When I moved to 120 film from Medium Format digital, I did a lot of testing to understand film latitude and how best to optimise exposure and development.
The test method I used was to set camera exposure based on an incident reading, then shoot a color checker chart, a black cloth shirt and a white cloth shirt. My aim was to work out how much I could over/underexpose the scene, and still retain texture and tonality in the black/white shirts. This would give me the total usable latitude of the film.
I then wanted to establish the 'optimal' exposure value of the film, assuming the total dynamic range of the scene was around 3 stops. For a 3 stop scene, would the colours, tone curve, film grain and scanner noise be 'better' (my subjective view) with mid grey at box speed, under or over exposed?
The highlight limit of my Epson V850 Pro scanner was around +5.5EV, after this the whites would be too noisy. This was using Multi Exposure mode and SilverFast. I suspect with a professional scanner, Kodak Portra 160 would exceed +7EV.
Regarding highlights, these could be further extended by Pulling during development. For all the tests above, I used Tetenal Colortec C-41 and stuck precisely to the temperature and times specified. My agitation method will have an affect, as will my metering technique, but my results should be replicable to within +/-1EV.
Summary
I would not shoot Fuji Pro 400H at box speed. At 400 I find the film muddy. However, at 100 it looks gorgeous.
For the Kodak films, their box speed seems more realistic. I consistently found increasing +0.5 stop gave better colours, contrast and saturation for a 'normal' scene, but that could be my metering method. (It isn't my camera as I'm using flash).
If I were shooting an event and I had limited time to setup each shot, I'd want to be shooting Portra 400. This film lets me get away with really bad settings! The resulting photo may not be optimal, but it will still be saleable.
Portra 160 trades speed for even extended latitude in both shadow and highlights and finer grain.
Ektar 100 is different. This film records an enormous amount of detail and offers amazing tonality and picks up subtle changes in hue. It appears to trade highlight range for increased shadow detail and colour information. Having so much tone and colour detail captured makes Ektar a pleasure to work with in post processing. However, I find if exposure is out by more than 1 stop, results can be poor and a pain to fix in post.
Conclusion
Fuji Pro 400H is what enticed me to move from Digital to Film. Ektar 100 is what enticed me to stay! Portra 160 and 400 are great, but for their purpose I would probably stick with MF Digital.
The test method I used was to set camera exposure based on an incident reading, then shoot a color checker chart, a black cloth shirt and a white cloth shirt. My aim was to work out how much I could over/underexpose the scene, and still retain texture and tonality in the black/white shirts. This would give me the total usable latitude of the film.
I then wanted to establish the 'optimal' exposure value of the film, assuming the total dynamic range of the scene was around 3 stops. For a 3 stop scene, would the colours, tone curve, film grain and scanner noise be 'better' (my subjective view) with mid grey at box speed, under or over exposed?
| Film | My subjective optimal exposure (vs box speed) | Black cloth retains slight tonality, no texture | White cloth retains slight tonality, no texture |
| Fuji Pro 400H | +2.5EV | -1EV | +6EV |
| Kodak Portra 400 | +0.5EV | -1.5EV | +6EV |
| Kodak Portra 160 | +0.5EV | -2EV | >+7EV (scanner limited) |
| Kodak Ektar 100 | +0.5EV | -2.5EV | +3EV |
Regarding highlights, these could be further extended by Pulling during development. For all the tests above, I used Tetenal Colortec C-41 and stuck precisely to the temperature and times specified. My agitation method will have an affect, as will my metering technique, but my results should be replicable to within +/-1EV.
Summary
I would not shoot Fuji Pro 400H at box speed. At 400 I find the film muddy. However, at 100 it looks gorgeous.
For the Kodak films, their box speed seems more realistic. I consistently found increasing +0.5 stop gave better colours, contrast and saturation for a 'normal' scene, but that could be my metering method. (It isn't my camera as I'm using flash).
If I were shooting an event and I had limited time to setup each shot, I'd want to be shooting Portra 400. This film lets me get away with really bad settings! The resulting photo may not be optimal, but it will still be saleable.
Portra 160 trades speed for even extended latitude in both shadow and highlights and finer grain.
Ektar 100 is different. This film records an enormous amount of detail and offers amazing tonality and picks up subtle changes in hue. It appears to trade highlight range for increased shadow detail and colour information. Having so much tone and colour detail captured makes Ektar a pleasure to work with in post processing. However, I find if exposure is out by more than 1 stop, results can be poor and a pain to fix in post.
Conclusion
Fuji Pro 400H is what enticed me to move from Digital to Film. Ektar 100 is what enticed me to stay! Portra 160 and 400 are great, but for their purpose I would probably stick with MF Digital.