portra 400 excessively grainy (what am I doing wrong)

[jojoman2]

This is what I shot yesterday @400, developed at 38 C for the recommended time. I've developed maybe 10 rolls in the 1L so far, so the development time is slightly extended. The negatives look healthy, but I'm not used to looking at color negs. It's possible they are slightly underexposed, but not by more than a stop because there's good shadow detail for the most part.

I don't know how to interpret these results. I feel like the photos should look a little bit smoother. Definitely smaller grain than pushed to 800--but not imperceptible like on some other examples I've seen like from Huss.

I take a lot of pictures from the passenger seat while my mom is driving.

Another passenger seat photo

 

[jojoman2]

I hear you guys who are saying these look like scans from underexposed negs. I'm looking for a negative to scan that's clearly underexposed. Maybe the grain will be more pronounced or something. I know what the "noise" (for lack of a better word) looks like when you scan an underexposed b&w negative, but yeah I'm so new to shooting color I'm just learning everything for the first time. If there's anything noteworthy I'll post it in case anyone is curious

 

[jojoman2]

Hey Jojoman,

I know you didn't ask for input on anything other than grain... So I won't give you any. But I did want to say the I really don't like most street images... But I like yours.

Hey thanks Brian!!!!! awfully nice of you to say

 

[removed account4]

hi jojoman2
not sure if you saw this thread but
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

it might offer some thoughts, a video and fun
john

 

[StoneNYC]

This is what I shot yesterday @400, developed at 38 C for the recommended time. I've developed maybe 10 rolls in the 1L so far, so the development time is slightly extended. The negatives look healthy, but I'm not used to looking at color negs. It's possible they are slightly underexposed, but not by more than a stop because there's good shadow detail for the most part.

I don't know how to interpret these results. I feel like the photos should look a little bit smoother. Definitely smaller grain than pushed to 800--but not imperceptible like on some other examples I've seen like from Huss.

View attachment 156522


I take a lot of pictures from the passenger seat while my mom is driving.
View attachment 156523

Another passenger seat photo
View attachment 156524

Those do look better, but you're also looking at what looks like to me a scanner to lens height issue which you'll have to go to http://DPUG.org to handle.

So you may be dealing with the scans not giving the best and sharpest scan which is compounding the issue, as they do look "out of focus" so to speak, however there does still seem to be a grain issue also.

It sort of looks like in the shadows you have "blown pixels" (where you see black and then a random green dot) is what I call them, which Portra400 in 4x5 was giving me. I was told that was a common issue again with scanning using some flatbeds and that there were better scanners out there that give better shadow/grain results. This is different than the out of focus issue raised above.

Again, you'll have to go to DPUG for further inquiry down that path.

You should post a snapshot of some of the begatives from your phone so we can see their density.

 

[jojoman2]

took these today. I'm getting acceptable results, to me at least, exposing at 400 and developing at recommended times. I guess I'll stick with that for now, shoot color when it's nice and sunny and continue pushing b&w film when it's overcast. I still need to get better at color correction... but that's another matter

thank you stone for the information regarding scanners. I'll definitely check out dpug. Looking forward to buying a dedicated film scanner someday.

And thanks to you as well john, that's a great link.