Portra 400 blah

pentaxuser · Feb 11, 2020

Wayne said:
I also found this video of the same

Pity he didn't mention what pushing and pulling amounts to in terms of increase/decrease in development time. No mention either of the kind of problems that have been cited if you do push and pull development. Does that mean that he didn't have any or that any problems can be cured by scanning?

Overall and based on what I saw then on balance I'd go with Fuji 400H if I could only use one film.

Just a pity that he had to deliver the whole session in that over-excited "hot off the press/ I need to catch a train in the next few seconds" way or maybe that has to do with my British ears

pentaxuser

Wayne · Feb 11, 2020

No, your ears are fine. I haven't even been able to bring myself to watch the whole thing because of his annoying delivery, I mostly posted it in case the person I responded to was interested.

Henning Serger · Feb 14, 2020

Wayne said:
One major problem with 800 is its always been so much more expensive, and I'm dirt poor. Almost a buck a shot for medium format is a lot for me.

So you say
- you are "dirt poor"
- you are shooting medium format, but almost a buck per shot is quite a lot for you
- that you don't like subdued / pastell colours so much
- that you prefer more vivid, life-like and brillant colours.

Did I get that right?

If yes, then there is an optimal solution for you: Use Fujichrome Provia 100F. Because of the following reasons:
1. In medium format it is by far the cheapest option for colour if you look at overall costs per shot. Price per film roll is only a little bit higher than Portra 160/400, excellent processing you get at only 8$ by AgX Imaging e.g. (or even much cheaper doing it by yourself; E6 can be easily done at home with perfect results). But after processing you already have a finshed picture in perfect quality: No further expensive steps needed as with colour negative film, where you always need an optical enlargement / print and / or scan. And that additional step costs if you want high quality.
I am using both colour reversal and colour negative film, and my costs per shot are much lower with reversal film.
2. A medium format slide gives you outstanding, unsurpassed quality on a lighttable with an excellent medium format slide loupe (I am using the outstanding Schneider-Kreuznach 3x MF loupe; the Rodenstock 3x and the Peak Anastigmat 4,5x are also excellent). That way you get 100x better quality compared to any picture viewed on a computer monitor, as the moniter is reducing picture quality a lot (very low resolution, no real halftones, less brillant colours, very flat look compared to the 3D effect slides on a light box and in projection are offering).
3. With slide projection you get by far the best quality for huge enlargements for minimal, really negligible costs (currently even the best medium format slide projectors are dirt cheap on the used market, you can get one for almost nothing).
4. Provia offers you very natural, neutral but also vivid and brillant colours. Provia 100F also surpasses all Portras by far in resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain (you can get the results of my test lab if you want). So you get much better detail rendition, too.
5. Provia is very flexible: You get perfect results at box speed, excellent results pulled one stop and also pushed one stop. And even good results pushed two stops.

Best regards,
Henning

Wayne · Feb 14, 2020

Henning Serger said:
So you say
- you are "dirt poor"
- you are shooting medium format, but almost a buck per shot is quite a lot for you
- that you don't like subdued / pastell colours so much
- that you prefer more vivid, life-like and brillant colours.

Did I get that right?

Close.

Correct-I am dirt poor
Correct-I am shooting medium format (for this purpose...don't get me started on the price of sheet film) and a buck a shot is a lot.
Mostly correct-I don't like pastels for most of what I want to do in MF, although I can enjoy them in other people's work.
Partly correct-I don't need Velvia or even Ektar-ish vividness, I just need more speed and I don't want a milky look. Better Caucasian skin tones than Ektar tends to give is also desirable, although I don't shoot that many portraits.

If yes, then there is an optimal solution for you: Use Fujichrome Provia 100F.

Except for one important thing: I want darkroom prints. So that rules out Provia as a practical or inexpensive solution. I'm going to be messing around with pushing Portra in the next few months and will see if that is a possible answer.

Tom Kershaw · Feb 14, 2020

If you haven't tried Fuji Pro 400H that is another great product.

Wayne · Feb 14, 2020

400H is a bit cool for my liking, but maybe it'll warm up to me. ;-)

Sirius Glass · Feb 14, 2020

Henning Serger said:
So you say
- you are "dirt poor"
- you are shooting medium format, but almost a buck per shot is quite a lot for you
- that you don't like subdued / pastell colours so much
- that you prefer more vivid, life-like and brillant colours.

Did I get that right?

If yes, then there is an optimal solution for you: Use Fujichrome Provia 100F. Because of the following reasons:
1. In medium format it is by far the cheapest option for colour if you look at overall costs per shot. Price per film roll is only a little bit higher than Portra 160/400, excellent processing you get at only 8$ by AgX Imaging e.g. (or even much cheaper doing it by yourself; E6 can be easily done at home with perfect results). But after processing you already have a finshed picture in perfect quality: No further expensive steps needed as with colour negative film, where you always need an optical enlargement / print and / or scan. And that additional step costs if you want high quality.
I am using both colour reversal and colour negative film, and my costs per shot are much lower with reversal film.
2. A medium format slide gives you outstanding, unsurpassed quality on a lighttable with an excellent medium format slide loupe (I am using the outstanding Schneider-Kreuznach 3x MF loupe; the Rodenstock 3x and the Peak Anastigmat 4,5x are also excellent). That way you get 100x better quality compared to any picture viewed on a computer monitor, as the moniter is reducing picture quality a lot (very low resolution, no real halftones, less brillant colours, very flat look compared to the 3D effect slides on a light box and in projection are offering).
3. With slide projection you get by far the best quality for huge enlargements for minimal, really negligible costs (currently even the best medium format slide projectors are dirt cheap on the used market, you can get one for almost nothing).
4. Provia offers you very natural, neutral but also vivid and brillant colours. Provia 100F also surpasses all Portras by far in resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain (you can get the results of my test lab if you want). So you get much better detail rendition, too.
5. Provia is very flexible: You get perfect results at box speed, excellent results pulled one stop and also pushed one stop. And even good results pushed two stops.

Best regards,
Henning

Wayne said:
Close.

Correct-I am dirt poor
Correct-I am shooting medium format (for this purpose...don't get me started on the price of sheet film) and a buck a shot is a lot.
Mostly correct-I don't like pastels for most of what I want to do in MF, although I can enjoy them in other people's work.
Partly correct-I don't need Velvia or even Ektar-ish vividness, I just need more speed and I don't want a milky look. Better Caucasian skin tones than Ektar tends to give is also desirable, although I don't shoot that many portraits.

Except for one important thing: I want darkroom prints. So that rules out Provia as a practical or inexpensive solution. I'm going to be messing around with pushing Portra in the next few months and will see if that is a possible answer.

120 slides are beautiful, but to really enjoy them one should mount them in glass which allows cropping when needed but also preserves the original slide with better protection and better projection than cardboard mounts.

DREW WILEY · Feb 14, 2020

Henning - around here (W Coast US), 120 E6 processing is getting distinct more expensive than C41 due to less labs still doing it; and if the new Kodak E100 film is involved, the overall expense will be at least double that of shooting color neg roll film. It is hard to tell where the equilibrium will land over time. If he finds the palette of Fuji 400H too cool, a simple pink skylight filter or amber 81A might solve that issue quite easily.

Tom Kershaw · Feb 14, 2020

I think the costings of E6 vs C-41 depend on how you do the maths. For me, C-41 probably works out less expensive. However if you are sending out film for processing I can see how E6 would make financial sense, notwithstanding other considerations.

Hennings comments here today prompted me to do some calculations and from that I will certainly give more consideration to Provia et al in the future.

brbo · Feb 14, 2020

I just had to see for myself if you really can squeeze milk out of Portra...

From what I'm looking at I'd say contrast and saturation is not a problem (at least when printed on Kodak Endura). Some would say it's already too much, but then you can probably use a paper that is more gentle.

(the actual print, as always, looks better than the scan)

Ste_S · Feb 14, 2020

Wayne said:
think 800 is worth a look, at least from a hypothetical standpoint, along with pushed 400. One major problem with 800 is its always been so much more expensive, and I'm dirt poor. Almost a buck a shot for medium format is a lot for me. So I'll probably try some 400 pushing first and see what happens

Four pages in and no one has mentioned Lomography 400CN or 800CN yet ? Would seem to tick all your boxes: cheap(er) and has more contrast and saturation than the Portra equivalents.

Tom Kershaw · Feb 14, 2020

Ste_S said:
Four pages in and no one has mentioned Lomography 400CN or 800CN yet ? Would seem to tick all your boxes: cheap(er) and has more contrast and saturation than the Portra equivalents.

Is Lomo 800 available in '120' at the moment?

Tom

Ste_S · Feb 14, 2020

Tom Kershaw said:
Is Lomo 800 available in '120' at the moment?

Tom

It is indeed.
https://shop.lomography.com/en/films/lomography-film/lomography-color-negative-800-iso-120-3-pack

Wayne · Feb 14, 2020

brbo said:
I just had to see for myself if you really can squeeze milk out of Portra...

From what I'm looking at I'd say contrast and saturation is not a problem (at least when printed on Kodak Endura). Some would say it's already too much, but then you can probably use a paper that is more gentle.

(the actual print, as always, looks better than the scan)

How did you milk it? I've seen some other supposedly unaltered and (apparently) unpushed scans that look nice, for example

https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2013/02/25/color-film-choices-for-landscapes

But not being a big scanner myself, I have to wonder just how much effect "set with correct black points, white points, contrast, and color as I saw the scene when shooting"
has had on the above image, and I have to conclude: I'll never know.

brbo · Feb 15, 2020

What's an unaltered/unpushed scan?

Helge · Feb 15, 2020

Portra 400 is not pastel at all. You can make that it in post, but that goes for any film. Perhaps it's just self-fulfilling bias?
Portra 400 is the truest film I have ever seen, in that it gives that smidgen of saturation boost to images, that you need when you reproduce stuff at lower reproduction ratios than lifelike (the old paint chip vs whole wall surprise).
Ektar is another version of the truth that I am also an equally huge fan of though, though it brings something else to the table other than finer grain.

Take a look at my Instagram This one is Portra 400 from a few months ago, shot with one neutral bounced flash and a red filter and blue filter flash hidden in the sides of the room.
Most of the images there have minimal editing from the labscan (yes, I've been very lazy), see if you can pick out Portra from Ektar without looking.

All that said, Kodak really needs to get together with Kodak and make an official C41 version of Vision3 500t/Portra 1000.
That would be killer.

GLS · Feb 15, 2020

Portra 400 is an excellent all-round colour neg film. The colours aren't "blah", they're just designed to be close to reality, with perhaps a touch more saturation. Bear in mind that a lot of what you see online is from people deliberately overexposing it 1 or 2 stops, which compared with shooting at box speed will desaturate the colours, giving that more pastel look favoured by a lot of wedding and portrait photographers. Here is one of my examples shot at 400:

The negative was digitised with my D810, inverted in ColorPerfect, and very minimal post-processing employed to correctly set levels & contrast. The result is very true to the original scene.

Wayne · Feb 15, 2020

brbo said:
What's an unaltered/unpushed scan?

One that involves a normally exposed and processed negative. We can assume the negative was normally exposed and processed because it doesn't say otherwise, but that doesn't mean we would be right.

gijsbert · Feb 15, 2020

Milky? Any examples?
At some point it became popular to overexpose Portra but still process it as normal, not just a bit but many stops over. I think that gives it a softer look, people seemed to like it and you see it a lot online in (golden hour) portraiture.

BradS · Feb 15, 2020

GLS said:
Portra 400 is an excellent all-round colour neg film. The colours aren't "blah", they're just designed to be close to reality, with perhaps a touch more saturation. Bear in mind that a lot of what you see online is from people deliberately overexposing it 1 or 2 stops, which compared with shooting at box speed will desaturate the colours, giving that more pastel look favoured by a lot of wedding and portrait photographers. Here is one of my examples shot at 400:

View attachment 240114

The negative was digitised with my D810, inverted in ColorPerfect, and very minimal post-processing employed to correctly set levels & contrast. The result is very true to the original scene.

really lovely photo and it illustrates the point about the colors being accurate quite well.

DREW WILEY · Feb 15, 2020

The colors of Portra 400 are are bit muted skintone direction. It's quite difficult to accurately differentiate yellows from yellow-oranges from yellowish-tan etc, likewise acute green differentiation. It's a compromise between a general purpose film and a portrait film. Too much deliberate warming due to engineered-in dye curve overlap for sake of skintones. But that compromise might be exactly what many people need, as well as its speed. So it's neither comparable to slide film nor Ektar, but more saturated than Portra 160. A very good option to have around, but certainly no silver bullet. I found it deficient in just too many colors in nature to be my cup of tea for outdoor shooting; but I'd instantly gravitate toward it for environmental portraiture, that is, with people in the scene.

Wayne · Feb 15, 2020

Different people see differently. One man's true to life colors may be soft or garish to another. Perhaps I and some others perceive "true life" as more saturated and contrasty than some others do. Even the picture in #89 above, which I initially liked, seems a tad soft to me now. Its still a nice image but if I was printing it I'd want a bit more punch to make it look more "true" to me.

Lachlan Young · Feb 15, 2020

brbo said:
I just had to see for myself if you really can squeeze milk out of Portra...

From what I'm looking at I'd say contrast and saturation is not a problem (at least when printed on Kodak Endura). Some would say it's already too much, but then you can probably use a paper that is more gentle.

(the actual print, as always, looks better than the scan)

That looks about 'right' to me in my experience. Working with a correct inversion digitally, you often end up not a million miles off this point. I think the tendency for people to rely on simplistic minilab 'looks' is rather mangling their understanding of what the films actually can deliver.

I also see you use a Hexar AF

DREW WILEY · Feb 16, 2020

It's true that people over time come to think of real-world color in terms of how their preferred film and printing method sees things. But there is such a thing as objectivity too. I at one time taught color matching, color theory, did color consultation for architects etc. Most color neg films are artificially warmed for sake of pleasing skintones. Ektar would be an exception; but it has some cyan crossover into the extremes, so actually might need a warming filter under certain circumstances (actually, quite a bit of the time). But no film ever invented is perfectly color neutral. Each has its flaws, speaking negatively; or if you happen to like the way it handles colors, realistically or not, you might speak of its having a special color signature instead. That's why it's so nice that we have film choices.

Alan Edward Klein · Feb 17, 2020

Portra 160VC with added pop after scanned. More saturation and contrast added.(120 format)

Pink Baby Dogwood by Alan Klein, on Flickr

Portra 400 blah

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency