Low contrast films?

[dylan77]

I am looking to get some advice on lower contrast films, As I like this look. I’ve only tried portra 400 in the past which is a bit to contrasty, Though I do like that yellow/orange look versus Fiji.

Any recommendations would be great, Along the lines of the photos attached. Thanks

 

[cjbecker]

Have you tired over exposing portra 400 a couple stops? Shoot it at 100 and give normal development and see if you like the results better. Should give lower contrast and more pastel colors

 

[Lachlan Young]

Portra 160 has slightly lower colour contrast than 400. Are you darkroom printing or scanning? Both have impacts on the contrast characteristics of films & can be adjusted to give the look you want. A lot of 'my film is too contrasty' comments can be traced back to the scanning step. Portra 400 is pretty accurate at reflecting the contrast range of the situation it was exposed in. So you may need to start finding ways to adjust the contrast behaviour of the scene you are working with.

 

[dylan77]

Have you tired over exposing portra 400 a couple stops? Shoot it at 100 and give normal development and see if you like the results better. Should give lower contrast and more pastel colors

Oh no I haven’t. I’m not sure about the pastel part, But I can definitely give it a try. Thanks

 

[dylan77]

Portra 160 has slightly lower colour contrast than 400. Are you darkroom printing or scanning? Both have impacts on the contrast characteristics of films & can be adjusted to give the look you want. A lot of 'my film is too contrasty' comments can be traced back to the scanning step. Portra 400 is pretty accurate at reflecting the contrast range of the situation it was exposed in. So you may need to start finding ways to adjust the contrast behaviour of the scene you are working with.

I take my film to the lab to get developed. I can test out the 160 as well. Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Those examples don't look like low contrast film to me. They look like normal contrast film that has been used to record scenes of moderate contrast and moderately saturated colours.
And the post processing or darkroom printing has also been done with some subtlety.

 

[pentaxuser]

dylan77, have a look at macfred's pictures taken on Portra 400 and then decide if it is still too contrasty. If you decide that it is still too contrasty then I am not sure what film to suggest. Can scanning reduce the contrast of a Portra negative to what you like? I don't know

What was the film that your examples were taken on? Who processed these? I take it that it wasn't you otherwise you'd just get this film so problem solved. If you use a lab then why not try taking these to you lab and ask that they scan your Portra negs to this contrast?

pentaxuser

 

[dylan77]

dylan77, have a look at macfred's pictures taken on Portra 400 and then decide if it is still too contrasty. If you decide that it is still too contrasty then I am not sure what film to suggest. Can scanning reduce the contrast of a Portra negative to what you like? I don't know

What was the film that your examples were taken on? Who processed these?

I am not sure of the film stock it was taken on. These are examples of looks just aiming for colour/contrast wise.

I take it that it wasn't you otherwise you'd just get this film so problem solved. If you use a lab then why not try taking these to you lab and ask that they scan your Portra negs to this contrast?

I never knew that was even possible to do actually. I will definitely try that out. Thankyou

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

dylan77, can you say what this film was which looks to have the contrast you want?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[dylan77]

dylan77, can you say what this film was which looks to have the contrast you want?

No that’s what I was trying to find the look of

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[dylan77]

Have you tired over exposing portra 400 a couple stops? Shoot it at 100 and give normal development and see if you like the results better. Should give lower contrast and more pastel colors

I was just watching a video on YouTube on overexposing portra 400. 1 to 2 stops over and further actually increases contrast and saturation

 

[Pieter12]

I am not sure it is the film's contrast you are showing in the examples. The first might have some fill light, the second and third are soft light which is not contrasty by nature. The soft look of the flesh tones for me comes from the amount of saturation, not contrast.

 

[dylan77]

I am not sure it is the film's contrast you are showing in the examples. The first might have some fill light, the second and third are soft light which is not contrasty by nature. The soft look of the flesh tones for me comes from the amount of saturation, not contrast.

What would be your preference of film for this? Would you shoot portra 400, or 160 on a more sunny day, then just decrease saturation in editing?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you insist on getting it within camera instead of editing, you could use old lenses with hand modified hoods.
Old non-costed Elmar 50 3.5, 90 4 will do it.

 

[film_man]

Portra 160 is lower contrast than the 400. Just expose normally.

Alternatively you can pull the film, shoot Portra 400 as if it were a 200 (or even 100) film and tell the lab to process it as 200 or 100. If the lab is doing the scans you can ask them to scan for lower contrast and also what they would recommend.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Portra 160 is lower contrast than the 400. Just expose normally.

