Is it possible for a particular color to fall outside of the Portra 400 gamut?

[jmrochester]

Here is a photo of wisteria taken with Portra before its spectral sensitivity was changed, and here is a comparison of wisteria on Portra and digital after the spectral sensitivity change in Portra. I showed the technical description of this change a page above. It appears to be the dominant reason for the issue being discussed here.

 

[Helge]

If you read the OP and look at the image of the flowers, which are supposed to be purple not light grey, the problem is with the film not correctly capturing purple, not with the lavender cast. If anything, correcting the lavender cast will make the problem worse not better. The lavender cast is a problem, not the problem.

Well, Kodak do try to warn you with the colour of the box.
Joking aside, Portra is not known for a lavender cast. Possibly the opposite, if anything.
On the other hand a lavender cast is a common artifact of an error in C41 development.

 

[BrianShaw]

Here is a photo of wisteria taken with Portra before its spectral sensitivity was changed, and here is a comparison of wisteria on Portra and digital after the spectral sensitivity change in Portra. I showed the technical description of this change a page above. It appears to be the dominant reason for the issue being discussed here.

Hi Jim. Was the before image the VC version of Portra?

 

[Steven Lee]

@Helge According to C-41 control strips and my densitometer, there are no development problems with this or any other rolls. There are no workflow-induced casts of any kind here.

 

[pentaxuser]

Here is a photo of wisteria taken with Portra before its spectral sensitivity was changed, and here is a comparison of wisteria on Portra and digital after the spectral sensitivity change in Portra. I showed the technical description of this change a page above. It appears to be the dominant reason for the issue being discussed here.

Thanks. The "before version of Portra" seems to overdo the wisteria colour In fact a lot of other things such as the wood and rocks seem to be imbued with the same colour. The "after version of Portra" seem to have tamed the previous extreme but possibly to too great an extent and while the colour is more restrained it is OK in comparison with Steven's scan of the wisteria. It is the case that in Steven's Portra version the wisteria in what appears to be deep shade compared to the digital one in sunlight

Might this shade have contributed to the drained colour look of the wisteria and two identical shots on digital and Portra taken in the same light conditions would show much less of a difference?

pentaxuser

 

[Helge]

@Helge According to C-41 control strips and my densitometer, there are no development problems with this or any other rolls. There are no workflow-induced casts of any kind here.

Do you have a shot of a clear area of film? Between frame area or sprocket will do.

I just never heard anyone complain about this particular aspect of Portra 400.

 

[MattKing]

Referring to a colour as "purple" is a huge simplification.
The dyes used in fabric that appears "purple" have a significantly different effect on light reflected off them when compared with the constituent parts of lilacs or bluebells or other "purple" appearing flowers.
And in the particular examples, the light that falls on the flowers is significantly different than the light falling on that dress.
Every film has its own distinct colour response. Every eye has its own distinct colour response. Every combination of digital sensor plus firmware plus software has its own distinct colour response.
The differences in character between all those distinct colour responses go a long way to establishing the particular colour character of each such film/eye/sensor+firmware+software combination.
Portra films have always favoured Caucasian and darker ski tones - they tend at least slightly to the warm. Bluebells probably reflect a fair amount of light in the near UV part of the spectrum, so they look lighter on Portra than they do with other films. And that is neither unusual, nor unwanted, i most circumstances.

 

[faberryman]

Referring to a colour as "purple" is a huge simplification.
The dyes used in fabric that appears "purple" have a significantly different effect on light reflected off them when compared with the constituent parts of lilacs or bluebells or other "purple" appearing flowers.
And in the particular examples, the light that falls on the flowers is significantly different than the light falling on that dress.
Every film has its own distinct colour response. Every eye has its own distinct colour response. Every combination of digital sensor plus firmware plus software has its own distinct colour response.
The differences in character between all those distinct colour responses go a long way to establishing the particular colour character of each such film/eye/sensor+firmware+software combination.
Portra films have always favoured Caucasian and darker ski tones - they tend at least slightly to the warm. Bluebells probably reflect a fair amount of light in the near UV part of the spectrum, so they look lighter on Portra than they do with other films. And that is neither unusual, nor unwanted, i most circumstances.

