choosing the right 35mm film

[yoz]

I am just starting up with 35mm film, and after looking at various photos i like the portra 400 look to start at. I know the best condtions to shoot it in are daylight, dusk, vs sun where the warmer tones can be overbearing for skin tones.

I have attached a couple of shots off of pinterest (1 of them is photographer brydie mack), where both are of this film, though they still seem to have shot this look in more sun, vs daylight. Does this seem right for portra 400, or is it maybe a different film such as portra 160? Is 160 safer in these conditions?

Any tips would be great, although i still know i'll need to run some test rolls. Thanks

 

[Paul Howell]

There are lots of threads concerning Porta vs. other color films in the color forum.

 

[yoz]

There are lots of threads concerning Porta vs. other color films in the color forum.

Oh thanks

 

[JNP]

(1 of them is photographer brydie mack

I would use any 400 speed 35mm film you can find. See how you like the results. If you don't like them, look for another film, don't bother with the Lomography films they are more like "special effects" films. Don't forget photo editing with software probably happened. To get the images on the internet they were edited so that might be a part of the puzzle.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am just starting up with 35mm film, and after looking at various photos i like the portra 400 look to start at. I know the best condtions to shoot it in are daylight, dusk, vs sun where the warmer tones can be overbearing for skin tones.

I have attached a couple of shots off of pinterest (1 of them is photographer brydie mack), where both are of this film, though they still seem to have shot this look in more sun, vs daylight. Does this seem right for portra 400, or is it maybe a different film such as portra 160? Is 160 safer in these conditions?

Any tips would be great, although i still know i'll need to run some test rolls. Thanks

Have I understood you to think that Porta 400 is not a film to be used in sunlight or at least is not at its best in sunlight?. The shots you have shown look fine to me in sunlight so what is it about them that makes you question or believe that Portra is not the best film for sunlight?

if you are looking for a film that makes the skin look paler then I don't know what there is that does that. If on the other hand you believe these shots exaggerate how tanned the people are then you may be right but you'd need to see them in the flesh on that day, wouldn't you?

What I don't know and no-one else may know. except the photographer, is: Has the scan of the shot been "tampered with" in PS or other digital software to deliberately make the people more tanned

When looking at pics these days there is no way of knowing what has been done to the negative when scanned and reversed to a positive. So judging others' pics in the world we live in today needs to take this into account

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Portra stands for portrait, Kodaks negative color film for people shots making flesh tones look accurate. The colors are neutral, not saturated like Kodak Ektar 100.
Here is a review and comparison of the different Portra films. Good luck.

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/06/26/kodak-portra-buying-guide-review/

 

[Alex Benjamin]

i still know i'll need to run some test rolls.

Hi yoz, welcome to Photrio. I think you pretty much nailed it right there. As others have mentioned, even though each film has its own characteristics, it's impossible to really judge the look of a film from what you see online, as you have no clue to how it was manipulated on the computer. That said, a lot of people seem to be processing Portra 400 pretty much the same way these days, i.e., slightly over-exposing and then warming it a little and tweaking the shadow values in Lightroom. There is plenty of stuff on the web, YouTube in particular, on that.

 

[Alan Gales]

There is no "right" film. Everyone has their own taste. Try them all out and see which you prefer. You may find you prefer different films for different situations. I love the look of Portra but I shot my daughter's High School prom photos with Velvia because that's what I had loaded in the film back (Hasselblad). She was wearing a purple dress and the Velvia really made it "pop". She loved the photos!

 

[Huss]

Nikon F2AS, Nikkor 105 1.8, Portra 400, ND filter to allow 1.8

 

[Huss]

I am just starting up with 35mm film, and after looking at various photos i like the portra 400 look to start at. I know the best condtions to shoot it in are daylight, dusk, vs sun where the warmer tones can be overbearing for skin tones.

I have attached a couple of shots off of pinterest (1 of them is photographer brydie mack), where both are of this film, though they still seem to have shot this look in more sun, vs daylight. Does this seem right for portra 400, or is it maybe a different film such as portra 160? Is 160 safer in these conditions?

Any tips would be great, although i still know i'll need to run some test rolls. Thanks

I assume they were shot at the same time, but if you look at the 2nd pic there are very long shadows which suggests late in the day - which gives warmer light. Known as the 'golden hour' for this very reason.

 

[yoz]

Have I understood you to think that Porta 400 is not a film to be used in sunlight or at least is not at its best in sunlight?. The shots you have shown look fine to me in sunlight so what is it about them that makes you question or believe that Portra is not the best film for sunlight?

The majority of photoshoots i have seen on youtube, with photographers using this film in sun have a tone that doesn't look pleasing. The shots are way to yellow

if you are looking for a film that makes the skin look paler then I don't know what there is that does that. If on the other hand you believe these shots exaggerate how tanned the people are then you may be right but you'd need to see them in the flesh on that day, wouldn't you?

What I don't know and no-one else may know. except the photographer, is: Has the scan of the shot been "tampered with" in PS or other digital software to deliberately make the people more tanned

When looking at pics these days there is no way of knowing what has been done to the negative when scanned and reversed to a positive. So judging others' pics in the world we live in today needs to take this into account.


pentaxuser

 

[yoz]

Hi yoz, welcome to Photrio. I think you pretty much nailed it right there. As others have mentioned, even though each film has its own characteristics, it's impossible to really judge the look of a film from what you see online, as you have no clue to how it was manipulated on the computer. That said, a lot of people seem to be processing Portra 400 pretty much the same way these days, i.e., slightly over-exposing and then warming it a little and tweaking the shadow values in Lightroom. There is plenty of stuff on the web, YouTube in particular, on that.

So from what i understand, overexposing will reduce contrast and saturation. Is that right? If so that makes alot of sense that you say. Thanks

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So from what i understand, overexposing will reduce contrast and saturation. Is that right? If so that makes alot of sense that you say. Thanks

Yes, that's the gist of it. Also ensures that you have plenty of shadow detail. Rating it at 320 or even 200 with later adjustments in Lightroom or a similar app is the look many seem to be going for with Portra these days. Here's one blog post about it, but, as I said, there are many similar examples on the web. After that, it's a matter of taste. I don't shoot much color, but when I do, I prefer the feel of Ektar, but it doesn't have the same latitude as Portra seem to have.

My suggestion, if you're already leaning for Portra, is to shoot one roll at box speed and one with 2/3 to 1 stop over exposure and see what you prefer. If you have the time, add one roll of Ektar, just to fell the difference.

 

[film_man]

I have no problem using Portra 400 in sunlight but if the light is there Portra 160 is even better.

Regardless, the photos you show are staged commercial or whatever photography. Most likely there is a reflector there or two to balance the contrast. Sunlight is only an issue if you try to photograph very bright and dark parts at the same time. Stick a reflector to control contrast or some lights to control light alltogether and you can use whatever film. The first shot (girl eating) has definitely got some fill/reflector from below, just look at her arm.

 

[gone]

I like the look of the first 2 pics that the op posted. Nice warm colors, in a limited palette.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yoz - a section of your response to my earlier post "The majority of photoshoots i have seen on youtube, with photographers using this film in sun have a tone that doesn't look pleasing. The shots are way to yellow"
So does this apply to these 2 glamour shots to which you referred? In the first there is a hint of yellow under one of her cheeks but that appears to be the reflection from what appears to be the yellowish pulp of the fruit that is only a few inches from her cheek I cannot see any yellow cast in the picture nor in the other pic any yellow at all

Have a look at the Portra 400 and 160 shots taken in a comparison with the late lamented Fuji 400H film here http://canadianfilmlab.com/2014/04/24/film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons-kodak-portra-and-fuji/

Does the skin look yellow in these? Have a look at Macfred's gallery shots some of those are taken in sunlight although not harsh sunlight

I think that what you see but I don't is an effect of what the deliberately engineered set-up was in such shoots because that is what the customer, be that the cameraman, or his client wanted

pentaxuser

 

[markjwyatt]

Back in the olden days with Porta's successor (VPS), I would use some fill flash to make things more uniform (weddings, outdoor portraits, etc.). That can still be done with Porta of course. A reflector is a less drastic and often more natural looking way to do it, but if you control the flash, use a diffusor or bounce card, etc., you can make it look natural too. A reflector often requires assistance or some type of stand. Electronic flash is normally daylight balanced.

 

[MattKing]

Back in the olden days with Porta's successor (VPS), I would use some fill flash to make things more uniform (weddings, outdoor portraits, etc.). That can still be done with Porta of course

I think Mark means Portra's predecessor, Vericolor (VPS).
And I too liked to use either fill flash or reflectors with VPS and like to use the same with the Portra films.
Whatever film you use, the light is more important to how the result comes out than the film is.

 

[Moose22]

My suggestion, if you're already leaning for Portra, is to shoot one roll at box speed and one with 2/3 to / stop over exposure and see what you prefer. If you have the time, add one roll of Ektar, just to fell the difference.

All good advice. I set the meter on my F6 to +2/3 on portra much of the time, but... there are reasons. I do high contrast scenes and the shadows scan better that way while portra is remarkably kind on highlights.

So from what i understand, overexposing will reduce contrast and saturation. Is that right? If so that makes alot of sense that you say. Thanks

For op, I'm going to suggest that all this discussion may be interesting and fun, but you need to take it all with a grain of salt. There is absolutely nothing to replace going out, shooting some film, and evaluating it all for yourself. You need to establish much more context before you can start worrying about nuances.

Your process should be something like this. Get some Portra 160 and Portra 400 (to start with, as Portra is generifilm, it works for almost anything) Shoot a roll of each at box speed getting used to your equipment and shooting easy naturally lit scenes. These films are slightly different, you can see that in those pics.

Then plan on shooting several rolls of each. Shoot the scenes you think you'll want to photograph and bracket your shots. See what happens when you shoot at box speed compared to a stop over, for example, and -- this is important -- do it ON THE SAME SUBJECT. If you have two cameras, shoot 160 and 400 right after each other in the same light if possible, but if not try to use a similar scene in similar light.

Then make your own decisions. Assume we're all full of crap and let YOUR preferences guide you on which you like where.This is the most important thing, your personal judgement is paramount.

Then, shift your mindset back to know that there are some damned great people here with decades of knowledge and they're not full of crap you will understand a lot more of what people say here. I mean, I could just tell you "Shoot Portra 160" and it won't be wrong. Either of your example photos are scenes it would work wonderfully for. But Portra 400 and 800 are each different in character, both more grain AND more saturated colors, and I'm a fan of Fuji Pro160ns for people (another film you can't count on for the future, alas), and even the cheaper stuff works for people sometimes. It's your art, so it has to be you images viewed through your eyes to know what is best.

 

[markjwyatt]

I think Mark means Portra's predecessor, Vericolor (VPS).
... the light is more important to how the result comes out than the film is.

Thanks, yes predecessor. The lighting is key (including a key light if you want ).