Portra 400 excessive Grain - What am I doing wrong?

[Ste_S]

Thanks for the feedback. How do I know if it’s their fault though and not just errors on my part? Thanks

I had the same problem with filmdev. They admitted responsibility.

 

[trendland]

I had the same problem with filmdev. They admitted responsibility.

Ste_S - that is the damned best question of the month ¡!!!!!!!

How can we know? We can't because we have no reference any more. With experience the reference is our own standing : "lab is served by lousing guys"!

with greetings

PS : I remember prints (some name it lay out prints) in 3x4 inch with visible grain (35mm) -" wow - what a realy bad workflow I did via exposure of ISO800 color....."
The next was grain in (sorry I have to give it in cm) 30 x 40 it look's "normal" but in 20 x 30 it was the same????????
The day came with realy realy bad results from bw (that was my lousing day) I made some interims printed 10 x 15 from lab (no time for darkroom that week) and it was max grainy....!
It was ISO 800 with some Agfa I don't remember jet. In bw ! In 120 Format ! With grain ?
AT 10 x 15 cm ??????

It is with 89% allways scanner resolution! All my prints have had no grain (exeption 30 x 40).
And what I saw in bw (from 120film) is no grain at all = that's allways DIGITAL ARTEFAKTS

Notice : The more poor the own workflow on film (ok my workflow is indeed sometimes poor but most others say :excellent......! )The more poor the result on film - the harder the job of
data compression and labs are using standard compression

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the feedback. How do I know if it’s their fault though and not just errors on my part? Thanks

Get used to analyzing your negatives carefully.
I know, when you are relatively new to this, that is easier said then done. But if you pay close attention, and mark for reference and comparison negatives that gave you really good results, you will soon be much more able to make these determinations.
I may have shared this resource with you earlier, but consider looking at this Assessing negatives article which, at the least, helps give you access to the vocabulary: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682
I know that that article deals with black and white negatives, but the same considerations do apply to colour.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is a good link for B&W, Matt, but I do wonder if a newcomer dealing with colour negative will be able to use the article and sample photos into being able to draw useful conclusions. In a book that I may have or did have there are some examples of colour negs underexposed/overexposed etc but the chances of my finding it would be like searching for the Holy Grail

Anyone know of a similar article and photos for colour neg film?

pentaxuser

 

[GLS]

Thomas - if I were you I would not waste such money for a seconic at this time.

I would never regard a good spot meter as a waste of money.

 

[trendland]

I would never regard a good spot meter as a waste of money.

GLS ........pls. slow down ! Read again from above and notice " at this time " !

But seriously GLS to you it is possible the same as to me : No waste of money.
(to me it might be too late perhaps - I can explain...)

Listen : This here is a very good Spotmeter I remember from my first job - our company owned a couple of it I remember 8 Pentax at all.

...after around 2 years just 3 Pentax Spotmeter survived... (many colleguages may had same thought as my today's recomandation to our OP = waste of money to buy this type - "the companie
may order New Ones, now this one is my own I take it home.....????"

BTW I never owned a stolen Spotmeter ! (realy not - seriously - I can't remember)

Because I bought this seconic some years later :

and so as the OP refered about Seconic - my thoughts are still "not at this time" ?

To explain "It is to late for me" = I haven't used it since years (this seconic above) !

So GLS you now may say " Trendland I remember some heavily overexposure you have posted here - better you'll come up with your seconic again ?!"
You might be right but that is wrong english - because you remember that heavently overexposure from Trendland - right !

To me the OP is on the best way to become an expert in photography in regard of his age and experience so he might not so far mind in technical details.

Because of : Technical correctness is often a need - but here at Photrio it is going to often about
the last 7% of the exitential splitting hairs (for example about exposure and Films).

I for myself have no need for proving my ability to correct exposure (I wasted years for that).
One day long time ago I was throwing some rules over board and soon I came to better results.

Like this here :

1) wrong dynamic range 2) bad dmax 3) overexposed highlights 4) wrong film (expired EPY) 5) wrong color temperature.....a.s.o.

So we may learn - no Seconic is able to tell you what is a picture of own intention.

with regards - and never mind in details

PS : How was the lighting (to the Girl above) ? In short "No lighting" - it is a good example of a case you will find no E.V. scala on a light meter and you will find nothing (from messuring on each light meter).
There was no light - total darkness ! The light in her face came from a laterrn light 20 meters away.
AS I done this shot I can't find the girl (standing in front of her) it was a "shadow area from the tree beside her in deep darkness" and exposure was a series of 1 sec./2 sec/3 sec/5sec and this here is with 3sec. E.I. 800 ISO F 2.0

PPS : She is still alive because I told her not to move and to hold her breath for a while

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would never regard a good spot meter as a waste of money.

I having been finding a good spot meter continuing to become more important in a monotonically increasing manner on a daily basis. I now have a Pentax Digital Spot Meter with the Zone Scale.

 

[blockend]

Phone app meters get exposure in the ball park, and used carefully match Nikon Matrix metering. Way better than a wild guess for a beginner, and capable of accurate metering with care. Metered my last ten rolls of Fujichrome by a phone app, and exposure was all good.

 

[Agulliver]

With the caveat that we haven't seen the negatives yet....

I'm going to say it looks like a combination of non-catastrophic over exposure and the lab scanner. I often send C41 film to Photo Hippo for dev&scan, and I find that while their service is very good....the grain is accentuated by their scanner. The scans I get are fine and save time, but if I take the time to scan the best frames on my Epson at 4800dpi or better....the grain shows a lot less.

Your photos don't look bad. I've not used any Portra for a long time but I recall the old Portra NC 400 did have very fine grain. Good exposure, good processing and good printing (or scanning) are needed to demonstrate this, however.

 

[thornhill]

Thomas,
Are you eyeballing the exposure or using the meter on the 35 RC? The meter circuitry is designed for mercury cells. You'd need Wein cells or a circuit overhaul to get consistent metering.
Also, have you had good exposures from this camera before? That's a 40 year old leaf shutter. Your shutter speeds might need checking.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Hi pentaxuser, judging excessive grain in comparison to what i've heard about Kodak Portra 400 in general as well as what I have seen online. When I got the scans back I was hoping to have a relatively fine grain structure in comparison to other 400 ISO films I have used previously.

Portra 400 blows away all other 400 speed film in regards to grain. It is a VERY fine grained film.

 

[Thomas Keidan]

That is equivalent to seven stops more exposure than would normally be used for sunny weather around here.
I would expect to be using something like f/8 at 1/250 or maybe a stop more in the conditions you describe.
You might be seeing the results of fairly severe over-exposure, which often results in scanners struggling and producing more artifacts that look like grain.
Can we see backlit photos of the negatives themselves (including the edge printing and sprockets)?

Hi Matt,

I've been looking over this thread again as i've been trying to swat up on exposure. Am I correct in stating that f/8 at 1/250 @ 400 ISO in this scene would be 1 stop overexposed according to the sunny 16 rule? Obviously film loves overexposure so would this be a more appropriate exposure in practice? Thanks

 

[Thomas Keidan]

Thomas,
Are you eyeballing the exposure or using the meter on the 35 RC? The meter circuitry is designed for mercury cells. You'd need Wein cells or a circuit overhaul to get consistent metering.
Also, have you had good exposures from this camera before? That's a 40 year old leaf shutter. Your shutter speeds might need checking.

Hi Thornhill, my 35 RC was serviced a couple of years back and i believe a circuit overhall was done. However, I always find that the meter in the 35 rc always tries to push me to lower shutter speeds.

 

[MattKing]

Hi Matt,

I've been looking over this thread again as i've been trying to swat up on exposure. Am I correct in stating that f/8 at 1/250 @ 400 ISO in this scene would be 1 stop overexposed according to the sunny 16 rule? Obviously film loves overexposure so would this be a more appropriate exposure in practice? Thanks

If you have sunny 16 light (bright summer sunlight) than sunny 16 exposure is 1/400 @ f/16. So if you are using 1/250 @ f/8, you are over-exposing by approximately 2 and 2/3 stops - 2 stops going from f/16 to f/8, and about 2/3 of a stop going from 1/400 to 1/250.
I wouldn't say that negative film "loves" over-exposure, but rather it tolerates over-exposure reasonably well.

