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.
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.
That is meant to sound clever?How else would one print?
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?"
That is meant to sound clever?
That is meant to sound clever? Or then again, maybe not. Better return to the pictures on the interweb.
- LightJet or Lambda
- Inkjet
- Dye transfer
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?
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.
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'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?
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.
Do these look like someone poured milk on them? Honestly, I want to hear your opinion.https://flic.kr/p/2hPVR35
Well said.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
Totally agree. Amazing.Well, we might not have as big a selection as before, but the color neg films that remain are the best ever.
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...
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?