Pastels with Portra Question

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Everyone 

I would be surprised if this hasn't been discussed a lot, so if there's another thread please let me know (sorry I couldn't find one).  I've been experimenting with Portra 400 quite a lot recently as initially I wasn't getting the tones that I expected from it.  Yes I am one of those guys that buys Portra to look like the million of other photographers out there that wished they lived in California or Miami and photographed low-riders and palm trees all day with beautiful pastel colours.  Or a basketball hoop, for example

But seriously I do really like the pastel low contrast look. Initially, rating the stock at 400 and exposing 'properly' I just wasn't getting it the colours were far too vibrant and saturated for my tastes.

So lately I've been rating at 160 and then over-exposing another half or exposing for the shadows.   And the scans from the lab are looking much more like I was after.  

However, today I went to pick up some negs and the guy told me that the negs being produced are in his opinion too dense, and have too much grain also as a result of too much over-exposure.   I didn't realise that in achieving my desired 'look' I was also exposing a pretty poor quality negative.

Is there a better way to get to the same result ?   eg rating properly at 400, exposing a 'good' negative and then I could run some low contrast scans perhaps.  I've recently bought a scanner so I have a little more control at the scanning end now than relying on the Labs preferences. 

Or perhaps there is a compromise and I've just been pushing this too much (I'm probably 1.5-2 stops over in most cases). 

Curious for anyone more experienced to share some knowledge as I thought I had cracked this finally but didn't think about the impact on the neg unfortunately 

Thanks in advance  

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by grahamc

[250swb]

Are you and the lab working from the same script? If they are scanning your film it could well be they (or the software) are compensating for your over exposure and trying to make the image look like normally exposed Portra 400. So they introduce dark shadows, and then you go for even more over exposure to compensate, and so on. I like the sunny open shadow over exposed look, although in the UK there are few times it can be exploited, but 200 ISO works for me, but I do my own processing and my own scanning. The processing side won't make any difference as that is set in stone, but from the scan you need to know what you want and the lab may not understand. 

[Advertisement]

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

[stray cat]

Hi Graham, for the pastel look I'd use Portra 160 and overexpose that by a stop. It's a lower contrast emulsion anyway and giving it the extra stop or two certainly won't hurt. Wedding and portrait photographers have been doing that since when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

The lab guy's opinion is just that - an opinion. Did he stop to ask you what you were after?

Sorry - cross-posted with Steve's excellent response.

Edited December 6, 2021 by stray cat

[frame-it]

2 hours ago, grahamc said:

But seriously I do really like the pastel low contrast look. Initially, rating the stock at 400 and exposing 'properly' I just wasn't getting it the colours were far too vibrant and saturated for my tastes.

 

 

like this one ?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CV0Tzo0o0MF/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

[grahamc]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Are you and the lab working from the same script? If they are scanning your film it could well be they (or the software) are compensating for your over exposure and trying to make the image look like normally exposed Portra 400. So they introduce dark shadows, and then you go for even more over exposure to compensate, and so on. I like the sunny open shadow over exposed look, although in the UK there are few times it can be exploited, but 200 ISO works for me, but I do my own processing and my own scanning. The processing side won't make any difference as that is set in stone, but from the scan you need to know what you want and the lab may not understand. 

Yes true @250swb thanks .  For a roll I've just dropped in I've asked for a flat scan, and will see how that comes back .  The piece that confused me was when they said the over-exposure was producing 'bad' negs.  So from here I think I'll rate at 200 and expose properly then request a low contrast scan.   I think the way I was exposing especially after already rating at 160, was pushing my luck too far, but I hadn't even considered the impact on the negative until they mentioned it, I was just more concerned with getting the look I wanted  .  I will reign in the over-exposure and see how this flatter scan option works out - aswell as showing him some examples.   

 

Cheers again 

Edited December 6, 2021 by grahamc

[grahamc]

1 hour ago, stray cat said:

Hi Graham, for the pastel look I'd use Portra 160 and overexpose that by a stop. It's a lower contrast emulsion anyway and giving it the extra stop or two certainly won't hurt. Wedding and portrait photographers have been doing that since when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

The lab guy's opinion is just that - an opinion. Did he stop to ask you what you were after?

Sorry - cross-posted with Steve's excellent response.

Thanks Phil.  No he did not .    To be honest the only part of it that bothered me was when he said they weren't 'good' negatives.  So being relatively new to film I wondered can I still get this look I'm after (which ultimately is over-exposed) aswell as having a 'good' neg on file.  Or does it even matter ?   I kind of took on board his feedback and he got my attention when he said grain will increase with a 'bad' neg. 

