Portra 160 vs 400

[Roger Cole]

I don't know about larger format but since I shoot only 35mm I never use Portra 400. It's way too grainy for me. I use Portra 160 even when the light is low.

"Way too grainy?" Is this based on experience or just some thought that 400 film must be?

I shoot Portra 400 in 35mm. It's plenty fine grained enough for me, really superb film. If you're printing, say, 16x20 from 35mm then it might be worth going to 160, but up to 11x14 I think Portra 400 is a great film.

 

[Roger Cole]

Shooting with the slowest film possible was a better idea back when film was a lot grainier. With modern films you give up very, very little (if anything, in practice) by standardizing on a 400 speed film. But that said, the OP was asking about studio lighting and if you have controlled lighting and plenty of it, the recommendation still makes sense.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Different animals. It isn't just the speed and grain that's different, but the latitude and saturation. Porta 400 is more a replacement for the
previous Portra 160VC, but at faster speed. Portra 160 replace Portra 160NC - a softer film sometimes more appropriate for portraiture. You
need to experiment with both. And then there's Ektar too, which pushes the contrast and saturation even higher, but nowhere near a chrome
film.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Roger- the reason not to use a 400 film, especially with smaller formats, in the studio is that you lose the ability to choose the aperture you want to use for depth-of-field control. The same is true for field use, sometimes to a greater degree than in the studio. If I have 400 speed film loaded, there's a good chance if I'm using strobes in the studio that I can't dial the power down enough to use f5.6 (for example) and keep the lighting quality that I want. When dealing with 35mm, it's even more likely to be a problem if the aperture you want to use is say f2.8 for depth-of-field purposes. Yes, there are ways to compensate by adjusting focus to have the main subject at the very rear edge of the depth-of-field, but that too has its own issues.

 

[Roger Cole]

Roger- the reason not to use a 400 film, especially with smaller formats, in the studio is that you lose the ability to choose the aperture you want to use for depth-of-field control. The same is true for field use, sometimes to a greater degree than in the studio. If I have 400 speed film loaded, there's a good chance if I'm using strobes in the studio that I can't dial the power down enough to use f5.6 (for example) and keep the lighting quality that I want. When dealing with 35mm, it's even more likely to be a problem if the aperture you want to use is say f2.8 for depth-of-field purposes. Yes, there are ways to compensate by adjusting focus to have the main subject at the very rear edge of the depth-of-field, but that too has its own issues.

That makes sense in the studio. It rarely makes sense for me in the field which just doesn't seem to be that bright. Shooting in bright sun is rare - overhead lighting is not usually good anyway, when the sun is high. And there are always ND filters. Considering the difference in speed is, as folks pointed out, 1-1/3 stops that's just not a huge difference. It's not like Portra 400 versus the old Ektar 25, say.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

That makes sense in the studio. It rarely makes sense for me in the field which just doesn't seem to be that bright. Shooting in bright sun is rare - overhead lighting is not usually good anyway, when the sun is high. And there are always ND filters. Considering the difference in speed is, as folks pointed out, 1-1/3 stops that's just not a huge difference. It's not like Portra 400 versus the old Ektar 25, say.

If you're shooting with, like I am, a Rolleiflex or other in-lens shutter camera with a top speed of 1/500th, it does make a difference because in normal daylight conditions (say from 9am to 6pm, depending on the season) you're pegged at f16 at 1/500th of a second with 400 speed film in the camera. There is a BIG difference in look from f8 to f16. And, if you're shooting something that doesn't take 52mm filters, carrying around a set of neutral density filters is both costly and a pain in the ass, and trying to use 4x4 inch gelatin ND filters is less costly but more of a pain in the ass. So I'll take the slower film.

 

[mweintraub]

If you're shooting with, like I am, a Rolleiflex or other in-lens shutter camera with a top speed of 1/500th, it does make a difference because in normal daylight conditions (say from 9am to 6pm, depending on the season) you're pegged at f16 at 1/500th of a second with 400 speed film in the camera. There is a BIG difference in look from f8 to f16. And, if you're shooting something that doesn't take 52mm filters, carrying around a set of neutral density filters is both costly and a pain in the ass, and trying to use 4x4 inch gelatin ND filters is less costly but more of a pain in the ass. So I'll take the slower film.