Well, of course "purple" is a huge simplification. What color would you have used to make reference to the flowers (wisteria) that were not rendered as seen? What color would you have used to make reference to the dress that was not rendered as seen? Please suggest one, and then explain why it doesn't show up with Portra 400, and why that is a not a problem if you are shooting flowers (wisteria) and dresses that are [insert color name]. Of course, it is not Kodak's fault. Just choose another film if you want such flowers (wisteria) and dress rendered as seen.

 

[BrianShaw]

Does anyone know if the original Portra 400 images were shot at box speed or…? I haven’t seen that detail and saw some internet reports of Portra 400 going off-color when overexposed, as seems to sometimes be recommended. Oddly, though, it seems the reports are of unwanted magenta or purple or whatever in shadows and on the film base rather than not enough. That is, if I read them correctly. But if this was an inherent deficiency in Portra I’m really shocked that it’s just now coming to light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thanks. The "before version of Portra" seems to overdo the wisteria colour In fact a lot of other things such as the wood and rocks seem to be imbued with the same colour. The "after version of Portra" seem to have tamed the previous extreme but possibly to too great an extent and while the colour is more restrained it is OK in comparison with Steven's scan of the wisteria. It is the case that in Steven's Portra version the wisteria in what appears to be deep shade compared to the digital one in sunlight

Might this shade have contributed to the drained colour look of the wisteria and two identical shots on digital and Portra taken in the same light conditions would show much less of a difference?

pentaxuser

My wisteria are the color of the first example. Your wisteria are just whimpy and I am not talking about hamburgers!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Deep Purple
​

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh. So much secondary nonsense going on : untamed variables of artificial lighting, background reflections, scanning idiosyncrasies. The actual film response issue gets lost in the weeds. Porta 160 is an inherently low contrast film, so hues tend to come out pale and under-saturated, and if incorrectly exposed, probably off-color too. But to correct that, it's back to Exposure 101. It's the photographer that needs correction, not the film itself. You need to understand what different films are engineered to do best to begin with, and select the right film.

The purples and violets I got with Portra 160VC were stunning. I've got a four-foot wide print enlarged in the darkroom from an 8X10 Portra 160 neg just a few feet away from me on the wall right now, full of rich violet, yet at the same time, highly saturated greens and numerous reddish and yellowish shades. It was shot in diffuse daylight using precise box speed of 160. If I has shot ordinary Porta 160 instead - the predecessor or current Porta 160 - the colors would have been similar, but as a film marketed for soft portrait applications, much less saturated by design.

Neither had any inherent purplish bias, nor do any of their current CN films. But most typical CN films do artificially warm neutral hues for sake of "pleasing skintones". Ektar is an exception.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hi Drew. I agree with you about Portra 160… from the initial versions to current it always gives me good results.

Does Portra 400 perform similarly In your experience? This thread is about 400, not 160.

 

[pentaxuser]

My wisteria are the color of the first example. Your wisteria are just whimpy and I am not talking about hamburgers!

Whimpy is OK for Ray Croc's profits but I prefer the Jeep. Can you say if Portra at least gets his colour right? Here's a thought; we could ask the Jeep what he thinks of Portra's rendition of the wisteria as he always tells the truth besides walking through walls long before James T Kirk managed teleportation

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Some people like Portra 400. It's not for me, unless I simply need more speed in an enviro-portrait shoot. It's more on the artificially warmed side of the Portra lineage than 160VC was, but is just as fine-grained as 160VC. So yeah, it certainly fills a needed niche. But when I need cleaner, better balanced colors, I'd either stick with present 160, if willing to accept its comparatively low contrast and saturation, or convert to Ektar 100, which has plenty of saturation, but often needs supplemental warming using filtration to correct scene lighting color temp issues.