I wondered if there is a compromise to be had here while still exposing a quality negative.  but if you say 2 stops is not a problem then that changes things a bit also 

In the meantime I will also try what I've responded above to Steve.    

(Funnily enough the scans I got back were the closest I got to what I was wanting so far, then when I picked up the negs I got that feedback .  if that's just a consequence of getting this kind of look then that's fine by me.  But if there's a 'better' way then that's even better.  I didn't know enough about the process to know if my way was just hacking it a bit)

Cheers again 

Edited December 6, 2021 by grahamc

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, frame-it said:

like this one ?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CV0Tzo0o0MF/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Yes !  A good reference for the colours that I don't get, that's for sure.    I get closer with P160 as @stray cat has pointed out above though 

I love / prefer 160 but 400 being so versatile I keep coming back to it 

Edited December 6, 2021 by grahamc

[grahamc]

I'm interested to see how these 'flat' option scans come out.  He was kind enough to suggest he runs 'standard' and 'flat' scans for me for this current roll.

I wasn't aware it was an option before now  

Edited December 6, 2021 by grahamc

[250swb]

35 minutes ago, grahamc said:

I'm interested to see how these 'flat' option scans come out.  He was kind enough to suggest he runs 'standard' and 'flat' scans for me for this current roll.

I wasn't aware it was an option before now  

It does at least suggest the lab has been trying to over-compensate by putting in an artificial level of contrast and your negatives are most probably perfect for what you need. 

[frame-it]

43 minutes ago, grahamc said:

I'm interested to see how these 'flat' option scans come out.  He was kind enough to suggest he runs 'standard' and 'flat' scans for me for this current roll.

I wasn't aware it was an option before now  

get your own plustek scanner.

[grahamc]

9 minutes ago, 250swb said:

It does at least suggest the lab has been trying to over-compensate by putting in an artificial level of contrast and your negatives are most probably perfect for what you need. 

Thanks, I agree and hope so - encouraging that these 'bad' negs he is talking about aren't really that bad in our world, either 

[grahamc]

5 minutes ago, frame-it said:

get your own plustek scanner.

Thanks @frame-it.  Funnily enough I bought one last month and waiting until the Xmas break to crack it open as I'll have time then to get it started.  I agree I think messing around with this will solve a lot of these questions 

[adan]

7 hours ago, grahamc said:

However, today I went to pick up some negs and the guy told me that the negs being produced are in his opinion too dense, and have too much grain also as a result of too much over-exposure.   I didn't realise that in achieving my desired 'look' I was also exposing a pretty poor quality negative.

A bit of a nonsense, in my experience as a newspaper graphics editor, and manager of photographers using C41 films, as well as a photographer myself using C41 films.

Chromogenic negative films (where the image is created by dye clouds formed around developed silver particles - which silver is then bleached away) get substantially less grainy with overexposure.

The dye clouds overlap and blend together the larger they get (with additional exposure), thus smoothing away the grain. You want obvious grain from a C41 film, you underexpose, which leaves gaps between the dye clouds, making each "blob" of dye more distinct. Especially in shadows, where the dye clouds are sparse anyway.

What may happen with overexposed C41/chromogenic film is an increasing loss in acutance or resolution (not increased grain), as the soft, "puffy" dye clouds expand beyond the size of the details or edges being rendered (imagine trying to paint a finely-detailed picture with cotton balls instead of brushes ).

Of course, if one "double-dips" - overexposes 1.33 stops by shooting 400 at 160 - and then overexposes even more on top of that - one can really start fuzzing the fine details. You'll likely get halation and diffusion of the light in the gelatin, as well as larger softer-edged dye clouds.

And possibly create so much "temporary silver" that it can't all be bleached away in the normal bleaching time, leaving some opaque "silver speckles" in the image (which will look grainy).

One stop extra exposure in total (shoot 400 at 200, with no additional compensation) is likely the sweet spot for grain vs. acutance. Box speed for a bit more acutance - but also more grain.

Same applies to B&W dye/C41 films like Ilford XP2.

[Ornello]

See my Flikr page. Many were taken on Portra 400, but some on Fuji:

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!

 

[grahamc]

On 12/7/2021 at 2:44 AM, adan said:

A bit of a nonsense, in my experience as a newspaper graphics editor, and manager of photographers using C41 films, as well as a photographer myself using C41 films.

Chromogenic negative films (where the image is created by dye clouds formed around developed silver particles - which silver is then bleached away) get substantially less grainy with overexposure.

The dye clouds overlap and blend together the larger they get (with additional exposure), thus smoothing away the grain. You want obvious grain from a C41 film, you underexpose, which leaves gaps between the dye clouds, making each "blob" of dye more distinct. Especially in shadows, where the dye clouds are sparse anyway.

What may happen with overexposed C41/chromogenic film is an increasing loss in acutance or resolution (not increased grain), as the soft, "puffy" dye clouds expand beyond the size of the details or edges being rendered (imagine trying to paint a finely-detailed picture with cotton balls instead of brushes ).

Of course, if one "double-dips" - overexposes 1.33 stops by shooting 400 at 160 - and then overexposes even more on top of that - one can really start fuzzing the fine details. You'll likely get halation and diffusion of the light in the gelatin, as well as larger softer-edged dye clouds.

And possibly create so much "temporary silver" that it can't all be bleached away in the normal bleaching time, leaving some opaque "silver speckles" in the image (which will look grainy).

One stop extra exposure in total (shoot 400 at 200, with no additional compensation) is likely the sweet spot for grain vs. acutance. Box speed for a bit more acutance - but also more grain.

Same applies to B&W dye/C41 films like Ilford XP2.

Thanks so much Adan, and apologies as I’ve only just checked back into this area of the forum and seen your very helpful response. 
 

This is great to know and I appreciate the insight.  All makes sense.  I think I’ve been pushing my luck a little bit at 160 rating then metering 0.5 ish over.   Let’s assume with metering errors it could be as much as 2 stops + over. 

I reading your feedback and that of others here I think the new plan is to rate at 200 and then request a flat scan, and I have also just purchase a plustek which will come in handy for some home experiment. 
 

I think this will achieve similar tones to where I got to before, but with overall a better quality result. I can appreciate what you are saying about fuzzing the details and believe that’s partly what the lab was referring too .

Thanks again 

[stray cat]

Graham, another thought. You might find this little blog post interesting (I know I did!):

https://carmencitafilmlab.com/blog/how-exposure-affects-film/

 

[Mute-on]

As @stray cat said, use Portra 160 for a softer pastel look. I rate it at 100 to get more pop, but I would try box speed and careful exposure to get a base line to work from.

Portra 400 doesn’t do pastels with the same soft contrast as 160. For everything else, it’s hard to beat. 
 

Enjoy!

[Ornello]

On 12/8/2021 at 3:37 AM, Mute-on said:

As @stray cat said, use Portra 160 for a softer pastel look. I rate it at 100 to get more pop, but I would try box speed and careful exposure to get a base line to work from.

Portra 400 doesn’t do pastels with the same soft contrast as 160. For everything else, it’s hard to beat. 
 

Enjoy!

I use the 400 most, but I don't think the color rendition is different between them.

[giannis]

On 12/6/2021 at 10:25 AM, grahamc said:

The piece that confused me was when they said the over-exposure was producing 'bad' negs.

That's not the case unless horribly overexposed.

 

But you have to ask yourself the question: bad negs for what? For printing with an enlarger? For scanning? For looking at on the light table? If you get the result you want with the least amount of fuss, then it's not a "bad" neg imo, the opposite. While it's true that for best performance you need a flat - dense but not overly so - negative, this holds when you control the whole workflow, from camera to prints/scans. If you don't, and you discovered that a slightly "not optimal" negative gives the best end result in your workflow (which includes parts you don't control, like scanning), then I don't see why you'd shoot in any other way. Also, mind you that one of the "flaws" of overexposure that formally makes for a non optimal neg, is washed out colours, which for your style it's something you actually want.

 

I'd say unless you get something that looks bad *to you*, like too much grain or too washed of a colour, keep shooting like now and get the results you like.

That said, I'm sure you be much happier in every aspect if you scaned the negs yourself, and you'd be able to produce the pastel colours even with 1 stop of overexposure, or 2 at most (and not 3 that you seem to be doing now).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[grahamc]

Thanks for the replies here @stray cat, @Mute-on.. I lost track of this thread as I've been busy and just checked back in.

I'm looking forward to taking control of the scanning process, and also checking out the blog you have mentioned Stray Cat 

@giannis this is a really helpful perspective thanks - It's true, as long as I am getting what I need from that particular lab then you are right by default that's quite a 'good' neg isn't it   I do take on board what the guy is saying though and as you have mentioned in your final sentence once I take more control over the scanning process I think it will be far smarter to expose more correctly.  Then, everything is nice...

I agree with others also  that 160 makes me much closer to my goal from the outset than 400. 

I just wanted to mention also that I get closer results to what I'm trying to achieve from this lab than I did my lat lab (with same exposure / metering techniques).  meaning that I can definitely see the difference the scanning preferences make so it will be great to play around with that over Xmas .   I've had a Plustek sitting here for 6 weeks with no time to crack it open .  Since Sydney came out of lockdown it's been go go go for everyone 

Cheers again