Have you tired overexposing Portra 400? I'm still testing this film out over exposed.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Here in the UK beneath steel-grey clouds I'd love normal conditions to be f16 1/500. I think with 400 film f4 1/500 is normal. My film of choice is 800 speed, occasionally I get fooled on a sunny day and load 100 speed only for the clouds to return and then I'm stuck at 1/30.

 

[Roger Cole]

If you're shooting with, like I am, a Rolleiflex or other in-lens shutter camera with a top speed of 1/500th, it does make a difference because in normal daylight conditions (say from 9am to 6pm, depending on the season) you're pegged at f16 at 1/500th of a second with 400 speed film in the camera. There is a BIG difference in look from f8 to f16. And, if you're shooting something that doesn't take 52mm filters, carrying around a set of neutral density filters is both costly and a pain in the ass, and trying to use 4x4 inch gelatin ND filters is less costly but more of a pain in the ass. So I'll take the slower film.

I shoot quite a bit of Portra 400 in my Yashicamat but rarely see those kinds if exposures. I know they are typical for those hours on a bright sunny day but that rarely seems to be when I shoot.

I don't have ND filters but I did get a bay 1 to 52mm adapter abs use that for my regular B&W filters on the Yashica.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

Have you tired overexposing Portra 400? I'm still testing this film out over exposed.

One stop or two stops over you probably won't be able to tell the difference except it will be finer grained, have loads if shadow detail and maybe a bit less contrast. Of course the same thing is true of the 160.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jerrybro]

I've shot both and the one I would choose is more based on the color reproduction than the speed. I found 160 to be more saturated, not as much as Ektar, but much more than 400. I find the 400 to be less saturated and produce a brightness range that looks more natural to me. The 400 looks more like the Ektachrome I used to shoot years ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nice to have choice.

 

[StoneNYC]

The reason I would bother to shoot Portra800 (or 400 for sheet film) would be to balance natural light with studio light to get a certain effect on location.

But given a controlled environment, I would certainly use 160, I scan, and even shooting 4x5 I found 400 too grainy.

I prefer transparency film for color, but if that's ever not available I would choose the 160 for studio work as you describe.

 

[Roger Cole]

400 too grainy in 4x5??

Something is wrong. Grain from 400 is absolutely invisible to me in 5x7 prints from 35mm. That's a 5x enlargement. How big are you printing your 4x5s? That would be 20x25 (20x24 in standard sizes) from 4x5.

 

[StoneNYC]

400 too grainy in 4x5??

Something is wrong. Grain from 400 is absolutely invisible to me in 5x7 prints from 35mm. That's a 5x enlargement. How big are you printing your 4x5s? That would be 20x25 (20x24 in standard sizes) from 4x5.

From a SCAN done at 2400dpi I can see grain. It's a discoloration that bothers me, almost like the effect of "dead pixels" in a long exposure image taken on a digital camera (just using that as the description as I can't describe it better than that).

It was mentioned Portra400 was designed for scanning, so I'm using the method the film was designed for.

All I can say is that it looks ugly 1:1

I took a 4x5 sheet using Portra400 against Provia100f in 4x5

Yes Provia is a slower emulsion and probably finer grained, but there was no noticeable grain or odd pixel issues in the Provia and a lot with Portra400.

 

[Roger Cole]

Well if you enlarge the scan on the screen enough, yeah. 2400 dpi 1:1 would be a huge image. But if you print it, you won't see it unless you go really, really big. And if you display on the web you won't see it unless you crop a tiny bit out and make a big image out of it. If you zoom in on the scan, well, of course you will see it. And what is your final display? Someone looking at a 2400 dpi from 4x5, a 9600x12000 pixel image (roughly, I know it's not quite actually 4x5) at 1:1? The only person who is ever going to do that will be you when you scan it.

I think it's more correct to say it's designed to scan well, but "designed for scanning" sort of implies, or seems to, that it is not as good as prior films for wet printing and that doesn't seem true to me. The Portras are excellent films (as is Ektar. I know you'd love some of that old Ultra 50 but I can tell you it could be a PITA to color balance in wet printing. Once you nailed it though it was really super saturated. It seemed to fit the Fuji paper my lab used better than the Kodak paper I used; at least I was never able to print it quite as good as they could, while with Kodak and even Fuji films I could always do as well or better.)

