Portra 400 blah

[Wayne]

I'd like you to tell me how I can show you that you are wrong. You are convinced you are not wrong. This kind of conviction cannot be changed by anyone except yourself. Asking me to show you is the equivalent of taunting me in much the same way the toreador taunts the bull.

As long as the others enjoy this attempt to show you that's fine and I wish them luck in so doing - they will need it

pentaxuser

I wasn't taunting, wanting to be proven wrong was my reason for posting. I want a faster film that does look like someone poured milk on it. I want to be wrong.

 

[warden]

I wasn't taunting, wanting to be proven wrong was my reason for posting. I want a faster film that does look like someone poured milk on it. I want to be wrong.

Try some Portra. I don't see a shortcut to getting what you want without actually trying the film. You have nothing to lose but some time and loose change and you'll gain experience that you can share here. If it fails it fails and you can revert to Ektar. But if you solve the "great big piles of washed out suckiness" puzzle I'm sure others would enjoy reading about it and seeing some example images.

You have the power to save us all from washout out suckiness. Save us!!!

 

[bernard_L]

How else would one print?

That is meant to sound clever?

• LightJet or Lambda
• Inkjet
• Dye transfer

That is meant to sound clever? Or then again, maybe not. Better return to the pictures on the interweb.

 

[brbo]

A quick search on flickr for RA-4 prints from Portra...

sienna-12 by Brenda Dacia, on Flickr

That is... by Flo Dystopia, on Flickr

Maybe your eyes are burnt from the modern "but-lets-see-if-it-can-go-to-eleven" visual stimulation, but those don't seem washed up to me.

BTW, can you show us what a proper print (that in your opinion only Ektar can do) looks like? So we at least have some baseline.

 

[ignatiu5]

I don't understand what the point of your original post is/was. You've done your not-so-due diligence, and it has led you to an opinion and conclusion. You've rejected, more than once, what seems to be the most obvious solution to figuring out whether or not Portra 400 is right for you:

I've seen nothing to make me want to give it a try.

But its silly for me to try something that doesn't look at all appealing. Do people really look at things and say, "wow, that's ugly, I need to try that at least once?"

So what, exactly, are you expecting from the forum members? Why should someone go out of his/her way to prove you wrong? Why should someone be invested in whether you use Portra 400 or not, given that you're stubbornly refusing to solve the question for yourself?

 

[Wayne]

That is meant to sound clever?

• LightJet or Lambda
• Inkjet
• Dye transfer

That is meant to sound clever? Or then again, maybe not. Better return to the pictures on the interweb.

So sorry. This is an analog forum.

 

[Wayne]

I don't understand what the point of your original post is/was. You've done your not-so-due diligence, and it has led you to an opinion and conclusion. You've rejected, more than once, what seems to be the most obvious solution to figuring out whether or not Portra 400 is right for you:



So what, exactly, are you expecting from the forum members? Why should someone go out of his/her way to prove you wrong? Why should someone be invested in whether you use Portra 400 or not, given that you're stubbornly refusing to solve the question for yourself?

Would be nice if people read all of my posts, because I've addressed all of these points. Not only that, after reviewing some images of pushed Portra 400 I said

Well back up the bus...I am finding Portra pushed to 800 a bit more to my liking, at least initially. This is worth looking at some more, and might even lead to buying and trying.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Kodak Portra 400 prints and scans well. Fuji Pro 400H prints very well onto Fuji Crystal Archive optically with no 'weird' green colour etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Both Portra 160 and 400 as well as Ektar print superbly onto Fuji Crystal Archive papers too. If they don't, then don't blame either the film or the paper!

 

[Wayne]

Both Portra 160 and 400 as well as Ektar print superbly onto Fuji Crystal Archive papers too. If they don't, then don't blame either the film or the paper!

I like the way you are able to belittle people for their failures before they even try something. Care to share some of your Portra work?

 

[film_man]

I've been doing some googling. I want to try a faster film for handheld natural light TLR photography than the Ektar I've been using. I primarily want the speed, but better skin tone rendition is not undesirable. Obviously this speed increase involves tradeoffs in contrast and saturation. However when I look at Portra 400 images online, they are mostly incredibly blahhhh. I don't see tradeoffs, I see someone who gave the farm away. Contrast too low, saturation too low, in short, I think they are great big piles of washed out suckiness.

