Portra 400 blah

[brbo]

How did this become about my Ektar work?

Well, when was it not? Weren't you the one looking for a faster than EKTAR film. The general response (from people that use it) was that Portra is a very good film with certain characteristics that make it an exceptional portrait film. You claim the opposite. Showing us a RA-4 portrait print from Ektar surely wouldn't hurt your case. Or would it?!

But I understand that some people don't like to share their pictures, can you at least link to those horrible RA-4 Portra prints you are talking about. Thanks!

 

[DREW WILEY]

How do we dumb this down to the lowest common denominator that everyone agrees on? How about this - if your career is taking High School year book portraits of kids with a lot of red zits, then your income might significantly suffer from using Ektar. Try Portra 160.

 

[Samuel Dilworth]

Before Portra 400 became the art photographer’s default choice for colour work it was a portrait film. Clue’s in the name. The relatively low contrast and saturation flatter the human face.

I think it became so popular for landscapes, the skateboarders Matt mentioned, street, documentary, etc., because it looks radically different from digital or indeed reality. It’s a reaction to a decade of pushing the saturation slider to the right, and yet it’s not realistic either but pretty.

Ektar is a chrome replacement and I don’t mean Astia.

 

[Wayne]

Well, when was it not? Weren't you the one looking for a faster than EKTAR film. The general response (from people that use it) was that Portra is a very good film with certain characteristics that make it an exceptional portrait film. You claim the opposite. Showing us a RA-4 portrait print from Ektar surely wouldn't hurt your case. Or would it?!
!

Easy there. It was never about Ektar, I never wanted Ektar 400, and "my case" is merely having a subjective opinion about another film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ektar is not really a chrome replacement but a parallel option allowing distinctly more exposure wiggle room than even Astia, but distinctly less than traditional portrait neg films like Portra. I took a couple of 4x5 shots today with Ektar which would have come out quite different on any chrome film due to the distinction in contrast range. But functionally, it has indeed become my replacement for the kind of work I previously did with chrome film. The loss of Cibachrome forced my hand. This has nothing to do with the loudness of color, one kind of film relative to another. I can achieve very subtle coloration with any of these options if I wish, even Cibachrome previously, now Ektar and RA4 prints. But I've never been one for hue as pureed mush like was done with Vericolor in the 70's. Certain people did that extremely well, but it's not an avenue I personally ever want to take. Today's Fauxtoshop obsession with jam and jelly atop sugar cubes is a lot worse.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Well, of course, and that's why all the really good digital printmakers I know were excellent darkroom printers first, generally in dye transfer, but sometimes with chromogenic and Ciba experience too. But I have yet to see any of their own digital prints which really equal their own best work in either dye or Ciba, depending on what they were individually best at.

I'd take a tougher line on at least one or two well known names: I think that in many ways, the work/ techniques they became known for was highly reliant on the inherent aesthetics of the film and print media they used & that their aesthetic sense is sufficiently dulled by a fetishistic relationship to 'new' technology (or possibly never really existed) that they simply cannot tell how much more qualitatively worse their work has become.

Rag papers wouldn't be very friendly to DT because you need a certain kind of emulsion smoothness to evenly accept the mordants and dyes. But one thing I really like about the inherent limitations of particular films is their own signature. Getting attuned to this and learning how to best use it trains a person in reserve and nuance. Those who think they can simply "do anything" because they now have access to Photoshop rarely do anything well. Less is more.

Should have made clear I was talking about the smooth Arches hot press type of papers (which Jim Browning says are possible to treat successfully for dye transfer) rather than the generic watercolour materials that the 'rag' name tends to conjure up. I'd imagine Art 300 is probably also treatable.

The other thing I've found is that once people learn how to properly deal with colour neg (be it in the darkroom or via a decent scan) and start to understand the inherent qualities of a particular emulsion, they suddenly become much more free creatively. You see much the same thing with letterpress, where despite the notional limitations of metal typesetting, its inherent qualities are much more conducive to effective creativity than the notionally infinite world of digital typesetting.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, sounds like you're on the right direction, Lachlan. I only got as far with DT as to revert it to the previous Wash-Off Relief method, which is more realistic for me, though I've modernized it. That doesn't mean much, however, because I have no time yet to really make anything of it. Probably all my color work this year will either be RA4 from internegs or directly from color negs. One problem with DIY coated DT paper is the risk of dyes bleeding if not promptly dried. It's not the sharpest print medium anyway; but the Kodak paper was pre-coated and mordanted in such a manner it didn't need to be used fresh. That kind of option would be nice again, but I'm going the fixed out silver paper route with dual mordanting. I have a limited amount of supplies and a limited number of years left on myself which involve quite a few higher priorities. But one of these days, I'll get back to it. It took me awhile to truly tame Ektar. I did do an experimental set of color sep negs from a shot of Ektar. A lot more work than chromes. Got pretty close to a matched set. I never redid them, but did get an exceptionally nice b&w print from one of the separations, as well as an excellent RA-4 Fujiflex print directly from the Ektar neg. It's all fun.

 

[Wayne]

Wayne, I'm not belittling anyone,

thats a matter of opinion. I don't take it personally, but many of your off the cuff comments are dismissive at best.

and I've already plainly stated that the web is relatively worthless as far as communicating anything that involves accurate color nuances.

