Portra 400 exposed at box speed

Indeed the thread is going farther then I hope for and all the info is really welcomed (while quite a bit over my head too).

I was looking some time ago at some darkroom color paper and I was really curious how those compare to scan + inkjet printing ?

I guess the difference in look between an inkjet print and wet print should be rather subtle ? or can it be some convenience over quality and learning curve/space required ?

I generally don't mind grain but in that case I was a bit dissapointed by the scan but I know now what I can try to make it better.

I really enjoy every replies ;-)

LucRoMar said:

I was looking some time ago at some darkroom color paper and I was really curious how those compare to scan + inkjet printing ?

I guess the difference in look between an inkjet print and wet print should be rather subtle ? or can it be some convenience over quality and learning curve/space required ?

Click to expand...

Your pics will look better on inkjet paper than they look on your monitor, but they will look much better when wet processed. It's the scanning which hurts most.

so this would indeed be convenience over quality, as another thread in the ethics is mentioning ;-)

In B/W I guess a good FB print must be stunning, I can't wait to try but the learing curve is frigthening.

Regarding Portra isn't it designed to be scanned and not optically enlarged ?

LucRoMar said:

Regarding Portra isn't it designed to be scanned and not optically enlarged ?

Click to expand...

You saw the results.

Seriously, nobody would bother with this film if that was the best it could do ....

LucRoMar said:

I was looking some time ago at some darkroom color paper and I was really curious how those compare to scan + inkjet printing ?

Click to expand...

If quality is what you are after, optical printing of color negatives, done right, is by far the superior way.

Take some shots both indoors and outdoors and bracket them. You should be able to see quickly what the ideal speed is for you. I personally shoot Portra at 2/3 to 1 stop less than box speed (200 or 250 instead of 400). It works well for me both manually metering, and using the matrix meter in my Nikon (which seems to be setup form for slides - preserves highlights at the expense of shadow detail).

My guess is you are a bit under exposed, and the scanning isn't the best it could be. An optical print will tell you how well the film is developed.

ok time to expand the darkroom, Quality and charaster are the main qualities I am looking for ;-) and film offer both to those who keep trying and learning.. I hope to be able to post something better soon. Thanks

From reading Ken Rockwell's review, it seems your camera's metering system discards the edges and averages the rest. That big back-lighting blob is probably contributing a lot to the underexposure of the rest. Also, this was Canon's first camera with a computer chip so the metering system might not have been as accurate and was certainly less sophisticated than later models. Be prepared for a lot more surprises than you are used to with digital cameras having 30-year newer computers in them.

If you were to do RA4 printing, you do not need to heat the kodak chemicals, if you were to buy developer replenisher and blix kit without starter. Just run a couple of prints thru it to season the dev a bit first. The filtration settings can be different though, but that doesn't matter.

As for a safelight i use a VERY dim kodak no. 13 standard safelight (not directly illuminating paper) and i get really nice results. i have a 'safetorch' as well, which can be used for a few seconds at a time to position ones self. I do not have problems with fog, unless the safelights are positioned close to, and directly on the paper for more than 10 or 20 seconds.

RA4 is rewarding My jobo enlarger is OLD but i get superb quality prints from it, i have a good enlarger lens as well. I can rarely find a lab that prints how I want to, as how i like them to look can only be judged by me, not an unknown operator.

LucRoMar said:

Indeed the thread is going farther then I hope for and all the info is really welcomed (while quite a bit over my head too).

I was looking some time ago at some darkroom color paper and I was really curious how those compare to scan + inkjet printing ?

I guess the difference in look between an inkjet print and wet print should be rather subtle ? or can it be some convenience over quality and learning curve/space required ?

I generally don't mind grain but in that case I was a bit dissapointed by the scan but I know now what I can try to make it better.

I really enjoy every replies ;-)

Click to expand...

It's an interesting tradeoff. The optical route gives you the highest resolution with the least loss of information from the negative, especially if you use larger film but the hybrid route gives you far more control which is important if the lighting situation is difficult (strong colour casts or mixed lighting) because you can make any number of corrections digitally that you can't optically. In particular, it's much easier to correct for strong lighting-colour errors (e.g. due to shooting under tungsten light without a tungsten/daylight conversion filter) digitally than under the enlarger.

