Portra 400

[cjbecker]

No you don’t change a thing. I run it normal if i shoot from 200 to 1600. I would also run it normal if I went down to 100 possibly 50. I will do some testing for my self though. If I shoot at 3200 I push one stop in processing and 2 stops for 6400.

 

[rphenning]

same ^. I don't tell my lab anything and just let them develop normally usually. I've done this for a roll where I experimented and shot all over, ISO wise, and gotten the results I want. I think of the new portra this way: overexpose and you get the creaminess that was inherent with NC, underexpose and you get a little more punch in contrast and color like VC had.

My initial experiments with it were somewhat less than scientific however I think I determined well enough for myself that this film can handle anything I want to shoot color negative for.

There was a strange phenomenon though, something I haven't seen before: On only one of my rolls that I shot at 800-1600 there were huge color shifts. Things that were lit with fluorescent were magenta. It was odd because I have shot portra 400 at 800 and 1600 before without problems.

 

[rphenning]

The color shifting was also a surprise because I feel like the new portra handles mixed light very well.

 

[Klainmeister]

Looks solid. Looking forward to getting some rolls back.

 

[tnabbott]

cjbecker and rphenning: thanks! I am excited now. I process C-41 at home and will use the same times no matter what ISO I meter at. Now the only thing I have to learn is how to take some nice compositions as were displayed on this thread.

 

[cjbecker]

the first 5 are all shot at 1600 and processed normally. the last 2 were 3200 pushed 1 stop I think. The only editing was bringing the blacks up a bit. not much though.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

 

[Aristophanes]

Let me get this right.

From frame-to-frame you're changing ISO, but not the other exposure values?

Then you send to lab for C-41 no push/pull developing at ISO 400.

Thx.

same ^. I don't tell my lab anything and just let them develop normally usually. I've done this for a roll where I experimented and shot all over, ISO wise, and gotten the results I want. I think of the new portra this way: overexpose and you get the creaminess that was inherent with NC, underexpose and you get a little more punch in contrast and color like VC had.

My initial experiments with it were somewhat less than scientific however I think I determined well enough for myself that this film can handle anything I want to shoot color negative for.

There was a strange phenomenon though, something I haven't seen before: On only one of my rolls that I shot at 800-1600 there were huge color shifts. Things that were lit with fluorescent were magenta. It was odd because I have shot portra 400 at 800 and 1600 before without problems.

 

[rphenning]

No, I will definitely change the exposure values. If I am changing the ISO then I am probably looking at either a very bright or very dark scene compared to what I was shooting 400 with, and will have to adjust accordingly. Changing the ISO just gives me a good jumping off point.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

So, in a nutshell, what's the biggest difference between 400NC and the New 400 ?

 

[Moopheus]

the first 5 are all shot at 1600 and processed normally. the last 2 were 3200 pushed 1 stop I think. The only editing was bringing the blacks up a bit. not much though.

Were these all available light only? No flash or filter?

Also, does anyone find differences between the 160 and 400 versions in terms of color appearance? (I haven't used either of the new versions yet).

 

[AlbertZeroK]

No, I will definitely change the exposure values. If I am changing the ISO then I am probably looking at either a very bright or very dark scene compared to what I was shooting 400 with, and will have to adjust accordingly. Changing the ISO just gives me a good jumping off point.

So... when you are adjusting the iso on your camera, you are also adjusting you exposure? Does that do the same thing? Like if I set iso to 800 and ev to -1 it is the same as iso 400 ev 0? I think I am missing something...

 

[Aristophanes]

I think what he is saying is that he's treating ISO as a variable like AutoISO on a DSLR.

So in Av mode you stick with say f/5.6 for composition but the meter says 1/15 and that's too slow for handheld, so bang the ISO up for that shot to 800 and EV-1 to get to 1/60. The process at ISO 400 regardless, no push specification on the lab order.

Right? Just as a nominal sample.

Q1: So, to echo the last response, why not just adjust EV to max rather than fiddle with ISO frame-by-frame?

Q2: Why not push at the lab?

So... when you are adjusting the iso on your camera, you are also adjusting you exposure? Does that do the same thing? Like if I set iso to 800 and ev to -1 it is the same as iso 400 ev 0? I think I am missing something...

 

[CGW]

For me, the pay-off of the new Portra 400's latitude is obvious: no more crossed fingers after asking for a 1-2 stop push at the lab. This used to be easy when pro labs with tight C-41 lines were common but now? Thanks, Kodak!

 

[cjbecker]

Were these all available light only? No flash or filter?