Which is an incredibly obvious fact that was never the topic of this conversation. The topic was gross differences, and if you view a large sample of any film type on the web its quite easy to gain a general sense of their relative properties-not "subtle nuances". Its absurd in 2020 to imply that we shouldn't waste our time looking at online images of whatever films or print products we might be interested in to get a general sense of whether we might like them. Of course we can. Its the first step everyone takes to see if they want to pursue it with further research and maybe posting on internet forums.

 

[Wayne]

I took it as a request for samples so we know better what you are looking for. I, too, would appreciate an Ektar 400. And a Velvia 400 would be nice as well!

I assume you've taken a look at Portra 800 by now? It is more saturated than the 400.

I think 800 is worth a look, at least from a hypothetical standpoint, along with pushed 400. One major problem with 800 is its always been so much more expensive, and I'm dirt poor. Almost a buck a shot for medium format is a lot for me. So I'll probably try some 400 pushing first and see what happens

This is a nice 400 @ 800

 

[DREW WILEY]

Think what you want, Wayne. Makes no difference to me. I've only been making top-quality color prints for the past 40 years. What would I know? You might want to shoot slides for awhile so you can evaluate your progress directly on a light box rather than introducing secondary and tertiary digital variables like the web does.

 

[Wayne]

Think what you want, Wayne. Makes no difference to me. I've only been making top-quality color prints for the past 40 years. .

Where can i see some? Willing to travel.

 

[138S]

. So I'll probably try some 400 pushing first and see what happens

Pushed Portra gives a particular look that one may like, but in general what (I personaly find) it's worth it's the counter: overexposing it, or at least traking advantage from highlight latitude.

 

[warden]

Pushed Portra gives a particular look that one may like, but in general what (I personaly find) it's worth it's the counter: overexposing it, or at least traking advantage from highlight latitude.

Ditto.

 

[macfred]

Pushed Portra gives a particular look that one may like, but in general what (I personaly find) it's worth it's the counter: overexposing it, or at least traking advantage from highlight latitude.

I agree !

 

[Wayne]

Pushed Portra gives a particular look that one may like, but in general what (I personaly find) it's worth it's the counter: overexposing it, or at least traking advantage from highlight latitude.

Are we talking pulling or just overexposing? Just curious, as I don't think either one is going to float my boat.

 

[BradS]

Like any (modern?) negative film, Portra400 definitely benefits from giving it plenty of exposure. Rating it at box speed gives minimum acceptable exposure.

 

[pentaxuser]

Are we talking pulling or just overexposing? Just curious, as I don't think either one is going to float my boat.

I could be completely wrong here but I'll hazard a guess that Portra 400 is not for you.

pentaxuser

 

[warden]

This is a nice 400 @ 800

I like that image too, and I don't see why it couldn't be achieved using Portra without pushing. Try two rolls. Push one roll a stop and split the other roll between box speed one stop overexposure. See what you get.

Almost a buck a shot for medium format is a lot for me. So I'll probably try some 400 pushing first and see what happens

Hopefully you're developing the film yourself as pushing increases cost if you're having a lab do it, although I don't know how the total price of exposing and processing pushed 400 compares to not-pushed 800. You might want to check.

Edit: What is the source of that picture of the girl? Looks like someone was sharing an experiment with Portra and I'd like to take a closer look.

 

[Wayne]

I could be completely wrong here but I'll hazard a guess that Portra 400 is not for you.

pentaxuser

Because I said I like what I've seen in some of the pushed examples I found, and you are ignoring it? Or because the statement I was responding to was a bit unclear? Your comments have been perplexing, to say the least.

 

[Wayne]

I like that image too, and I don't see why it couldn't be achieved using Portra without pushing. Try two rolls. Push one roll a stop and split the other roll between box speed one stop overexposure. See what you get.



Hopefully you're developing the film yourself as pushing increases cost if you're having a lab do it, although I don't know how the total price of exposing and processing pushed 400 compares to not-pushed 800. You might want to check.

Edit: What is the source of that picture of the girl? Looks like someone was sharing an experiment with Portra and I'd like to take a closer look.

https://theslantedlens.com/2018/how-to-push-and-pull-film/

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are going to be certain color shifts if you fiddle with the latitude envelope too much and then push or pull, for better or worse, depending on what look you happen to like. I don't recommend Ektar for that kind of experimentation; but either 160 or 400 Portra is somewhat realistic.

 

[138S]

Are we talking pulling or just overexposing? Just curious, as I don't think either one is going to float my boat.

In the past your question had importance as overexposed c41 film had to be pulled in the processing to be optically printed easy, today it's irrelevant as c41 film is usually scanned and high densities are less a problem.

 

[Lachlan Young]

https://theslantedlens.com/2018/how-to-push-and-pull-film/

Anyone advocating pull-processing C-41 a stop (apart from perhaps 1/2 - 1 stop for very specific purposes like internegs) is obviously fairly unaware of the nature of C-41 film and the necessary limits to prevent crossed curves. If you overexpose a stop, you still process normally. You'll get finer grain and more saturation (just don't do this with Ektar!).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yep. The only reason would be IF someone deliberately wants the effect of crossover. This has ZERO to do with the distinction between scanning and direct optical printing. Either way, you have changed the relation between the respective dye curves, perhaps irreparably if you're expecting "normal" results.

 

[Wayne]

Edit: What is the source of that picture of the girl? Looks like someone was sharing an experiment with Portra and I'd like to take a closer look.

I also found this video of the same