Is that really what I can expect from Portra 400?

Contrast/saturation "too low" is relative. I don't know what you've been looking at but Portra is my main film, 400 in general and 160 when I know I can get away with the slow speed. Ektar on the other hand is to me garrish and oversaturated with horrible skin tones, a slightly not as bad C41 version of Velvia.

But regardless of what the individual preferences are and who is wrong or right the fact of the matter is that if you want a colour film faster than Ektar you either push Ektar or you use Portra 400/800 or maybe Fuji 400H. So you can try it out and see what you make of it or if you don't want to try out good luck and use a tripod.

PS
There is also Cinestill 800T but if you don't like Portra then you don't want to go there.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Wayne, I'm not belittling anyone, and I've already plainly stated that the web is relatively worthless as far as communicating anything that involves accurate color nuances. But combine that fact with all kinds of potential issues in scanning, printing, or whatever, and it's pretty common on forums like this for inexperienced people to automatically assign incompetence to Fuji or Kodak or whomever for an allegedly inferior product. If you don't like a product, simply don't use it. It's that simple. It won't stop me from using it if I find it satisfactory, or from recommending it to others, which I am doing in this case. ... And as per the intervening post; there is nothing "garish" about Ektar whatsoever, just as there is nothing "Blaah" about Portra. One needs to learn what shoe fits what foot, and make film selection intelligently per application and specific output or print method. There are ways to control contrast in RA4 printing, up or down, including both specific paper selection and supplementary contrast masking, one being an easy option but limited, the other relatively advanced and more useful.

 

[MattKing]

I agree with Drew about the unsuitability of the internet for evaluating film characteristics.
What I would point out though is that Portra's strengths are related to its ability to naturally render skin tones and other subjects where tones are subtle and contrast is well controlled.
So people who like that, gravitate to Portra and are more likely to post results that reflect those strengths.
Which in turn influences people who are wondering about the Portra films.
Has anyone done a search on Portra 400 and skateboard?

 

[mshchem]

One thought is, what we have is what we have.
In medium format we have Kodak, Portra 160, 400, 800, and Ektar. Fuji 400H. It is what it is. I use Kodak color negative film exclusively and print on Fuji Crystal Archive cut sheets. In the old days I used Kodak color paper. I've always had great results.

I look at old magazines and remember all the choices. Those were great times. I hope we can keep what we have.

 

[BradS]

Do these look like someone poured milk on them? Honestly, I want to hear your opinion.
This is mildly expired Portra 400 exposed at ASA250 with an unremarkable (ca. 1950's) lens and D&P by a commercial lab in a Fuji frontier. I did nothing other than upload the scans from the CD to flickr.

Pinnacles NP

Bear Gulch Reservoir, Pinnacles NP

Pinnacles NP

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, we might not have as big a selection as before, but the color neg films that remain are the best ever.

 

[Wayne]

A quick search on flickr for RA-4 prints from Portra...

sienna-12 by Brenda Dacia, on Flickr

That is... by Flo Dystopia, on Flickr

Maybe your eyes are burnt from the modern "but-lets-see-if-it-can-go-to-eleven" visual stimulation, but those don't seem washed up to me.

BTW, can you show us what a proper print (that in your opinion only Ektar can do) looks like? So we at least have some baseline.

Well the first one she looks like she's standing in a bottle of milk, so its harder for me to judge. The second one is an RA4 print, but I was not able to see anything saying its Portra 400. If it is, its a step above most.

 

[Wayne]

Do these look like someone poured milk on them? Honestly, I want to hear your opinion.https://flic.kr/p/2hPVR35

I would not say that they look like someone poured milk on them. I would say they exhibit acceptable (to me) contrast.

 

[Ariston]

If that is what you see and you appear to be unequivocal in your opinion then I wonder what you expect to hear from us that could ever change your mind? We can say that Portra is not blahhh until we are blue in the face but it isn't going to change your opinion, is it?

I respect your opinion and will not insult you by saying you might be wrong. You see what you see and that's the end of the matter surely.

pentaxuser

Well said.

 

[mshchem]

Well, we might not have as big a selection as before, but the color neg films that remain are the best ever.

Totally agree. Amazing.

 

[brbo]

Well the first one she looks like she's standing in a bottle of milk, so its harder for me to judge. The second one is an RA4 print, but I was not able to see anything saying its Portra 400. If it is, its a step above most.

