New venture - color film - Ektar & Portra

[TheFlyingCamera]

Portra does just fine shot at 100 vs 160. Definitely shoot the Ektar at box speed. The good thing about that is that you don't have to worry about switching your meter when you change films.

 

[138S]

See this test

https://petapixel.com/2018/02/05/test-reveals-exposure-limits-kodak-portra-400-film/

Both Ektar and Portra can be well overexposed if necessary to record well shadows in the scene, in case of a contrasty scene use spot meter to know how underexposed shadows will be and how overexposed highlights are to be, you will be damaging quality in areas beyond -2 but you should go well beyond +4 to damage quality in the highlights, this is important when having to balance exposure in a contrasty scene.

 

[Auer]

We’re about to embark on two or three weeks of vacation and while we’re staying in the region, we’ll be visitor quaint hill country towns.

I’m bringing aboit 14 rolls of Tri-X, but I bought 5 rolls of Ektar 100, and 5 rolls of Portra 160.

As I understand, Ektar is a little more vivid that the muted color pallets of Portra. Although I’ve never used daughter of them.

Any tips for using them? I’m assuming we’ll be going doing a lot of daytime shooting - trails, landscapes, town center shops etc. Do these provide fairly decent results at box speed and is there any advantages to rating them lower than box speed?

Curious as to why no ISO 400 colors films? Personally I love the Portra 400 for just about everything and its super versatile. Also the Fuji Superia X-tra 400 is really nice as well.
Come to think about it I could travel with either one of those alone...

Hope you have a great trip!

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Curious as to why no ISO 400 colors films? Personally I love the Portra 400 for just about everything and its super versatile. Also the Fuji Superia X-tra 400 is really nice as well.
Come to think about it I could travel with either one of those alone...

Hope you have a great trip!

Because most of our trip will be outdoors in full sun.

 

[Auer]

Because most of our trip will be outdoors in full sun.

1/500 f/16?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

1/500 f/16?

I'm not sure of your point.

 

[MattKing]

1/500 f/16?

I'm not sure of your point.

Sunny 16 indicates that daytime exposure in bright sun for ISO 400 is 1/500 at f/16.
The upside of 400 ISO is when it is evening, or rainy, or you want to photograph interiors.
Ektar 100 plus Portra 400 is a great combination.

 

[Paul Howell]

With good lens, shooting at F 16 or F11 kills boka, ISO 100 has better grain. ISO 100 is my speed of choice when shooting in bright light, which is most of the time in the low desert, I have a roll of Cinc Film ISO 50, have not gotten around to shooting it. I was unhappy when both Fuji and Kodak dropped Kodacolor and Fujicolor 100. Saying that I usually keep roll of 400 in my stash just in case, but if I going shoot in really poor light, I shoot the other way.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Portra 400 is a compromise. It gives you speed and a reasonable degree of saturation, but nowhere near as cleanly as Ektar, nor with its fine detail capacity. Nor, on the other hand, does it fully share the special characteristics of Portra 160. It's an excellent product in its own right, with its own niche. But if you want clean landscape hues reminiscent of chrome film, Ektar is the only way to go. Other color neg films might allow you to saturate this or that color, but not in a balanced manner largely all across the color wheel. As usual, my friend from the Pyrenees is confusing densitometer scale with what a particular film, in this case Ektar, can actually do with respect to accurate color reproduction tricolor curve alignment. If you take his advice, gross color crossover will be in you face like an angry crocodile.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

With good lens, shooting at F 16 or F11 kills boka, ISO 100 has better grain. ISO 100 is my speed of choice when shooting in bright light, which is most of the time in the low desert, I have a roll of Cinc Film ISO 50, have not gotten around to shooting it. I was unhappy when both Fuji and Kodak dropped Kodacolor and Fujicolor 100. Saying that I usually keep roll of 400 in my stash just in case, but if I going shoot in really poor light, I shoot the other way.

That's what I was taught, lower ISO = better grain. Kinda the same with sensors now.

 

[Auer]

With good lens, shooting at F 16 or F11 kills boka, ISO 100 has better grain. ISO 100 is my speed of choice when shooting in bright light, which is most of the time in the low desert, I have a roll of Cinc Film ISO 50, have not gotten around to shooting it. I was unhappy when both Fuji and Kodak dropped Kodacolor and Fujicolor 100. Saying that I usually keep roll of 400 in my stash just in case, but if I going shoot in really poor light, I shoot the other way.

Traditionally landscape and to some degree travel photography is not very heavy on Bokeh and higher ISO gives a little more room there.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I've got about 15 rolls of Tri-X for my "everything shooting".

I specifically bought the Ektar 100 for shooting outside while hiking through the nature areas of the hill country.

I specifically bought the Portra for shooting outside while visiting the little towns, shops, and main street areas.

My thinking was that the Ektar will give me the nice color saturation for the landscape stuff, and the Portra will give me the slightly faded color I would want of an historic building.

 

[MattKing]

My thinking was that the Ektar will give me the nice color saturation for the landscape stuff, and the Portra will give me the slightly faded color I would want of an historic building.

Not faded - just more subtle.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Not faded - just more subtle.

right. you get my drift.....

 

[Paul Howell]

Traditionally landscape and to some degree travel photography is not very heavy on Bokeh and higher ISO gives a little more room there.

Difference in style, when shooting for the wires and later a travel freelance shooter for a local paper I like environmental portraits with nice boka, set the person off against the background, emphasizing the person and not so much the location. Depending on the location and lighting my editors like sharp contrasted colors to pop out on the sunday travel page.

 

[Bormental]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I use Ektar for everything, including portraits. When its saturation gets in the way, it's easy to correct in post. But I like how neutral it is, i.e. this film doesn't have a "favorite" color. In the past, I've had issues of too much yellow with Kodak films.

Here's a couple of examples, I toned down the colors a bit just to my liking:

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Bormental your top example (and the middle one too) are pretty clear examples of the colour casts that Ektar gets when you overexpose it, get the colour crossover & try to correct for it.

 

[Bormental]

@Lachlan Young thank you. Are you referring to cyan in the skies?

 

[koraks]

@Bormental your top example (and the middle one too) are pretty clear examples of the colour casts that Ektar gets when you overexpose it, get the colour crossover & try to correct for it.

Maybe, but who knows how they would print on RA4? I mean, once negatives have gone through the digital merry-go-round, it's hard to tell what they really contain. I agree that images #1 and #2 as shown in this digital version are pretty badly crossed over, but for all we know, that might just as well be intentional...

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Bormental yes, that's the most characteristically visible signifier of overexposed Ektar.

@koraks at least what I've found is that the closer you can model your inversion to how an optical RA4 print should behave (rather than the attempts at re-linearising the characteristic curve digitally, which largely destroys the signature of the film in urgent pursuit of some ill defined idea of 'correctness') the clearer the crossover problem is. Essentially the best method seems to be to base your exposure on holding your highlights (ignore the specular highlights - Ektar seems designed to hold a little tone that looks 'right' in them) such that they'll print without needing burnt in & let your shadows fall where they will - as opposed to the oft used neg film technique of basing exposure on shadow values & hoping to burn in too dense highlights without having to do too much filter fiddling in the exposure determined red/ cyan balance - there are ways to play around with this with varying levels of pain/ precision required.

 

[GLS]

@Bormental your top example (and the middle one too) are pretty clear examples of the colour casts that Ektar gets when you overexpose it, get the colour crossover & try to correct for it.

Agreed.

 

[Wallendo]

I've got about 15 rolls of Tri-X for my "everything shooting".

I specifically bought the Ektar 100 for shooting outside while hiking through the nature areas of the hill country.

I specifically bought the Portra for shooting outside while visiting the little towns, shops, and main street areas.

My thinking was that the Ektar will give me the nice color saturation for the landscape stuff, and the Portra will give me the slightly faded color I would want of an historic building.

That's my general feeling about those two films.

I personally find the subtle Portra tones to be a little too subtle for my tastes, and would more likely shoot Gold 200 instead. Since I shoot for my own enjoyment, I have no need to stick to "professional" films. I do find the term "professional" interesting. As far as a know all B&W and slide films from Kodak and Fuji are "professional" films - there is no consumer grade film in those categories.

 

[MattKing]

I do find the term "professional" interesting. As far as a know all B&W and slide films from Kodak and Fuji are "professional" films - there is no consumer grade film in those categories.

The "professional" designation has, for some considerable time, been a designation referring to the channels used to market and distribute the films, rather than the nature of the films.
The last time Kodak offered different versions of the same film - professional and consumer - was a long time ago.
The most recent example was probably some of the 35mm E6 emulsions.

 

[pentaxuser]

Bormental, can you recall what your exposures were in the top two examples you have posted? Were these given much more exposure than the bottom picture of the house and car on the drive?

Thanks

Lachlan what should I be looking for in the above examples that demonstrates colour crossover. Both look as if they might be overexposed but that's why we need to know the exposures don't we?

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

Bormental, can you recall what your exposures were in the top two examples you have posted? Were these given much more exposure than the bottom picture of the house and car on the drive?

I do not, generally I keep f/8 and the exposure tends to vary between 1/125 and 1/500 under those conditions. Also, there's another variable: scanning. I have re-scanned those two and paid closer attention to cyan this time. What do you think?

The blueish tint on the shaded tree trunks seems to be "permanent" here, but I like the look: