"Existing Light" Shooting With High-Speed Color Negative

[BradleyK]

A question for those folks who shoot high-speed color negative film ( I am thinking here specifically of Portra 800 and Superia 800): Does one of these films handle mixed lighting sources better than the other? The reason I ask? On the weekend of the 16th/17th of this month I am travelling to Jasper for the weekend during which I will be shooting the Heritage Rodeo. The event is being held at Jasper's Activity Center, an indoor venue. I know nothing about the place except to expect that, like similar venues, it will probably have mixed lighting sources. For black and white shooting, I will be carrying HP5 and Delta 3200. For color, though, I have yet to settle on my film. As an aside, I do expect to have to push the film, if that influences responses to this query...

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I read Fuji 400 H Pro have an extra blue layer to better balance and lower the diffraction in film. I found a test site on portra and that film and 400 ASA shots were less diffracted with fuji. If there is a sign board , spot light , Fuji shows the bulbs with light at their original diameter , portra shows the light bulbs larger than they are , but at 3200 ASA Fuji Shows everything dark but Portra with greater sensivity shows the Show when it was taken at 800 ASA.

If you use these films and if Superia is a new film , it will capture more natural colors . But if you go 3200 ASA , kodak is one big winner.

 

[wildbill]

I read Fuji 400 H Pro have an extra blue layer to better balance and lower the diffraction in film. I found a test site on portra and that film and 400 ASA shots were less diffracted with fuji. If there is a sign board , spot light , Fuji shows the bulbs with light at their original diameter , portra shows the light bulbs larger than they are , but at 3200 ASA Fuji Shows everything dark but Portra with greater sensivity shows the Show when it was taken at 800 ASA.

If you use these films and if Superia is a new film , it will capture more natural colors . But if you go 3200 ASA , kodak is one big winner.

????

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

confusing english , isnt it ?

 

[GarageBoy]

Isn't Superia 800 a 4 layer film, as well?

 

[Lamar]

Just shot these Friday night. Developed and scanned yesterday. Portra 400 at ISO 1600 and pushed 2 stops in Tetenal C-41 chemicals. Portra 400 does pretty good at ISO 1600 but it has fallen apart at ISO 3200 on the couple of occasions I have tried it. After it was dark I was shooting at 1/125th and f/2.8 on my Nikon FM and 80-200mm for about an indicated half stop overexposed on the brighter parts of the field.

Here is a link to the gallery and a few samples:

http://www.lamarlamb.com/On-Film/Film-Blog/VHS-vs-West-Laurens-on-Pushed/31418956_MGj82T#!i=2720712523&k=M7s6pGX

 

[mauro35]

I have used Fuji's both Superia 800 and 1600. Have not tried Portra 800 yet. Superia 800 has a very nice color rendition, very truthful and it's acceptable when shot at ISO 800. It's quite grainy, but if you don't include large areas of skies in your photos, like I do, then it's not overly intrusive. I would not recommend Superia 1600, because it's quite horrible when shot at 1600. On the other hand it' s surprising how nice, natural, low-saturation colors you can obtain from it at ISO 400-640. I do not push process color negative. It is not worth in my personal opinion. I like nature photography and I find push processing to alter the original tonality too much for my taste.

 

[lhalcong]

I shot superia 400 and 800 at school kids event (no push) under flourescent lights to then realize, that I had not used FL filtration (I dont own one, I guess I think white balance in digital), but then I was impressed at the color rendition of my results. You would never think they were shot under flourescent.
I had used Portra 800 under mixed lighting conditions, I did see some considerable color shift but in this case I had pushed it to 1600.