I'm more of an outdoor photographer, so shoot mostly Ektar now, which gives me a look quite a bit like chrome film, with a little more exposure latitude, and extremely fine grain. Unfortunately, there is no direct equivalent to 160VC anymore. It handled blues better than Ektar. But Ektar is the best overall color-balanced CN film ever, once you master its own idiosyncrasies.

But if you happen to like a little of that traditional look of past color neg films, yet without the blatant "mutated"colors of Kodak Gold, for example, Porta 400 is certainly worth trying, and is just one more little step forward from their past 400 speed portrait films, so is quite predictable in that respect. And it will give you a little more contrast punch than Portra 160. But Ektar is a different kind of animal entirely.

 

[BrianShaw]

I must be bipolar or something… I only use 2 color films: pastel-like Portra 160 and the blatant extremes of Kodak Gold.

 

[pentaxuser]

Gosh. So much secondary nonsense going on

The purples and violets I got with Portra 160VC were stunning. I've got a four-foot wide print enlarged in the darkroom from an 8X10 Portra 160 neg just a few feet away from me on the wall right now, full of rich violet, yet at the same time, highly saturated greens and numerous reddish and yellowish shades. It was shot in diffuse daylight using precise box speed of 160. If I has shot ordinary Porta 160 instead - the predecessor or current Porta 160 - the colors would have been similar, but as a film marketed for soft portrait applications, much less saturated by design.

Yes in a long thread Drew there is always the risk of some secondary nonsense going on but now it seems you have a factual piece of evidence that may help us, namely your picture. OK it is 160 Portra but seeing it might help establish how the 160 handles purple and even if Portra 400 has a different configuration of the layers we will know that for Steven's colour the better alternative is 160

I know it breaks your rule on not showing us any pictures but if you were able to show us that picture then it might solve or go a long way to solve the issue we are discussing

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

I have some stunning photos using Portra 160VC right here in my briefcase. Of course, they would be too degraded to post if I scanned them, so you'll just have to trust me. Did I mention they were stunning?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, that's fine if you like the native idiosyncrasies of traditional color neg films. But try to get cleanly differentiated warm neutrals or yellows or golds - you can't! - everything in that particular orbit crashes into a Crayola-like skintone inflection (far more with Kodak Gold than Portra 160). It's baked in due to an amount of deliberate curve-crossover. Yes, there are ways to keep the dye curves well apart in Portra 160, but precise hue resolution is tricky due to the low contrast level itself. Gold, on the other hand, is an amateur film very low in contrast, exposure-forgiving by design, willing to sacrifice all kinds of colors in nature in order to bag stereotypical overtly-warmed skintones. Has its own "look".

Like I said, Ektar is an entirely different kind of animal, and needs to be exposed with nearly as much care as a slide film. But the reward is generally far cleaner, purer hues. It does have an issue with blue-cyan crossover, just the opposite of typical color neg films, but that is correctible in many cases. But with ordinary CN, once the exposure takes place, and the cement has hardened, you're not going to get the admixture of fleshtone mud out of it by any easy means, if at all.

This thread began with "fall colors". But what does that mean? - stereotypes of fall colors? Here in California we not only get a certain amount of vivid reds and yellows, but also remarkably subtle golds and rust shades, greiges, and complex off-greens which typical color neg films are miserable at recording, but are what I particularly seek out. I'm not after yet another postcard, but sophisticated color relationships in which relative neutrals modulate the saturated hues. If you just want more sticky sweet honey and jam atop sugar cubes, then just slide off the cliff of the Fauxtoshop Saturation app like everyone else and be done with it.

 

[faberryman]

As we drift further and further away from the OP's problem...

