Portra 160 Real world EI?

semi-ambivalent · Jul 12, 2013

My son is going on a hike tomorrow with a few rolls of Portra 160 and a Yashica Electro 35 GSN. I've never used it; is 160 good or might 125 be "safer"?

thanks,

s-a

polyglot · Jul 12, 2013

Both.

It does fine at 160 and you will have no problem shooting it at 125. In the latter case, it's a bit of insurance against poor metering technique.

Tom1956 · Jul 12, 2013

I like 125 too. A little underexposure and you're cooked.

MattKing · Jul 12, 2013

It is a moderate contrast film that withstands both moderate underexposure and significant over-exposure quite well.

So to be safe, and assuming there may be some scenes with higher contrast, I would recommend rating it at 100.

If your son has really good metering technique, 160 works well too.

Athiril · Jul 12, 2013

160. It was still quite good underexposed when the light faded on me and I had no choice the very first time I used it.

TheFlyingCamera · Jul 12, 2013

You do realize that the difference between 160 and 125 is something on the order of 1/3 stop? You'll NEVER see that difference. 160 vs 100 is still only 2/3 stop. But as others have mentioned, Portra 160 is a very forgiving film. He'll get exposures he's very happy with unless his Yashica's meter is tragically, intergalactically out of calibration.

markbarendt · Jul 12, 2013

thegman · Jul 12, 2013

I tend to shoot 160 speed films (either Portra or Fujifilm) at 100, but I think in reality, you could shoot either at ASA 25 and they'd still look great, those films are extremely tolerant of overexposure, but barely at all tolerant of under exposure. I just err on the side of going way over if I'm shooting without a meter, or a bit over if I am using a meter.

Going 1, 2 or even 3 stops over still results in perfectly fine negatives in my experience.

BrianShaw · Jul 12, 2013

tnabbott · Jul 12, 2013

batwister · Jul 12, 2013

100 for me. Partly due to using the metered prism, which, like me, doesn't believe in 'half measures'. 160 still seems a baffling film rating to me. Strange number.

DREW WILEY · Jul 12, 2013

The film itself, 160. If you need to skew the reading due to an inaccurate meter or method of reading, that's a different story. But if you do
need to fudge, a modestly reduced ASA is preferable to a higher one.

MattKing · Jul 12, 2013

batwister said:
100 for me. Partly due to using the metered prism, which, like me, doesn't believe in 'half measures'. 160 still seems a baffling film rating to me. Strange number.

It is 160, because it reflects the improvements that its predecessor, Vericolour, went through.

Prior to those improvements Vericolour was ASA (not ISO) 125.

Sirius Glass · Jul 12, 2013

160 Box speed
The film has such a great latitude why screw with the speed at 125?

benjiboy · Jul 13, 2013

Sirius Glass said:
160 Box speed
The film has such a great latitude why screw with the speed at 125?

I agree Steve, Kodak have a pretty good idea of the speed of their films, I only up/down rate films if I have a good reason.

markbarendt · Jul 13, 2013

benjiboy said:
I agree Steve, Kodak have a pretty good idea of the speed of their films, I only up/down rate films if I have a good reason.

Yep

Portra 160 Real world EI?

semi-ambivalent

polyglot

Tom1956

MattKing

Moderator

Athiril

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

markbarendt

thegman

BrianShaw

tnabbott

batwister

DREW WILEY

MattKing

Moderator

Sirius Glass

benjiboy

markbarendt

Portra 160 Real world EI?

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency