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 by Jon Warwick

[Advertisement]

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

[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.