 

[Thomas Keidan]

If you have sunny 16 light (bright summer sunlight) than sunny 16 exposure is 1/400 @ f/16. So if you are using 1/250 @ f/8, you are over-exposing by approximately 2 and 2/3 stops - 2 stops going from f/16 to f/8, and about 2/3 of a stop going from 1/400 to 1/250.
I wouldn't say that negative film "loves" over-exposure, but rather it tolerates over-exposure reasonably well.

Sorry, I am misusing terminology here. I believe shooting f8 in these conditions would be classed as 'overcast f8'. So in that case I would be overexposing 1 stop according to that rule.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, I am misusing terminology here. I believe shooting f8 in these conditions would be classed as 'overcast f8'. So in that case I would be overexposing 1 stop according to that rule.

Close - you are giving the film about 2/3 of an extra stop of light.
I generally don't use "over-expose" unless I am referring to an error in exposure. Instead, I use an increase in exposure.

 

[Thomas Keidan]

Close - you are giving the film about 2/3 of an extra stop of light.
I generally don't use "over-expose" unless I am referring to an error in exposure. Instead, I use an increase in exposure.

Great, thanks for your help. I feel as if learning the relationship between shutter speed, ISO and aperture is much cheaper than investing in an external light meter... at least for now!

 

[MattKing]

Great, thanks for your help. I feel as if learning the relationship between shutter speed, ISO and aperture is much cheaper than investing in an external light meter... at least for now!

No!
You should learn the relationship between shutter speed, ISO and aperture so that you can use a light meter and maximise its benefit.

 

[Thomas Keidan]

No!
You should learn the relationship between shutter speed, ISO and aperture so that you can use a light meter and maximise its benefit.

I thought a light meter did it all for you?! I thought you just plugged in ISO and preferred aperture or shutter speed?

 

[BrianShaw]

I thought a light meter did it all for you?! I thought you just plugged in ISO and preferred aperture or shutter speed?

That will work for the “average” scene. For anything else it helps to understand the variables involved...

 

[BrianShaw]

... just as understanding the basics will help when using Sunny-16!

 

[Thomas Keidan]

... just as understanding the basics will help when using Sunny-16!

Great, thanks for the input Brian

 

[abruzzi]

You can find charts (google for "jiffy calculator") that will give you exposure rules for most lighting, but sometime, even with sunny 16, what you're framing might require (or at least prefer) different exposure. Also some situations in those charts are ultimately a judgement that can be difficult to guess without experience. That is where light meters can be useful, but when I use my Sekonic light meter, I never adjust the shutter speed on the meter. I'll just have it at 1/250 or 1/125, and read what ƒ-stop. then if it tells me to use ƒ5.6 with 1/250, I now have an exposure and I know I can get the same exposure with 1/125 & ƒ8 or 1/60 & ƒ11 or 1/30 & ƒ16. or I can go the other way and use 1/500 & ƒ4 or 1/1000 & ƒ2.8. All of those options will give you the same exposure with different depth of field (aperture) motion blur (shutter speed) sharpness (aperture). So using a meter isn't giving in to automation, it's just being more accurate in your reading of the light.

 

[MattKing]

The meter tells you very accurately where on the "Sunny 16" scale the light actually is.
Particularly an incident meter.
Much like in the UK, around here in the winter months using "Sunny 16" is actually an exercise in estimating how thick the cloud cover is.

 

[Ste_S]

The meter tells you very accurately where on the "Sunny 16" scale the light actually is.
Particularly an incident meter.
Much like in the UK, around here in the winter months using "Sunny 16" is actually an exercise in estimating how thick the cloud cover is.

It's been pretty miserable here as late, even at midday i'm shooting ISO1600 at f8 1/250s most days