 

[StoneNYC]

Well if you enlarge the scan on the screen enough, yeah. 2400 dpi 1:1 would be a huge image. But if you print it, you won't see it unless you go really, really big. And if you display on the web you won't see it unless you crop a tiny bit out and make a big image out of it. If you zoom in on the scan, well, of course you will see it. And what is your final display? Someone looking at a 2400 dpi from 4x5, a 9600x12000 pixel image (roughly, I know it's not quite actually 4x5) at 1:1? The only person who is ever going to do that will be you when you scan it.

I think it's more correct to say it's designed to scan well, but "designed for scanning" sort of implies, or seems to, that it is not as good as prior films for wet printing and that doesn't seem true to me. The Portras are excellent films (as is Ektar. I know you'd love some of that old Ultra 50 but I can tell you it could be a PITA to color balance in wet printing. Once you nailed it though it was really super saturated. It seemed to fit the Fuji paper my lab used better than the Kodak paper I used; at least I was never able to print it quite as good as they could, while with Kodak and even Fuji films I could always do as well or better.)

Fair enough, however Fuji transparency film doesn't have this issue, so I sill say it's too grainy for my liking, and have OP was asking about our personal feelings, and I say if 400 is too grainy for me, I would choose Portra160 if I had to use something in studio that was a CN film. So that is my answer to the OP based on my preferences.

It's also not about what I'm printing now, it's about optimum options now and in the future.

I may shoot 35mm and would want to have a large print, and I would certainly see these defects in a 20x24 that I would not see shooting at 400 with a d&@&tal camera printed at 20x24 (because I've done this) so to me Portra400 SCANNED is not good enough if given the option in a controlled situation.

But I WOULD use it in a balanced daylight + studio light situation, because of the benefit of speed which is easier for me to balance the sun and my strobes (for me) and I've done this too.

It's all a balance.

 

[Roger Cole]

That makes sense. And I would be unlikely to consider printing 35mm that large though I suppose if I just happened to get a really exciting image on the camera I had that day and it was 35mm...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rudeofus]

Stone, when it comes to scanning, the difference between reversal film and negative film is their contrast: slide film high and negative film low. As a result, the negative scan must be contrast expanded, which amplifies scanner noise a great deal. What you see there has nothing to do with film grain and everything to do with a lousy scanner (let me guess: Epson V700/750?).

This being an analog forum and all, I still think that color negative film would have a MUCH better reputation here if there was an affordable film scanner that wasn't noisy as heck.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone, when it comes to scanning, the difference between reversal film and negative film is their contrast: slide film high and negative film low. As a result, the negative scan must be contrast expanded, which amplifies scanner noise a great deal. What you see there has nothing to do with film grain and everything to do with a lousy scanner (let me guess: Epson V700/750?).

This being an analog forum and all, I still think that color negative film would have a MUCH better reputation here if there was an affordable film scanner that wasn't noisy as heck.

I wasn't aware the Epson scanner yes, the V750 was considered crappy...

But compared to multiple thousand dollars scanners I suppose it could be, either way whatever the reason for the strange issues, I'm not the only one to report them, and again this is my perspective, I don't see you getting a new scanner anytime soon, so from my experience and my use, transparency film just works better and if I forced to use negative film, I would prefer a lower speed film for tighter grain to lessen this effect whatever the cause.

(Thank you so much for explaining it, now I understand, and thus I am now more informed than I was before so thank you).

 

[kanzlr]

Portra 400 in 135. Visible Grain? yes. Grainy? no.

 

[Roger Cole]

That's way more grain than I see in my 35mm Portra 400. Is that a scan of the negative or a print?

 

[StoneNYC]

Portra 400 in 135. Visible Grain? yes. Grainy? no.

Yup! That's similar, though yours looks a little over exposed or over developed, the shadows shouldn't shouldn't do that

 

[Lamar]

Shadows shouldn't do what? This looks like a great C41 shot, well scanned.

Yup! That's similar, though yours looks a little over exposed or over developed, the shadows shouldn't shouldn't do that

 

[StoneNYC]

Shadows shouldn't do what? This looks like a great C41 shot, well scanned.

The shadows have "grain" it stands out more than E6 blacks because of intermittent colored grains in the blackness (apparently this is a scanner problem described above?) still, my E6 doesn't do that.