Is it just me? (a Portra 400 question)

[CJG]

Portra 400 is my go to film. Here are a couple recent images. I meter incident in the shadows @ ISO200. Scanned on a Noritsu.

The "Portra Look" seems to have a lot to do with scanning. My lab offers very personalized service and has worked with me to get scans back very close to what I want. Here's a video from Kyle McDougal showing him edit scans he got back from his lab. His An American Mile series certainly has what I would call the "Portra Look." His lab doesn't get him very close at at all, and he has said he really doesn't give his lab direction on how the scans should come out. I have pretty weak post skills and like to get close.

 

[GLS]

If exposed at box speed Portra 400 is capable of fairly strong colours, without any of that pastel look that is so common. One of mine as an example:

Conversations by atomstitcher, on Flickr

There is some blue in the shadows as it was a bright cloudless day and I didn't use any kind of warming filter, because for this shot I wanted that contrast with the warm foliage.

 

[gradientprime]

Portra 400 is one of my favorite films when overexposed a stop(especially for portraits)!

 

[shutterlight]

Give me 400H, Portra 160, and Kodak Gold 200 over Portra 400. I'm over Portra 400 at this point and only use it because there isn't really anything else at 400 in 120 anymore.

 

[cptrios]

I'm sure I'd like Portra 400 more if I shot portraits, but thus far I've been a much bigger fan of Ektar. If only there were a version of that in 400, or Superia 400 in 120.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I would really be nice to have a third-generation Ektar, with the cyan imbalance corrected for better blues and violets; but I'm not going to hold my breath.