Accidental Kodak Portra 400 overexposure

[laroygreen]

Hey guys,

I had a portrait shoot on Saturday, and after metering my strobes at F16@ISO400, I shot a check print with ISO100 instant film but instead of adjusting my flash output, I just opened up my aperture to F8. I forgot to go back to F16 when I was done so I ended up shooting 2 rolls of 120 film at F8. Unfortunately, I had a ziplock bag that I was just dropping rolls into, so those 2 over exposed rolls got mixed up with the previous rolls shot at F16. Normally I could just pull process to ISO100, but since I can't identify which rolls where overexposed, I can't do that. Would Portra 400 be able to handle the 2 stops overexposure if I develop it normally i.e. no pull processing? Would their be any dramatic degradation in image quality? I think the answer would be yes it can handle it with no major issues, but just want to confirm before I start developing.

I'll try to concentrate harder next time, but that is why I shoot film - to learn and become better !

 

[cscurrier]

I haven't shot alot of Portra, so I can't really answer for you. But, I did just come across this earlier today. It may reassure you a bit with Portra's flexibility.

http://filmphotographyproject.com/content/features/2011/08/mat-marrash-pushing-kodak-portra

 

[Nuff]

Not a porblem at all, in my opinion Portra 400 has to be overexposed by 1 stop minimum. I shoot it at iso200 by default.

 

[thegman]

Will likely be fine, 2 stops over is nothing for a film like Portra 400.

 

[dehk]

It'll be just fine, from personal experience.

 

[THardy]

Actually it seems to be the style for some. You might like the results.

 

[laroygreen]

Great, thanks guys! Really happy I didn't blow it

 

[polyglot]

Not only will it be fine, some people aim for +4 stops.

It will be a little flatter and pastel-like in the highlights though.

 

[laroygreen]

I always want to experiment more, but film aint cheap so maybe "accidents" like this is a great way to discover. You mean people overexpose by 4 stops and develop normally? That is amazing.

 

[polyglot]

For the good C41 films, yes. Some (like Reala) handle it badly with nasty hue shifts but Portra 400 and Fuji 400H go to a dreamy pastel that works well with shallow-DOF, back-lit portraits that are somewhat the rage currently in certain circles - think Jose Villa.

 

[laroygreen]

Thanks plyglot, I might give it a try someday! The sample pictures look excellent.

 

[polyglot]

Mostly that's because they're shot by Jose Villa Use them as inspiration for sure, but be aware that he has a very good eye and (as one of the most in-demand wedding photographers in California) access to an endless supply of beautiful, well-dressed and well-made-up models.

 

[laroygreen]

Hmm, understood. I was observing the pastel colour palette which I think is flattering, bright, contemporary and makes the subjects look affable (which is generally what I like about Portra). ISO400 is my standard (sometimes pushed 1 or 2 stops) for now and I have had 10 rolls of 160 for a while now in the freezer that I haven't touched as my strobes aren't always powerful enough to let me shoot at F16 to get the depth of field that I sometimes need. I hope to use it soon though.

 

[msage]

Should be fine!

 

[polyglot]

Hmm, understood. I was observing the pastel colour palette which I think is flattering, bright, contemporary and makes the subjects look affable (which is generally what I like about Portra). ISO400 is my standard (sometimes pushed 1 or 2 stops) for now and I have had 10 rolls of 160 for a while now in the freezer that I haven't touched as my strobes aren't always powerful enough to let me shoot at F16 to get the depth of field that I sometimes need. I hope to use it soon though.

Most of those example shots I linked to are f/2! Backlit with sunlight, sometimes some front fill but usually just metering for the deepest shadows.

 

[laroygreen]

F2 on 6x7 would be rather shallow dof ... might need a rethink

 

[polyglot]

They're 645. So it's sort of like f/2.8 on 6x7, which yes, is very shallow (a couple mm for a portrait) and difficult to nail the focus. But oh so nice when you get it exactly right!

 

[laroygreen]

Handheld I assume on film where you can't "chimp" to see if you got the shot at an event where time is critical. I have trouble focusing my 6x7 on a tripod with no pressure, so I know that it is hard to do.

I mostly work in a studio or by a model's home with my 6x7. I shoot 35 mm, but mostly when I go to events or something, not for "serious" photography and I usually use Kodak Gold to save some money (I also try to do large format landscapes, but where I live has become pretty unsafe to go wondering around in the woods - very high chance you'll discover something unpleasant , so I do much less of that now).

 

[Dr Croubie]

They're 645. So it's sort of like f/2.8 on 6x7, which yes, is very shallow (a couple mm for a portrait) and difficult to nail the focus. But oh so nice when you get it exactly right!

I've shot 55/1.2 and 35-40-50-85/1.4 on 35mm, that's hard enough as it is (I think my EOS 3 needs calibrating), but then I tried f/2.4 on M645 (P67 105/2.4 via adapter). Just as hard to nail, but I got an amazing shot a few weeks ago, that Takumar-bokeh is sooo creamy, almost petzval-ish corners. Almost enough to make me want to lug a P67 around. Almost.
(and I'm still hanging out for an affordable m645 80/1.9)

 

[Fixcinater]

Almost enough to make me want to lug a P67 around. Almost.

It's worth the pain (P67 + 105/2.4 @ 2.4, near minimum focus distance, Acros 100 in HC110):