Alternatively you can pull the film, shoot Portra 400 as if it were a 200 (or even 100) film and tell the lab to process it as 200 or 100. If the lab is doing the scans you can ask them to scan for lower contrast and also what they would recommend.

160 and 400 are actually the same sensitometric contrast, but have different colour contrasts/ balances/ saturation. Don't pull C-41 film, it's generally a bad idea. Contrast can be better controlled at the darkroom printing or scan inversion stage than most people who rely on minilab scan operators realise.

 

[pentaxuser]

Portra 160 is lower contrast than the 400. Just expose normally.

Alternatively you can pull the film, shoot Portra 400 as if it were a 200 (or even 100) film and tell the lab to process it as 200 or 100. If the lab is doing the scans you can ask them to scan for lower contrast and also what they would recommend.

Unfortunately dylan77 has looked at a Youtube video demonstrating this and has come to the opposite conclusion see#11 but it would appear that the demon scanners if they are skilled enough can scan for lower contrast.

dylan 77 the video you looked at may not be a good example. YouTube is not always 100% reliable. Try the exposure at stops or third stops and then ask that they scan for lower contrast. Only by trying yourself will you know

pentaxuser

 

[LolaColor]

Ask the lab to scan at lower contrast.

Frontiers have an "All Soft" setting that lowers contrast a little.

Noritsus can do a huge range of contrast from -10 to +10. Your lab might be cranking up the contrast a little bit. You could ask them to try -2.

 

[AgX]

This is a 100% analog thread and I do not understand why repeatedly reference/advice to scanning is made.

If the answer is "nobody does colour wet prints anymore", then let us close that whole analogue-colour thing for good.

 

[LolaColor]

I'm presuming OP is getting scans from the lab that does the dev.

 

[Wallendo]

You can try movie film. In general movie film has a low contrast as the copying process tends to add contrast. It does require special processing however.

 

[blockend]

A lot of 'my film is too contrasty' comments can be traced back to the scanning step.

My familiarity is limited to Epson's scanning software, on which there's a histogram that enables you to attain a very flat profile by extending the toe and heel of the exposure range. Automated settings clip highlights and shadows, which is useable but less than ideal. Accommodating the full exposure range gives an equivalent to cine profile in video, to be tweaked in Photoshop or whatever editor one chooses.

 

[Lachlan Young]

This is a 100% analog thread and I do not understand why repeatedly reference/advice to scanning is made.

If the answer is "nobody does colour wet prints anymore", then let us close that whole analogue-colour thing for good.

Because of the way the question was asked. If it was a fully optical print from a custom lab, I doubt the question would even be being asked here. For good or ill, the vast majority of colour neg questions unfortunately involve having to deal with the oddities induced by Frontier/ Noritsu machines and their sometimes questionable idea of colour/ density corrections.

My familiarity is limited to Epson's scanning software, on which there's a histogram that enables you to attain a very flat profile by extending the toe and heel of the exposure range. Automated settings clip highlights and shadows, which is useable but less than ideal. Accommodating the full exposure range gives an equivalent to cine profile in video, to be tweaked in Photoshop or whatever editor one chooses.

If you are letting the scanner do the inversion (rather than in Photoshop etc), most of them struggle to handle the mask neutralisation step well - which can cause a whole sequence of errant colour/ contrast conclusions. Epsons (and other consumer flatbeds) also have shortcomings on gamut and sharpness that are quite significant when compared to higher end scanners or camera based scanning solutions.

 

[Pieter12]

What would be your preference of film for this? Would you shoot portra 400, or 160 on a more sunny day, then just decrease saturation in editing?

If you are shooting outside on a sunny day, you can reduce contrast by having a diffusion screen between the subject and the sun and/or filling the shadows with a reflector or flash. You can then aim for a softer contrast or less saturated color in printing.

 

[film_man]

Unfortunately dylan77 has looked at a Youtube video demonstrating this and has come to the opposite conclusion see#11 but it would appear that the demon scanners if they are skilled enough can scan for lower contrast.

dylan 77 the video you looked at may not be a good example. YouTube is not always 100% reliable. Try the exposure at stops or third stops and then ask that they scan for lower contrast. Only by trying yourself will you know

pentaxuser

I believe the video he saw was just overexposing but not pulling the film. It is different exposing the film as if it was 200 and developing it normally as 400 vs exposing as 200 and developing as 200 (which is what lowers the contrast). I will agree with the other poster that pulling colour film generally makes for not so nice results though.