The digital route also gives you contrast and saturation control which can be very important, particularly because there are now only high-contrast RA4 papers available which makes portraiture more difficult.

jm94 said:

If you were to do RA4 printing, you do not need to heat the kodak chemicals, if you were to buy developer replenisher and blix kit without starter. Just run a couple of prints thru it to season the dev a bit first. The filtration settings can be different though, but that doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

This is true (that cold RA4 is OK) when printing on Kodak paper. The Fuji paper can give bad crossover though if not developed at vaguely the correct temperature - I use 35C. And Fuji paper is by far the more available now, especially if you want to buy sheets not rolls.

Welcome to Under Exposure and the World of Negative Film!
Both images are under exposed. First image, probably grossly so. See the strong backlight in the background? That threw your meter way off. Even more modern and sophisticated multi segment "matrix" meters would be off, but the simple center weighted "averaging" meter you have is thrown massively off by situations like this. It sees all that light in the background, and in the process of averaging the exposure over the entire image area, gives an exposure way too low for the important part of the image - your sons face.
Second image has a similar but less drastic situation. Your sons face is in reality a highlight, that is, it is brighter than middle grey. Same for the walls in the background. But your meter does not know this, and believes the boys face should be a brightness similar to middle grey. so instead of correct exposure, it only sets enought to make his face a dull grey level of brightness - and the shadow side of his face falls into murky, grainy darkness. Caucasiioan skin tones (tones = brightness, or at least it is helpful to think of it that way) should be 1 stop Above middle grey brightness. So, the fix is to add 1 stop of extra exposure in a sitaution like this. Plus, negative film is always improved by an extra stop, so plus 2 stops would be the best for your second image.

So, that is the Under Exposure part of the Story. And with Porta 400, even in 35mm, that is the greatest part of the story. Expose it well (make sure you err on the side of over exposure with negative film), and you will get much much better scans.
But the other part of the story is that negative film just simply scans more grainy and less sharp than slide film. Peroid. Plus, consumer scanners are optimized for slide film which makes the situation worse when home scanning negs (not your case, you had a minilab which was optimized for negtive scans do your work).
Try a roll of Provia 100F or Provia 400X and you will be amazed at how much better the scanned results are. Like worlds better. Sharper, with almost non-existant grain that allows digital like levels of inage sharpening if needed. Plus, you will be blown away by the colors and vibrancy of your slides! If you have an old family projector, your first slide show will be something you will not soon forget.
However, your metering must be much more precise. a non issue really with any of the multi segment metering cameras from the 1990's, and even point and shoots from that era. But your camera will require more care and thought in basing exposure readings.
But, I still highly recommend trying a roll of slide. It offers maximum differentiation to digital. Its a true analog expereince. Neg only approaches this level of uniqueness if you are doing optical printing, which is an art unto itself....

I would also ask, did you have the lab scan these or did you do it yourself? It looks like they are slightly "lab corrected" as in rather than give you lab scans as they were, they were brightened up a bit from the original exposure which would account for the increased grain look. Also standard lab scans are often of poor quality. Third, the first image looks like someone hand processed them as I see a bit of bromide drag in the background, not at all terrible from what I've seen but not great either, I agree try over exposing by a stop or ask for push process for one stop, I've read that Portra handles that sort of thing better than any other film ever, so as long as you dial it in properly it should fine.

whoops didn't see that there were multiple pages of response... guess mine is over kill haha, good luck!

StoneNYC, yes I'm overwhelmed by the quantity AND quality of the replies I got so far, but It also give me a lot of work too lol.

My to do is to :
- get better exposure of my film/learn to use the camera.
- start home dev BW film, then when I am used to doing it try color (looks like I can save a ton of money doing it myself.
- start B/W enlargment and then try color enlargment.
- try slide film when I am ok with exposition.
- finish reading the 3 AA books Camera/negative/print.

;-)

LucRoMar said:

StoneNYC, yes I'm overwhelmed by the quantity AND quality of the replies I got so far, but It also give me a lot of work too lol.

My to do is to :
- get better exposure of my film/learn to use the camera.
- start home dev BW film, then when I am used to doing it try color (looks like I can save a ton of money doing it myself.
- start B/W enlargment and then try color enlargment.
- try slide film when I am ok with exposition.
- finish reading the 3 AA books Camera/negative/print.

;-)

Click to expand...

B&W is certainly cheaper than a lab, but color, it's a toss up, it's a LOT more work, and you can save money for sure, but you basically have to stockpile the color until there's enough of it to develop until your chemistry is exhausted, otherwise it goes bad really fast. So you spend all day developing 20-30 rolls, it's a nightmare... I'm moving away from color, I'll keep my Velvia because it's just yummy haha, but other than that, I'm trying to purge all my C-41... in fact I have a thread about it, want to trade?

To me, color is not a lot more work than B&W. Color is easy enough that I would recommend people start with color processing then do B&W. Color is standardized, B&W has many more variables to learn and master. And as has been repeated many times on this forum color chemistry can last as long or longer than B&W if stored properly.

It was noted earlier that Fuji paper gives crossover in Kodak RA-RT replenisher at room temp. I use Fuji CA II paper and results are almost identical to Endura. No crossover.

Does kodak still makes paper for darkroom prints or are we left with only fuji ?

has anyone tried the "KODAK PROFESSIONAL ENDURA Premier/Metallic", I would love to give them a try.
Need to find myself a color enlarger, I am going to go broke wit all this ;-)

Kodak is still a major supplier of RA4 papers, but most of it is in rolls for pro lab use. I don't know if
anyone cuts it for private label rebranding. Possibly. Ilford (Switzerland - not Harman) and Mitsubishi also make RA4 papers. Plenty of sources. I personally use Fuji.

Kodak doesn't sell Endura cut-sheet paper for home darkroom use any more but you might be able to find some old stock somewhere. Kodak still makes it in rolls for lab use.

I have seen the metallic paper, which has a silvery look to it, used at the lab where I work but never used it at home.

Most current papers are "optimised for digital" which means "not optimised for straight response or equal response in each channel; we expect you to calibrate it out in your printer profile". So there are not many papers available that will give a good straight optical print without having the odd hue shift or crossover; some of the Fuji papers are quite bad for this. Certainly you can buy some Endura Metallic and give it a bash, but it comes on big expensive rolls, has little dynamic range and might not give you accurate colour. Definitely try printing on plain RA4 paper first to get your process working reliably before using the super-expensive paper.

I would suggest if you're interested in the metallic look to order an 8x10" metallic print from your local pro lab from a digital file and see if you like it. Maybe you could even get the lab to sell you some paper off their roll if they're feeling generous. The metallic has a very nice glow to it when lit diagonally - it looks like backlit transparency - and works best IMHO with highly saturated colours. It doesn't glow so much in the shadows and loses highlight detail easily, so aim for an image with narrow dynamic range and no delicate highlights.

The exposure generally looks OK, but you forgot to adjust for backlight and sidelight. The old rule of thumb (with manual cameras) was to open up about a stop for backlight and about half a stop for sidelight. Automatic exposure cameras handle these situations in a number of different ways, and you just have to figure out what your camera does and adjust accordingly. Portra 400 probably works best at box speed, although some people prefer to overexpose a bit. Just don't go too far. 320 is a perfectly acceptable speed for this film, and it gives you a bit less grain and a bit of room on the shadow side. Try bracketing and see what works best for you.

curious was this NEW Portra or one of the older Portra VC/NC versions?

That was the new portra 400. Went to the shop to get the dev. of two rolls of T max 400 and ended up getting some provia 400 lol ;-)

LucRoMar said:

That was the new portra 400. Went to the shop to get the dev. of two rolls of T max 400 and ended up getting some provia 400 lol ;-)

Click to expand...

Oh well provia isn't bad :whistles: but you better get more accurate on that exposure


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk