Expose at box speed? - Portra 400, and Candido 800?

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Scanners can somewhat pre-expose the film, resulting in a lower base ISO. When travelling by plane, the cure is to expose at least a stop fatter by lowering the meter's ISO by a stop. This isn't the perfect remedy, but the results will be less grainy and overall better than when exposed as usual.

I think if you have to deal with the new CT scanners (which are increasingly common), the only cure is to ask for a hand search - some of the damage in the test linked above can't be fully mitigated, and you might get worse than this depending on the machine and its settings at the airport. Or buy film and get it processed at your destination if you can. Portra at least is relatively easy to get hold of (often easier than 400 ISO consumer emulsions in the UK, perhaps because the high price discourages stockpiling).

[Jon Warwick]

as the OP, i meant to get back earlier, but i did indeed shoot Portra 400 at ISO 200, and was also cautious in my metering to ensure i wasn't underexposing (ie, erring on the side of over-exposure if in doubt). I found the scanned results are really pleasing ....very easy to scan cleanly on my Plustek, and very little grain compared to my previous experience with C41.  So very happy with this slower-than-box-speed technique for Portra 400. 

As a long-term user of E6 across most film sizes, it's interesting for me to also re-explore the differences between C41 and E6. In some ways, I quite like the "bite" of C41 grain vs E6's color dyes. Also interesting to enjoy using my M7 again (it felt so "mechanical" ....despite the M7 being the most electronic of the analogue Ms, it's far less electronic than my M11!), and in addition remind myself of the aesthetic of film vs Bayer sensor cameras.

I'd also like to explore more some more precise C41 films in terms of grain and sharpness ....so I'm mulling Portra 160 and Ektar 100 .....any thoughts there in terms of whether it is equally useful to shoot them at slower-than-box-speed (ie, it is also good to assume ISO 80 for Portra 160, and ISO 50 for Ektar)??

Thanks again

Edited April 19, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[TomB_tx]

Jon,

Thanks for adding your experience with Portra at 200. I've done that recently with my M7, but that was with Portra out-dated by 10 years so colors were a bit off.

I like Ektar for its colors, contrast, and fine grain, but it seems to me to have less exposure latitude, so I'm not sure how it would react. I'll give it a try, as this is my season for testing out various films again. Right now I have 4 M bodies with different films (including the new Harman Phoenix) to compare colors and IQ on the same scene. Takes a bit of juggling to carry and repeat shots!. I'll load Extar at 50 in my R7 and add it to the bunch.

 

[sometimesmaybe]

20 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

I'd also like to explore more some more precise C41 films in terms of grain and sharpness ....so I'm mulling Portra 160 and Ektar 100

here are 2 super fine grain film. both shot at box speed (only because i had my incident meter with me, otherwise i'd overexpose by 1 stop for c41 film

portra 160

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!

Aerocolor IV 100 (re-spoolled aerial surveillance film) 

portra 160 looks good out of the box, while Aerocolor needs the colours tweaked (it's clear coat and confuses the auto scanners). Aerocolor is worthwhile if you dont mind doing some colour grading and if you can get it for much cheaper than portra.

if you want a general guide have a look at

https://thedarkroom.com/film-index/

 

 

[Mute-on]

23 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

as the OP, i meant to get back earlier, but i did indeed shoot Portra 400 at ISO 200, and was also cautious in my metering to ensure i wasn't underexposing (ie, erring on the side of over-exposure if in doubt). I found the scanned results are really pleasing ....very easy to scan cleanly on my Plustek, and very little grain compared to my previous experience with C41.  So very happy with this slower-than-box-speed technique for Portra 400. 

As a long-term user of E6 across most film sizes, it's interesting for me to also re-explore the differences between C41 and E6. In some ways, I quite like the "bite" of C41 grain vs E6's color dyes. Also interesting to enjoy using my M7 again (it felt so "mechanical" ....despite the M7 being the most electronic of the analogue Ms, it's far less electronic than my M11!), and in addition remind myself of the aesthetic of film vs Bayer sensor cameras.

I'd also like to explore more some more precise C41 films in terms of grain and sharpness ....so I'm mulling Portra 160 and Ektar 100 .....any thoughts there in terms of whether it is equally useful to shoot them at slower-than-box-speed (ie, it is also good to assume ISO 80 for Portra 160, and ISO 50 for Ektar)??

Thanks again

Ektar is said to be best exposed at box speed, and preferably in good light. With this in mind I have always shot Ektar at 100, and avoided using it in very overcast, grey conditions. I’ve not been disappointed.

On the other hand Portra 160 can be treated similarly to Portra 400 (somewhat predictably). I think I rated it at 100 when I used it, but found it was too pastel for my taste regardless. It is certainly a different look from Portra 400, so worth trying. 

[Mr.Prime]

I'm still trying to find the sweet spot but for a negative film I find Portra does not have much exposure latitude for a pleasing result. As mentioned above, over exposure shifts to the pastel and skin tones are more 'alabaster' for white skinned people whereas under exposure increases grain too much for my liking. That means where there's bright and shadow in the scene it's not so easy to find a compromise with the exposure. Not enough experience with Portra yet, but well-lit scenes in daylight seem to work best and with some over-exposure metered-in (e.g. EI 125).

Edited May 2, 2024 by Mr.Prime

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In the old day when it is hard to decide to meter point, center or multi points, and exposure bracketing is expensive, I followed the practice of over-exposure negatives and under exposure slides. But now with digital, I use digital camera for pre-exposure to decide the best exposure. With such, I find expose to the box value works best on film. 

[hansvons]

On 5/2/2024 at 10:44 PM, Mr.Prime said:

I'm still trying to find the sweet spot but for a negative film I find Portra does not have much exposure latitude for a pleasing result.

I don’t know how you evaluate your negatives. If you were doing that with the help of a densitometer classically in a dark room, you‘ll find that Portra 160/400 have a very high latitude, in the colour film realm only beaten by the latest Vision3 stocks if at all, as they share the technology but utilize different dev processes. 
 

if you are looking at scans, it’s all about the scanner, the process, the people behind it. Hard to evaluate nuances of the negative. 

Edited May 5, 2024 by hansvons

[stray cat]

As a rule of thumb, I generally overexpose any colour negative film except Ektar 100. It all depends on the flavour of the look you are requiring of course.

This gives a very good idea of the latitude of two colour negative film stocks. Sadly, only one of them is still available but a lot may be deduced from the consistency of the results between the two. There is a salient lesson here about the inadvisability of underexposing colour negative film: https://carmencitafilmlab.com/blog/how-exposure-affects-film/

[Mr.Prime]

On 5/5/2024 at 2:10 AM, hansvons said:

I don’t know how you evaluate your negatives. If you were doing that with the help of a densitometer classically in a dark room, you‘ll find that Portra 160/400 have a very high latitude, in the colour film realm only beaten by the latest Vision3 stocks if at all, as they share the technology but utilize different dev processes. 
 

if you are looking at scans, it’s all about the scanner, the process, the people behind it. Hard to evaluate nuances of the negative. 

I am doing it subjectively from scans. I trust the formally measured latitude is correct and that other people will see things differently. What I reported is my experience with the film and that will change over time as I discover how to improve the final results. Nevertheless, I find that the exposure latitude is limited because it impacts grain and the colours not because it can't handle the range of light. So in reality, for me, the exposure is quite critical and part of the creative process.

Colour negative film is a new thing for me, turning out more tricky than I had expected; my past was all based on colour slides.

I assume that my experience is useful to share, in the case there are others who will be judging it from scans. I've read on the internet observations from a few different photographers that they didn't get the results they had expected when using this film because they had previously read reviews about the film which did not match with their results. I've just ordered some more Portra  for use when I'm in Italy and Scotland next month. I'm not yet sure what my approach should be. In Italy I've always found the lighting to be reliable, the subject matter being the tones of the buildings and landscape in and around Florence where I don't want the more saturated look of Ektar. In Scotland I'm not yet sure of my strategy, but I don't want pastel colours there so I may expose close to box speed. Any advice ?

Edited May 7, 2024 by Mr.Prime

[sometimesmaybe]

7 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I don't want pastel colours there so I may expose close to box speed

are you doing any editing in post? if so i'd still recommend shooting the images on the over exposed side, as you can easily re-adjust the exposure, highlights / shadows in lightroom etc 

[Mute-on]

9 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I am doing it subjectively from scans. I trust the formally measured latitude is correct and that other people will see things differently. What I reported is my experience with the film and that will change over time as I discover how to improve the final results. Nevertheless, I find that the exposure latitude is limited because it impacts grain and the colours not because it can't handle the range of light. So in reality, for me, the exposure is quite critical and part of the creative process.

Colour negative film is a new thing for me, turning out more tricky than I had expected; my past was all based on colour slides.

I assume that my experience is useful to share, in the case there are others who will be judging it from scans. I've read on the internet observations from a few different photographers that they didn't get the results they had expected when using this film because they had previously read reviews about the film which did not match with their results. I've just ordered some more Portra  for use when I'm in Italy and Scotland next month. I'm not yet sure what my approach should be. In Italy I've always found the lighting to be reliable, the subject matter being the tones of the buildings and landscape in and around Florence where I don't want the more saturated look of Ektar. In Scotland I'm not yet sure of my strategy, but I don't want pastel colours there so I may expose close to box speed. Any advice ?

