I have a choice between Portra 400 or Ektar for some landscape photos tomorrow...

[hoffy]

So, tomorrow I am going on an impromptu early morning shoot on a reservoir near me.

The intent is photograph some of the old structure across the water at sunrise. I had intended to shoot it with Portra 160, but realise I've only got Portra 400 or Ektar 100 in the fridge.

Considering my intent is to digitised the negatives, what stock would you choose and why?

 

[radiant]

Ektar for sure!

 

[nickandre]

If you're going digital probably not a huge deal either way. Ektar is higher in contrast but if you're scanning you'll be able to adjust.

 

[faberryman]

Unless you are planning to take a tripod, I would make sure I had some Portra 400 in the bag in the event the Ektar and Portra 160 are too slow to handhold.

 

[hoffy]

Ok, the deed is done. It's currently 7:26, an hour after sunrise.

I ended up using Ektar, to get the long shutter speeds (metered 4secs @ F22). No idea how they will look, as I had low dense cloud and just a whisp of red higher in the sky.

It does raise the question - is Portra 400 used for landscape work?

 

[Moose22]

Ok, the deed is done. It's currently 7:26, an hour after sunrise.

I ended up using Ektar, to get the long shutter speeds (metered 4secs @ F22). No idea how they will look, as I had low dense cloud and just a whisp of red higher in the sky.

It does raise the question - is Portra 400 used for landscape work?

All the time. It's lovely, neutral, a little more saturated than 160, and I've had great results with it. Sometimes you want handheld, or maybe there's a bird on the water or flying overhead that the speed lets you capture. 400 does that for me. Especially in medium format, it's a good balance and the grain isn't obtrusive.

 

[hoffy]

All the time. It's lovely, neutral, a little more saturated than 160, and I've had great results with it. Sometimes you want handheld, or maybe there's a bird on the water or flying overhead that the speed lets you capture. 400 does that for me. Especially in medium format, it's a good balance and the grain isn't obtrusive.

No problems! I'm shooting this medium format (6x6), so I'm less afraid of it than if I was shooting 35mm.

 

[Moose22]

Here's an example. GX680 so not too much bigger than 6x6:

Sorry about the size., but hopefully it lets you see the grain difference, which is inobtrusive. But those ripples are tight. Shooting at iso100 they get a little fluffy.


And, since we're here, this is porta 800, which is more saturated still though it does get grainier. in medium format it's still very nice.

 

[hoffy]

Here's an example. GX680 so not too much bigger than 6x6:

Sorry about the size., but hopefully it lets you see the grain difference, which is inobtrusive. But those ripples are tight. Shooting at iso100 they get a little fluffy.


And, since we're here, this is porta 800, which is more saturated still though it does get grainier. in medium format it's still very nice.

Thanks for posting. I've got to admit that landscapes are something that I've limited experience with, so it's nice to see what can be done on film with less panoramic formats.

I really like the top shot.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Take all three and a tripod and decide on the spot which roll to start and see what you feel like loading next.

 

[Moose22]

Thanks for posting. I've got to admit that landscapes are something that I've limited experience with, so it's nice to see what can be done on film with less panoramic formats.

Same. I take inspiration from some folks here. There are a few square format posts in the Landscapes thread that are just fantastic.

And it's really fun to learn, though I have found landscape to be... frustrating. Some days you find a spot you love, hike out, set up, and the sunset or sunrise fizzles into nothing a few days in a row. The day you decide not to out after work the sky goes crazy and you end up taking a snapshot like this from your porch while grumbling to yourself.