Also, does anyone find differences between the 160 and 400 versions in terms of color appearance? (I haven't used either of the new versions yet).

yes they were all available light. and no filter.

and also there was a lot of mixed lighting.

 

[tnabbott]

the first 5 are all shot at 1600 and processed normally. the last 2 were 3200 pushed 1 stop I think. The only editing was bringing the blacks up a bit. not much though.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Hi, nice pictures.

Just to avoid any confusion on my party can you confirm your process when measuring exposure. From the various posts on this thread I am imaging the following process: set ISO on light meter to 1600 (using your first 5 pics as an example) without EV compensation; take incident or spot meter; set aperture and shutter speed.

Am I understanding this correctly? TIA.

 

[Athiril]

So, in a nutshell, what's the biggest difference between 400NC and the New 400 ?

On paper it has NC contrast and VC saturation but with finer grain and better sharpness, and called a true 400 speed.

Doesn't sound like much but in practise it's huge.

Same dynamic range and low contrast with higher saturation is a good feat to pull off. It has incredible local contrast. The sharpness is excellent and so is the grain, I'd have no trouble just using Portra 400 in place of any 100 speed film.

I'd definately push when rating @ 1600. As the negs will be thin, example images don't show you that.

There is also no need to overexpose with this film.

I'd like to see Portra 800 replaced with a larger grain version of Portra 400, at a native 1600 speed, or 3200 even.



Testing Limits:
Portra 400 @ 25600 (7 minutes and 30 seconds push time.. I dont think this is the right time though, given the mid tone density, I think it needs double this, but in any case, no point in repeating this curiosity)

New Portra 400 @ 25600 by athiril, on Flickr

@ 1600 with a +2 stop push

OCAU Melb Photowalk Week 2 #6 by athiril, on Flickr

@ 3200 (iirc) with a +2 stop push

OCAU Melb Photowalk #2 4 by athiril, on Flickr

 

[Diapositivo]

There was a strange phenomenon though, something I haven't seen before: On only one of my rolls that I shot at 800-1600 there were huge color shifts. Things that were lit with fluorescent were magenta. It was odd because I have shot portra 400 at 800 and 1600 before without problems.

If you were taking pictures with shutter speeds faster than 1/60" under fluorescent illumination the reason of the colour shift might be the one explained here:

http://johnbdigital.com/lenses/fluorescent/fluorescent_lighting.php

Fabrizio

 

[rphenning]

Naw I took that into account ^ if I am remembering the right roll, good call though on the color shift because of the flickering

 

[film_man]

the first 5 are all shot at 1600 and processed normally. the last 2 were 3200 pushed 1 stop I think. The only editing was bringing the blacks up a bit. not much though.

Dead Link Removed

I'm really looking forward to trying this film at 3200. I'm down to my last four rolls of 400VC which will be finished later this week and then it's all with the new 400.

Given how well this film appears to work I'm curious to see how the new 160 will end up (160VC is one of my favourite films for travel) and also, what exactly is the point of Portra 800?

 

[perkeleellinen]

I hope Kodak update Portra 800 also as it would have great potential at higher speeds, I really hope that sales don't plummet and it gets discontinued now everyone is underexposing / pushing the 400.

 

[cjbecker]

Hi, nice pictures.

Just to avoid any confusion on my party can you confirm your process when measuring exposure. From the various posts on this thread I am imaging the following process: set ISO on light meter to 1600 (using your first 5 pics as an example) without EV compensation; take incident or spot meter; set aperture and shutter speed.

Am I understanding this correctly? TIA.

Yep you are understanding it correctly.

 

[lambis]

Yep you are understanding it correctly.

Ok Thats mean, if i get it right that with a camera that have a lightmeter just over or underexposue with 3 stops. What a latitude!!!!

www.lambisstratoudakis.com

 

[polyglot]

I went to the Local Shop[1] today to buy a 5-pack of 120 for my wedding. Asked if they had the new Portra ("the what? huh? do you want some VC or NC?"). So I figured I'd get some NC, paid my money, got it home... and it's the New Portra 400! Fingers are crossed...



[1] for Local People.

 

[kb3lms]

Amazing film! Kodak, you got this one right. Hand processed my 1st roll this week and have been printing and scanning. There is no grain. Beautiful colors! This will be my go to color film.

 

[polyglot]

I don't wish to be rude kb3lms, but those colours are wacky and not representative of the accuracy that Portra can give. In particular, I suspect (assuming you're scanning the negs) you've not set the mask colour correctly in your scan, resulting in red shadows. The whole thing is a bit orange, but the shadows in particular are very red.

Oh, that New Portra 400 I got by accident? It worked exceedingly well.