You still haven't produced samples of your Ektar work that you know for sure (without trying) can't possibly be done with Portra. One soft light portrait and one landscape will do...

 

[Wayne]

You still haven't produced samples of your Ektar work that you know for sure (without trying) can't possibly be done with Portra. One soft light portrait and one landscape will do...

How did this become about my Ektar work? Ektar is 100 speed film, and less practical/pleasing for handheld TLR work that includes occasional portraits. I don't need to produce images to demonstrate that. Furthermore, unlike other posters who claim great expertise in all matter of image making and won't produce images, I make no such claims. I'm a mediocre photographer and a mediocre printmaker.

Some people seem to be taking personal offense at my comments about Porta, but the film's characteristics color/contrast/saturation characteristics are not the photographer's fault nor have I suggested otherwise. My comments about milk are sarcasm/humor about the film not the photographer. Lighten up; its a joke.

 

[BradS]

Portra seems like a very good emulsion to me but it i think it is kinda at the opposite end of the continuum from Ektar when it comes to contrast and color saturation. My understanding is that Portra was intended/ marketed to professional wedding photographers (and the like) who needed to get both the bride’s white dress and the groom’s dark tux in the same frame, possibly in full sunlight. So anyway, I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s probably not a great candidate for “faster Ektar” (damned auto correct thingy keeps trying to say Elgar!). Seems like Kodak’s other iso 400 color print film, max 400(?), would be a better candidate for that role or maybe Fuji superia xtra 400? I use a lot of the later because it is available in 135 at Walmart and it is a pretty decent all-around film.

 

[138S]

How did this become about my Ektar work? Ektar is 100 speed film, and less practical/pleasing for handheld TLR work that includes occasional portraits. I don't need to produce images to demonstrate that. Furthermore, unlike other posters who claim great expertise in all matter of image making and won't produce images, I make no such claims. I'm a mediocre photographer and a mediocre printmaker.

Some people seem to be taking personal offense at my comments about Porta, but the film's characteristics color/contrast/saturation characteristics are not the photographer's fault nor have I suggested otherwise. My comments about milk are sarcasm/humor about the film not the photographer. Lighten up; its a joke.

Some humor is always good !!!

Speaking seriously, let me explain what I find extraordinary in Portra: next sample (By P Bohman) is 160VC, which is not exact the same than the 400 but mostly the same. See that this portrait offers a true 3D sensation, volumes are extraordinarily well depicted, it looks we see the real girl instead a photograph, with incredibly nice textures and tones. Merit is not only from Portra, photographer also knew how to exploit Portra strengths, illumination was quite smart and MF Sekor glass made an extraordinary job, beyond Aina beauty.


This is only a fraction of what Portra offers, it also stands +5 stops overexposure allowing to depict amazing textures in the glares that may help to depict natural volumes, also spectral response is dedicated to protraiture, blowing anything else miles away (except Fuji 160) for Protraits. Of course using Portra is no guarantee at all that photographs will be sound, but Portra is an amazing tools for those knowing how to use it. It's about learning from guys like P. Bohman...


https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/favorites/page2

 

[lantau]

How did this become about my Ektar work? Ektar is 100 speed film, and less practical/pleasing for handheld TLR work that includes occasional portraits. I don't need to produce images to demonstrate that. Furthermore, unlike other posters who claim great expertise in all matter of image making and won't produce images, I make no such claims. I'm a mediocre photographer and a mediocre printmaker.

Some people seem to be taking personal offense at my comments about Porta, but the film's characteristics color/contrast/saturation characteristics are not the photographer's fault nor have I suggested otherwise. My comments about milk are sarcasm/humor about the film not the photographer. Lighten up; its a joke.

I took it as a request for samples so we know better what you are looking for. I, too, would appreciate an Ektar 400. And a Velvia 400 would be nice as well!

I assume you've taken a look at Portra 800 by now? It is more saturated than the 400.

I don't have many samples, but here is an RA4 print from a 35mm negative. This is the one print were I decided to print the rebate and that also brought in the neighbour frame; hope you don't mind. It did show me, however I can't get the deepest black into the actual print because of the lack of contrast control.

EDIT: The print is on Kodak Endura Premier (the current paper, in case I remember it wrong).
I remember that I did a lot of slider pushing in lightroom to get it to look like the print as much as possible. I cannot give a guarantee, however: