Portra 400 shot @160

[Ektagraphic]

Hi Guys-

I was recently out shooting some portraits of a friend and realized I made a mistake. I shot a roll of Portra 400 at 160. I was wondering if it may be better for me to have this roll pull processed or developed regularly. I also shot a roll of 160 right before, so I would like to have the images look similar between rolls, which is why I am thinking about having it pull processed. I need to learn to be more careful every day I guess. Thanks in advance for your help and advice.

-Pat

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You're FINE. That's a 1 1/3 stop overexposure - so far within the margin of tolerance for negative film that you won't even notice it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

These examples go the other way, but should show you the latitude.

One is Portra 160 at 160 and the other is shot at 400.

Either way, you are safe. I wish they were a little closer in density, but this will be adjusted in the print process.

PE

 

[horacekenneth]

If this is germane to the topic, could someone explain the expected difference in results between shooting a film a stop under and pulling it a stop vs shooting it a stop under and developing normally?

 

[Prest_400]

Some photographers deliberately expose negative film at lower EI. Especially Fuji Pro 400H for its pastel rendering @ISO 100 to 200.
I haven't done it yet, but did look at it quite much and I might try to expose Portra 400 at 160-200 ISO. Afterall, current generation of neg materials are very flexible, as PE shows.

 

[Photo Engineer]

A pull or push process can distort the curves and cause crossover or other undesirable effects. Over or under exposing with no pull or push does none of that, it just darkens or lightens the negative a bit and you can easily print or scan through this.

PE

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If this is germane to the topic, could someone explain the expected difference in results between shooting a film a stop under and pulling it a stop vs shooting it a stop under and developing normally?

There's a significant difference in what this means with b/w vs with color; in b/w, pulling development controls the highlights without affecting the shadows (to a point). While theoretically doing the same for color film, it will also at least potentially affect the color balance as well - the color dyes in a negative are related to the development time, and altering that time by a meaningful degree will negatively (pun unintended) impact color balance.

 

[Roger Cole]

You're FINE. That's a 1 1/3 stop overexposure - so far within the margin of tolerance for negative film that you won't even notice it.

This. I make it a point, light permitting, to "overexpose" it a bit, ranging from 1/3-1 stop because this gives lower apparent grain, gobs of shadow detail, and slightly lower (apparent anyway) contrast. It just flat looks great at 200-320. You won't even notice it with decent printing.

 

[cblkdog]

Leave it alone, it won't matter. C41 is different from b/w.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Thanks for the tips! I had the film developed as normal- I will let you know the results!

 

[Ektagraphic]

Thanks for all of the advice, everything worked out great with normal development! I can post examples a little later if anyone is interested in seeing how well it worked out

 

[Chan Tran]

I wouldn't expect anything less than a good result. Overexposure with Portra is really no problem and if for some reason the meter is wrong a bit and under expose you have the safety guard there.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Looking forward to your posts.