excited about the film one has personally decided to use (I mean that sincerely), and it's human nature to extol it as the "best" when it happens to work in one's own specific situation, there will still be a difference between certain products (in this case Portra 160 and Portra 400.) I think it's probably worthwhile to understand those differences and then choose between the two products depending on any given situation.

 

Both 160 and 400 are excellent color negative films but they do indeed have different characteristics. Not 'better' or 'worse' but different. And why they are both produced by Kodak along side each other. And why (myself included) use both depending on subject matter and desired output (and in 35mm, 120, and 4x5.) Two different films as part of one's toolbox....

These sorts of truly informative posts - genuinely useful without personal preferences presented as objective 'facts' - should be stickies. Thanks again for all the help and information you've shared the last few years.

[leicaphilia]

Before you decide on a scanner, take a look at a PAKON 135. There is a very reputable seller of reconditioned Pakons on Ebay. cheap.

 

These were 20,000$ scanners used by pro labs to scan whole rolls of film. If you ever sent a 35mm roll out for developing and asked that you get scans with your negatives, your negs were probably scanned with a PAKON.

 

It will scan a full 36 exp roll in about a minute. With the bundled software the scans are uniformly nice without tweaks. IIRC, it gives you a 6 MP scan, but I've found them to be quite good for enlargements up to 9x12.

 

The beauty of the Pakon is you have a scan of every negative, quick and easy. After buying one I went back and scanned over 40 years of B&W negs (over 100,000) and was amazed at the hidden gems I found that would never have seen the light of day otherwise.

 

And because of the Pakon, i rarely if ever shoot digital even for those times I need "quick and easy." Develop em, dry em, scan em, voila! Two hours start to finish.

[leicaphilia]

 

For general purposes, I really don't see the reason to shoot B&W film where the negatives will be digitized. Any color film scan can be processed in B&W (using color channels). There are certainly subtle characteristics of each of the types of B&W, and some of which may not be present in a color film converted. I frankly don't think they are that meaningful in everyday situations, particularly street situations - again assuming that you will digitize your negs.

 

Best,

Adam

 

I rarely shoot color film, so i'm probably not as capable of advising you as is Adam, but IMO there is definitely still a reason to shoot B&W film as opposed to color film and then desaturating post production when wanting B&w output.

 

First reason would be grain: grain characteristics are much more pronounced using classic B&W (hp5, Tri-X, Pan- F etc) than e-6 or c41 color film, (isn't that why we shoot B&W, for the magnificent grain?!?) ...and tonality is usually better with better control of the highlights when using B&W as your native medium.

 

Of course, a lot of this is splitting hairs. If you're a street shooter not needing oodles of mid-tones, or like the high contrast look a lot of street photogs use, then the differences are basically irrelevant, and you can add grain in post. But hell, if you're doing half the work in post, what really is the point of shooting film. Then just shoot RAW digital and do everything in post!

[A miller]

Leicaphillia - points all well taken. It's the reason why some people have both an M9 and and MM:cool:

[CalArts 99]

CalArt99 - You've helped me a lot in the past reagrding film, including leading me onto the CineStill product, so your views are always very valued.

 

Having said this, XV asked for peoples' opinions. I am happy as a clam with the films I regularly use, and I never took the technical tact that you suggested in analyzing the relative characteristics of each film prior to using them. It was all by trial and error. I have tried all of the films that I mentioned in my post. And I have posted numerous examples of all of these films extensively in the photo forum; and XV and I have even discussed them.

 

Sometimes, I find the most helpful input comes from unscientific views from people whom I trust.

 

Hi Adam,

I do apologize if you took anything I said personally in any way. It wasn't my intention to question your own choices and I tried to make an effort to explain that. Your input of your own personal film use is very important to hear.

 

But when I read "Don't bother with Portra 160. It doesn't give you anything that Portra 400 doesn't and costs an extra fstop," I was hoping to try to clarify that there is a difference between these two films, and that it might be important to point that out to those asking about current films available. I guess I'm just not so sure it's that productive to directly say do not bother using another film option only because one might not like using it themselves and/or can't see any real differences between them. And I understand that you may have a dialogue going on behind the scenes with XVarior, but we can't forget that these posts enter forever into the cyberworld of Google Search and are going to be read by lots of different people seeking info on using film.

 

I posted some technical information directly from the manufacturer only so that one might see how the maker of the film describes the characteristics of both these particular films, rather than mentioning my own thoughts about them. It's simply information that one can store in the back of their head to help understand why Kodak manufactures Portra in three different flavors (and which ISO is only one of the differences.) Kodak used to have many more flavors of pro color negative film, each with specific characteristics. I've used them all over the decades and while some differences may have been subtle, they were there. Like most everyone, I picked them based on my own empirical trial and error. But reading the supplied tech sheets was helpful in understanding what the manufacturer was attempting with their films. People try out lenses on their own but might also read the manufacturer's MTF data, too.

 

fwiw, the regional Kodak rep (the one who checks in on the program) tells me that the biggest sellers in the Portra line (in this region) is 160 and 800 in 120 roll film format. For whatever the purpose, it's those flavors of Portra that seem to be doing the job for those particular users. I use both 160 and 400 (in 35 and in sheet sizes) for my own reasons. But nonetheless, Portra sells well in all its flavors and all format sizes.

[A miller]

HI CalArts - Thanks for your post. No offense taken by me whatsoever. I just think that this forum is a place where people can convey technical and objective information and also most certainly can express their own opinions on an informal basis without having to worry about anyone who thinking that such statements - along the lines of "portra 400 is the best" or "don't bother using portra 160" - are intended to be statements of objective facts covering all type of photography situations surely represents a tiny subset of abnormal. Anyone can readily determine that I do most of my shooting on the street in NYC.

 

Sure, I could have written my response like a disclosure in a prospectus for a securities offering, with caveats out the wazoo. I do this for my day job. But XV clearly asked for our personal views on this subject.

 

If you asked me for a recommendation for the best pizza in NYC, I would tell you that, hands down, it is Joe's Pizza on 6th avenue, and that nothing else compares. I wouldn't provide an extensive analysis regarding which of the various top pizzerias use which kind of cheese and flour, and what Zagat's or Yelp has to say about each pizzeria, etc. Other people are perfectly free to provide this type of technical and objective response.

 

Like everything, one can't always judge a book by its cover and things often are one thing on paper and another in action. I personally find that certain of the characteristics on your chart don't seem to reflect reality, such as the grain and sharpness differences b/n the 160 and 400.

 

On the topic of converting portra 400 into B&W and the differences b/n the results and the results of using B&W film, I am attaching a link to some photos that I took in the streets of NYC during a large snowstorm about a year ago.

 

These results got me started think about whether, in the context of:

-gritty street shooting

-in which the film will be processed by a lab

-and then digitized and then digitally dodged and burned

there really is a lot of upside to using B&W film.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/street-photography/318006-film-shots-nyc-blizzard-yesterday-jan.html

[XVarior]

HI CalArts - Thanks for your post. No offense taken by me whatsoever. I just think that this forum is a place where people can convey technical and objective information and also most certainly can express their own opinions on an informal basis without having to worry about anyone who thinking that such statements - along the lines of "portra 400 is the best" or "don't bother using portra 160" - are intended to be statements of objective facts covering all type of photography situations surely represents a tiny subset of abnormal. Anyone can readily determine that I do most of my shooting on the street in NYC.

 

 

 

Sure, I could have written my response like a disclosure in a prospectus for a securities offering, with caveats out the wazoo. I do this for my day job. But XV clearly asked for our personal views on this subject.

 

 

 

If you asked me for a recommendation for the best pizza in NYC, I would tell you that, hands down, it is Joe's Pizza on 6th avenue, and that nothing else compares. I wouldn't provide an extensive analysis regarding which of the various top pizzerias use which kind of cheese and flour, and what Zagat's or Yelp has to say about each pizzeria, etc. Other people are perfectly free to provide this type of technical and objective response.

 

 

 

Like everything, one can't always judge a book by its cover and things often are one thing on paper and another in action. I personally find that certain of the characteristics on your chart don't seem to reflect reality, such as the grain and sharpness differences b/n the 160 and 400.

 

 

 

On the topic of converting portra 400 into B&W and the differences b/n the results and the results of using B&W film, I am attaching a link to some photos that I took in the streets of NYC during a large snowstorm about a year ago.

 

 

 

These results got me started think about whether, in the context of:

 

-gritty street shooting

 

-in which the film will be processed by a lab

 

-and then digitized and then digitally dodged and burned

 

there really is a lot of upside to using B&W film.

 

 

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/street-photography/318006-film-shots-nyc-blizzard-yesterday-jan.html

 

 

I remember seeing that post somewhere else Adam, I was amazed. I just discovered that they were shot color!

[XVarior]

Thank you CalArt for your input here and for taking the time as other members have done to help me out. You film guys are more generous than digital shooters ;-)

I haven't popped my first roll of film yet, I had a photoshoot yesterday at a very nice old theater, lighting was exquisite down there, M9 shined like a star, I really wished I had the courage to opt for film but maybe better not to risk things at first.

Thanks again

[leicaphilia]

 

If you asked me for a recommendation for the best pizza in NYC, I would tell you that, hands down, it is Joe's Pizza on 6th avenue, and that nothing else compares.

 

Wrong again, Adam. Its John's pizza on Bleecker.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sblitz]

I do find subtle differences between portra 160 and 400, although this time of year given that I have a day job and that means being one of the mole people, entering and leaving work in the dark, 400 is my go to film. Back in the day, i only shot 400 film and could never understand why my father preferred Kodachrome 25. As the B&W question, there is a difference in using BW vs color and turning into BW and it is in the grain and the silver (TriX seems to have more than Ilford HP5+) and a look that only comes from bw film in the first place. These are, however, arguments on the margin, as I have turned many a color film and digital picture into bw with great effect especially when the color sliders can brighten a shot better than exposure.

 

Wonderful thing about film is that one can start with a different look from the camera as opposed to after the shot in the computer. Makes a difference, and it is fun besides (isn't that what a hobby is supposed to be?).