If your priority is to avoid pastel colours, which coincides with my own preferences, from my experience I would suggest the following:

1. Avoid Portra 160. It tends to produce very pastel, soft colours. Even more so if overexposed. I’m sure for dreamy portraits it is beautiful.

2. If you are still inclined to use Portra, which is, after all, a portrait film, not a landscape emulsion, expose properly at box speed. The key is thoughtful metering that takes into account the metering pattern you are using, and how you want the scene to be exposed. Systematically overexposing by lowering ISO as a catch all for compromised/uninformed metering is unnecessary. Systematic overexposure will produce even more pastel, less saturated colours. I have never considered Portra a saturated film, unsurprisingly since it is for portraits … 

3. Shoot Ektar. It is not some kind of hysterically oversaturated, gaudy emulsion. On the contrary, in good light (just not very grey), and properly exposed, it produced nicely saturated, true to life colours, particularly for buildings and landscapes. Unless your priority is environmental portraiture, it is excellent. In any event, I’ve never noticed skin tones to be unappealing. Ektar is said to be the closest to colour slides in a negative emulsion. 

[hansvons]

On 5/5/2024 at 8:50 AM, stray cat said:

This gives a very good idea of the latitude of two colour negative film stocks. Sadly, only one of them is still available but a lot may be deduced from the consistency of the results between the two. There is a salient lesson here about the inadvisability of underexposing colour negative film: https://carmencitafilmlab.com/blog/how-exposure-affects-film/

Excellent test. Corroborates my/everybody's experience in filmmaking when shooting cine stock and having it scanned in telecine. Why should still photography be different? If anything, considerable overexposure increases saturation. I frequently severely overexposed shots in my rushes as the assistant (and I) forgot sometimes to close the aperture to working aperture after checking focus. Many of those shots where usable from an exposure standpoint. 

 

14 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

So in reality, for me, the exposure is quite critical and part of the creative process.

 

It is, but in my experience mostly in the underexposure direction.

We (the camera department in a film crew) never took box speed at face value, but selected for the light meter 1/2 stop lower EI (exposure index). The game was not to lose much of the film’s speed to save on light power but still get a dense enough negative for brilliant colours and delicate skin tones. 

But when shooting in plenty of available light, eg in streets with those nice sunny and shadow spots in a backlit scene under trees, one or one and a half stops lower EI was the norm (you want to give these deep shadows sufficient light).

Today I still shoot 90% of my stuff on film with the same stocks (Vision 3) but with my Leica M6 and M4P. I don't carry my trusty Seconic Egg around anymore; in a documentary style of shooting I can't leverage it's virtues as an incident meter. So, I rely on my M6 light meter or the phone app. Both deliver repeatable and fairly accurate results if you know where the pitfalls are. That's mostly a bright sky or bright grounds like sunny beaches which bring down exposure easily by at least 1 stop. As negative film hates underexposure you'll get quickly in unfavourable territory. So, in doubt always opening up the aperture by a stop or more is good practice. Most certainly you’ll be ending up at the negative's sweet spot.

And lastly, when shooting film, the lens’s vignetting plays a crucial role in exposure, as in many cases the darker parts in an image’s corners will be underexposed by a stop or more at box speed. You’ll be ending up with colour-shifted, grainy corners. The only remedy is to add a darkening vignette in the editing process. Better to factor in vignetting when thinking about exposure settings.

15 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I've read on the internet observations from a few different photographers that they didn't get the results they had expected when using this film because they had previously read reviews about the film which did not match with their results.

Assuming you have a fairly dense negative, the remaining bottleneck is the scanning and colour correction process. As you wrote, this is pretty tricky. Why? Negative film has an orange mask. When you convert the film, you get a bluish image. By getting the neutrals neutral (proper black and white point), the image will show its true colours. This must be done individually for each image. There is no one-setting-fits-a-roll approach. Rarely, labs do that and you’ll be ending up with funky colours that are sold as "the film look".

BTW, the internet is filled with questionable advice, incompetent findings and tons of copy/paste knowledge that doesn't get more factual over time. This is particularly true for alleged "properties" of particular film stocks.

And lastly, when you get routinely healthy dense negatives and your scanning process is robust and sound and delivers repeatable and accurate results, then it’s time to select particular film stocks for intended purposes because your taste and artistic intents are the ultimate measure. Until then I’d stick to one particular stock and hone my skills and workflow. 

 

[Mr.Prime]

hansvons - If I could score more than one 'like' for your post.....

 

p.s. I had the pleasure to visit and work with the Telecine folk many years ago (we produced the image sensors).

Edited May 8, 2024 by Mr.Prime

[hansvons]

6 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

 

p.s. I had the pleasure to visit and work with the Telecine folk many years ago (we produced the image sensors).

Cool!!!