"Ctein" Tests new Kodak Portra films

[John Meyer]

In the new Photo Techniques magazine May/June 07 Ctein tests the new Portra films for grain,noise,saturation.
Also tests scanability of all the new films. Says the difference in graininess
between old and new is like going from a slow to a high ISO speed 400 film..
Very interesting
John

 

[George Papantoniou]

Noise ??????:confused:

 

[Ryuji]

I am curious how he tests "scannability" of films. I have been experimenting film developers for years, and last few years one important tweaking has been about scannability. In case of B&W, the film and developer choice has a lot to do with the quality of scanned images, not too surprisingly in the shadow areas. Unlike sensitometric curves or speed, this is a hard to do quantitative tests.

 

[Mick Fagan]

George, it's obviously the noise generated by the rewind!

Mick.

 

[Poco]

Says the difference in graininess
between old and new is like going from a slow to a high ISO speed 400 film..
Very interesting
John

John, does that mean the new stuff is more grainy??

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

BTW, "Ctein" is his real, legal name. No family name (I have no idea why). So the quotes are not necessary (unless of course you are quoting the word that represents his name, which I am doing, and not merely stating it).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

John, does that mean the new stuff is more grainy??

He must mean that the new stuff is less grainy. I posted some test shots, including a comparison between old 160NC, new 160NC and new 160VC in this thread (see post #43)--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Neal]

Dear George and Poco,

The "noise" is from scanning. According to the aritcle it was tested because of Kodak's claim of improved scanability.

The "grain" quote was in reference to 160NC. Expanded slightly the quote is: "The new 160NC is hugely improved over the old. That's especially true in darker colors, but every single color looks better by a lot. In fact, the difference in overall graininess between old 160NC and new 160NC is as significant as the grain differences we usually see going from a slow film to ISO 400 films. This is a wonderful improvement. Portra 400 (not pictured) shows similar levels of grain reduction."

The artcle goes on to talk about Portra 800 by saying: "The gains are ven more dramatic for Portra 800. The old Portra 800 was slightly grainier and less sharp than Fuji Pro 800. The difference in grainiss wasn't a lot, but for most colors and tones Fuji had the edge. The new Portra 800 turns that on its head. It's much finer grained in every square except the darkest tones and colors than either it's predecessor or Pro 800. It does not have quite the sharpness nor resolution of Fuji Pro 800 but it's getting closer. And remember, we're looking at the 100 lp/mm bar target. None of these can be said to be unsharp films!"

I find Photo techniques to be a very enjoyable and informative magazine. I recommend a subscription as it is farily inexpensive that way.

Neal Wydra

 

[copake_ham]

Dear George and Poco,

The "noise" is from scanning. According to the aritcle it was tested because of Kodak's claim of improved scanability.

The "grain" quote was in reference to 160NC. Expanded slightly the quote is: "The new 160NC is hugely improved over the old. That's especially true in darker colors, but every single color looks better by a lot. In fact, the difference in overall graininess between old 160NC and new 160NC is as significant as the grain differences we usually see going from a slow film to ISO 400 films. This is a wonderful improvement. Portra 400 (not pictured) shows similar levels of grain reduction."

The artcle goes on to talk about Portra 800 by saying: "The gains are ven more dramatic for Portra 800. The old Portra 800 was slightly grainier and less sharp than Fuji Pro 800. The difference in grainiss wasn't a lot, but for most colors and tones Fuji had the edge. The new Portra 800 turns that on its head. It's much finer grained in every square except the darkest tones and colors than either it's predecessor or Pro 800. It does not have quite the sharpness nor resolution of Fuji Pro 800 but it's getting closer. And remember, we're looking at the 100 lp/mm bar target. None of these can be said to be unsharp films!"

I find Photo techniques to be a very enjoyable and informative magazine. I recommend a subscription as it is farily inexpensive that way.

Neal Wydra

Neal et. al.,

I had never considered film "scannability" before. It's a new wrinkle for me.

I'm wonder if the greater "scannability" (i.e. less scanner-induced "noise") of the new Portas would be noticible regardless of scanner quality? I scan with a Nikon 5000D, a high grade scanner with ICE. Do you think I would see the same improvement as I suspect someone using a more simple flatbed would?

I guess, in other words, is the improvement of Porta's scannability noticable mainly with lower-end general-use scanners, since these are likely to be much more widely used? Or does this quality carry across to higher-grade units?

Hope I'm not taking this thread into "forbidden territory"....

 

[Ryuji]

I'm wonder if the greater "scannability" (i.e. less scanner-induced "noise") of the new Portas would be noticible regardless of scanner quality? I scan with a Nikon 5000D, a high grade scanner with ICE. Do you think I would see the same improvement as I suspect someone using a more simple flatbed would?

I guess, in other words, is the improvement of Porta's scannability noticable mainly with lower-end general-use scanners, since these are likely to be much more widely used? Or does this quality carry across to higher-grade units?

The short answer is that, difference in scannability could be noticed with all kinds of film scanners, although I don't know about the films discussed in the Ctein article.

The most noticeable difference is in the shadow (thin) area, which scanners have very easy time scanning.

In the shadow area, the uniformity of the fog and absence of large fog grains make the scanned and reversed positive image look much better. This is also true to some extent when you print, but more noticeable when you scan the neg and view the reversed positive. One common problem is mottled appearance of shadow areas. As a rough guide, film-developer combinations that produce finer grain and low fog are better for scanning applications.

Cheap scanners have problems with reading high density areas, or highlights in negative films. However, most experienced darkroom workers keep the maximum density of negatives to be 1.8 or 2 or something of that order, and these are significantly easier for a scanner than dense slide films.

Many of these difference could be seen with 1600 dpi flatbed as well as 6400 dpi film-optimized flatbed. Same is true for 35mm film scanners.

 

[Poco]

Thanks, Neal, for the expanded quote and clarification.

 

[copake_ham]

The short answer is that, difference in scannability could be noticed with all kinds of film scanners, although I don't know about the films discussed in the Ctein article.

The most noticeable difference is in the shadow (thin) area, which scanners have very easy time scanning.

In the shadow area, the uniformity of the fog and absence of large fog grains make the scanned and reversed positive image look much better. This is also true to some extent when you print, but more noticeable when you scan the neg and view the reversed positive. One common problem is mottled appearance of shadow areas. As a rough guide, film-developer combinations that produce finer grain and low fog are better for scanning applications.

Cheap scanners have problems with reading high density areas, or highlights in negative films. However, most experienced darkroom workers keep the maximum density of negatives to be 1.8 or 2 or something of that order, and these are significantly easier for a scanner than dense slide films.

Many of these difference could be seen with 1600 dpi flatbed as well as 6400 dpi film-optimized flatbed. Same is true for 35mm film scanners.

Ryuji,

Thanks.

This is very valuable info to me as I have been very interested in using the new Portas. It begins to make sense now, but I had not previously been aware of the fact that modern film emulsions could be "tailored" or "tweaked" to ensure better scans.

Nonetheless, I have to admit - I have some great scans of my Kodachrome 64's taken decades ago!

 

[Ryuji]

Nonetheless, I have to admit - I have some great scans of my Kodachrome 64's taken decades ago!

I personally don't have experience with K64 but I imagine it would make excellent scans. The issue gets more sensitive with 400+ speed (both color and b&w) and when exposure is not very good.

 

[John Meyer]

Poco, Meant to say the new film is less grainy,like going from a 400 to a 100 speed film , sorry..
John

 

[jd callow]

Expanded slightly the quote is: "The new 160NC is hugely improved over the old. That's especially true in darker colors, but every single color looks better by a lot.

I'm worried. the palette of the original was simply wonderful -- I don't like it when better is determined for me. I like grain and it isn’t a problem in 120 and 4x5. Noise when scanning is a result of the scanner not the film. Fitting the palette of the film to the scanner is where one might find 'improvement.' Better scannability is probably (hopefully) a marketing term retrofitted to the film.

 

[Ryuji]

Fitting the palette of the film to the scanner is where one might find 'improvement.'

That's a significant factor in color materials. Fujifilm started using different set of dye couplers for color films several years ago. This improved the image permanence and what not, but also improved the color "seen" by the scanner. Older negative films were matched for printing paper and not CCD or any other form of electronic sensors.

 

[copake_ham]

I'm worried. the palette of the original was simply wonderful -- I don't like it when better is determined for me. I like grain and it isn’t a problem in 120 and 4x5. Noise when scanning is a result of the scanner not the film. Fitting the palette of the film to the scanner is where one might find 'improvement.' Better scannability is probably (hopefully) a marketing term retrofitted to the film.

I would like to think that both goals were intended. That said, it's important to remember that a vast majority of the 35mm and 120's are likely to be developed on a Frontier or similar processor and then digitally printed. So improved scannability would be an important feature for many end-users.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the new palette is very similar to the previous version, but smoother. No losses there to my eye.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Now if Fuji or Kodak could make the palette of their slide films match Ilfochrome I would be thrilled. Maybe they could also improve the scanning performance at the same time.

 

[Renato Tonelli]

Making the new slide films Ilfochrome friendly would make me very happy indeed. but I think we're simply hoping for too much. My best Ilfochromes have been from Kodachromes. The prints from some of the other slides (not always) tend to have colors that "bleed" onto each other. I could never predict this, probably because I don't do nearly enough of them

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have said before that Kodachrome is unique in that it has a 'unit neutral' that uses a very narrow cutting cyan dye. This results in different scanning characteristics and printing characteristics than other films with broader cyan dyes.

PE

 

[roteague]

I had never considered film "scannability" before. It's a new wrinkle for me.

Most of the newer films are designed with scanning in mind. The new Velvia 100 for example, is much more scan friendly than the old 50.

 

[nworth]

The best starting place for everyone is to read Ctein's article. He did his usual responsible and careful work. While my experience with the new films does not entirely agree with his, I generally agree. I find that the new films have significantly less grain and somewhat higher saturation. Sharpness seems about the same, to me, maybe slightly improved in the 160 films. The higher saturation has rendered the color of 160NC, IMO, a bit less accurate than its predecessor. This is unfortunate, but the other side of the situation is that the film is usable for a wider range of subjects. The higher saturation is a real plus for me in 400VC. It strikes a very good balance for the Southwestern landscapes that I generally shoot. It will replace my former use of 400UC with significant improvements.

Scanability has become a real issue with film, so I am glad Ctein addressed the subject. I don't find his methodology at present to be particularly great, but it is a useful start on a necessary measurement. For the past five years or so, Kodak has been touting increased scanability for their professional films. My experience has confirmed, at least for me, that scanned images from those films generally require less correction and are easier to work with than those from their competitors. (Recently, I think Fuji has pretty well caught up.) I haven't had all that much experience scanning the new Portras, but they seem to be about the same as their predecessors, or maybe a little bit harder to work with. Incidentally, I have never found Kodachrome to be exceptionally easy to scan, although I think it has the best visual color of any film around.