 

[eli griggs]

My situation is that I noticed that one very specific color never shows up properly on my Portra 400 scans. It gets cooler and desaturated. The color is somewhere between pink and purple, maybe someone would be able to nail the name, it's basically the darker color of this girl's dress:

View attachment 344185

It shows up fairly life-like on iPhone photos or photos taken with my Canon digital camera, as shown above.
But the same dress never looks like this on Portra 400 scans. Here is what I get:

View attachment 344187

Sometimes, when the color gets closer to purple, it gets completely desaturated. This picture is particularly telling:

View attachment 344190

Usually these look like this:

View attachment 344191

I have numerous other examples, with different light and different subjects. But it's always the pink/purple combo and always Portra. Could be a coincidence, I should probably shoot that dress on 5 different emulsions to make sure.

This can also be the limitation of my scanning. At the moment I sold all of my scanners and using the Sony A7R. I have access to 3 automatic color inversion tools, but I prefer to invert manually. No matter how I go about the inversion, I can't get that color to be even close (without destroying every other color in a photo). In case you're wondering, I have zero complaints about the colors I normally get, as long as it's not this one

I will find a few negatives with this color and send them out to a lab asking for a raw scan, but while I do that, I wanted to post a question here and see if my problem lies in the analog domain and perhaps emulsions have gamut limitations? (hence I'm posting into the analog section). I only see in with Portra, but I do not shoot enough color (and did not keep a good record of my past scans) so I can't find any examples of this color exposed on other films.

Thoughts?

[EDIT] I forgot to mention two other thoughts I had. First, could this be that Kodak deliberately wanted to desaturate this particular hue to make people's skin look better than in real life? Less cooked? It's called Portra, after all. The second is the observation that if you invert the digital image (with a truer color) in Photoshop it will look bright green, and I can't recall ever seeing a Portra neg with such punchy uninverted green. The latter thought prompted me to post here.

For better overall colour saturation, use a polarizer and see if you are then happy with the results.

I have no read further than the op question, so excuse me if I'm mimicking other advice of others, please

 

[MattKing]

What color would you have used to make reference to the flowers (wisteria) that were not rendered as seen? What color would you have used to make reference to the dress that was not rendered as seen? Please suggest one, and then explain why it doesn't show up with Portra 400, and why that is a not a problem if you are shooting flowers (wisteria) and dresses that are [insert color name].

"Purple" is fine, as far as it goes. But a single word isn't going to reflect the complexity of the issue. The rest of my post talks about the complexity.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Polarizers don't saturate color - they just remove the lovely reflections, and often skew the color itself. But if you want a postcardy look to fall colors, that's how a lot of people do it. Others resort to the warming fakery of neodymium filters.

Part of the greater issue is that different hues saturate at different points along the exposure scale. For example, a bright yellow saturates a full stop higher than typical green, and a stop or more higher than blue or purple. Yet such colors in nature itself are all over the map, and it takes actual experience, and not just a light meter, to know which hues to favor at the expense of which others, in relation to the specific film you have chosen.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pentax user - even if I were to haul that huge picture to the copy-stand and submit a JPEG to the forum, I don't have anything comparable done with Portra 400 to provide along with it for sake of comparison. In fact, I tossed out just about every personal print or test strip I ever tried with 400 - that is, noncommercial personal work like landscapes. It's fine for portraits.
Purple or violet or crimson or whatever hue in flowers, for example, might or might not come out on film like our eye sees it. There is no silver bullet. But in this respect, you have better odds with a chrome film than a color neg one.

I'm not trying to be rude about any of this, but when I do get to the copy-stand, it's going to be for months on end of print collection cataloging. I dread it, in fact, but do have a pretty deluxe copy setup when that inevitability arrives,
allowing me an almost assembly-line like workflow. But it's not convenient for casual one-off use.

 

[faberryman]

I'm not trying to be rude about any of this, but when I do get to the copy-stand, it's going to be for months on end of print collection cataloging. I dread it, in fact, but do have a pretty deluxe copy setup when that inevitability arrives,
allowing me an almost assembly-line like workflow. But it's not convenient for casual one-off use.

How many prints do you have to catalog?