Portra 800 for shooting wedding

[arturo_rs]

Hello.

I am planning to shoot Portra 800 for a wedding. I can´t use the flash. I know the conditions of the place. I have to shoot it at 1600.

This is my question: How do i have to develop for the best results, normal time or pùshed +1? Normally, I develop my self but this time I´m gonna send it to a professional lab.

 

[halfaman]

Color is nice but contrast is quite hard on Portra 800 pushed 1 stop (exposed at 1600 and overdeveloped. It is not difficult to have burned highlights and blocked shadows in the same photograph. You need to meter carefully and avoid harsh contrast if you want to keep detail all over the scene.

 

[loccdor]

I don't know, I find Portra 800 somewhat low contrast when shot at box speed. I think it will be okay. It depends how harsh (directional) the light is.

But if you are shooting people, you're probably avoiding that type of light anyway.

Are image stabilized lenses an option? With the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, I was able to shoot portraits under streetlamps with Portra 800 at box speed, wide open aperture around 1/8 sec shutter.

It's especially important that the Portra 800 is not expired if you use it in very low light or push it.

 

[arturo_rs]

Color is nice but contrast is quite hard on Portra 800 pushed 1 stop (exposed at 1600 and overdeveloped. It is not difficult to have burned highlights and blocked shadows in the same photograph. You need to meter carefully and avoid harsh contrast if you want to keep detail all over the scene.

I can preflash the RA4. Normally I use Fuji Maxima and it helps to recover some info in the highlights.

 

[halfaman]

I don't know, I find Portra 800 somewhat low contrast when shot at box speed. I think it will be okay. It depends how harsh (directional) the light is.

But if you are shooting people, you're probably avoiding that type of light anyway.

Are image stabilized lenses an option? With the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, I was able to shoot portraits under streetlamps with Portra 800 at box speed, wide open aperture around 1/8 sec shutter.

View attachment 407224

It's especially important that the Portra 800 is not expired if you use it in very low light or push it.

I used Portra 800 mainly for night photography and I had no problem at box speed or pushed 1 stop. I used it once at 1600 on a sunny day (some frames left from the previous night roll) for a street photography style and the contrast I get was really high.

The photo below is an example of that roll. I tried to save highlights in the scanning and I lifted shawdows in the edition, specially in the cross in the foreground.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think Porta 400 will push to 800 with some loss of shadow detail, should work. Assuming you are shooting 35mm, I could find Porta 800 in 120 but not 35mm. What about lighting, natural lighting from windows or interior lights, mixed or single? If under Tungsten lights if available in your part of the world you can try rebranded Kodak movie film balanced for tungsten lightning. I have only a single roll, a play under old fashioned hot lights, a bit harsher than Porta with spot on colors.

CineStill 800T ISO 800 Tungsten Color Film 35mm x 36 exp.

CineStill 800T ISO 800 Tungsten Color Film 35mm x 36 exp. - Now DX-Coded!CineStill film is the amazing technology of motion picture film, prepped and rolled for still photography.CineStill 800Tungsten is a unique film for still photographers. This film is great when…

www.freestylephoto.com

 

[arturo_rs]

I think Porta 400 will push to 800 with some loss of shadow detail, should work. Assuming you are shooting 35mm, I could find Porta 800 in 120 but not 35mm. What about lighting, natural lighting from windows or interior lights, mixed or single? If under Tungsten lights if available in your part of the world you can try rebranded Kodak movie film balanced for tungsten lightning. I have only a single roll, a play under old fashioned hot lights, a bit harsher than Porta with spot on colors.

CineStill 800T ISO 800 Tungsten Color Film 35mm x 36 exp.

CineStill 800T ISO 800 Tungsten Color Film 35mm x 36 exp. - Now DX-Coded!CineStill film is the amazing technology of motion picture film, prepped and rolled for still photography.CineStill 800Tungsten is a unique film for still photographers. This film is great when…

www.freestylephoto.com

Yes, I’m shooting 35mm. Mix of natural and interior light. Kodak ECN2 film is not and option. I make RA4 prints and ECN2 film shift the color on RA4 paper. I tried once and I did it like the results. I will shoot Portra 800 and I will developed it pushed +1.

 

[Paul Howell]

Best bet is Portra, shooting in mixed lighting is always a challenge.

 

[brbo]

I used it once at 1600 on a sunny day (some frames left from the previous night roll) for a street photography style and the contrast I get was really high.

The photo below is an example of that roll. I tried to save highlights in the scanning and I lifted shawdows in the edition, specially in the cross in the foreground.

So you underexposed film by a stop and then had to fight blown highlights?! Does not compute...

The scan just looks like an underexposed shot of a high contrast scene.

 

[loccdor]

@halfaman What type of scanner? I know my Epson 4490 has trouble with dense negatives, but those same negatives can be digitized with a DSLR or traditionally printed in a dark room without a problem. I think they call this the DMax spec of the scanner, and it's not so good in some.

For example, I can't put Velvia 50 through that scanner. The difference between light and dark is simply too much to get good images.

 

[arturo_rs]

Best bet is Portra, shooting in mixed lighting is always a challenge.

I think that too

 

[halfaman]

So you underexposed film by a stop and then had to fight blown highlights?! Does not compute...

The scan just looks like an underexposed shot of a high contrast scene.

Underexposed 1 stop in camera and overdeveloped (30 seconds as Tetenal Colortec instructions said), the definition of "push". It was also an underexposed scan with NikonScan and a Super Coolscan 8000 ED.

 

[halfaman]

@halfaman What type of scanner? I know my Epson 4490 has trouble with dense negatives, but those same negatives can be digitized with a DSLR or traditionally printed in a dark room without a problem. I think they call this the DMax spec of the scanner, and it's not so good in some.

For example, I can't put Velvia 50 through that scanner. The difference between light and dark is simply too much to get good images.

The particular scaner is a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000 ED. I don't use DSLR, just scanners, but I have experience with problematic images on the scanner that print with ease in the darkroom. I never printed this one or any of this particular roll.

 

[koraks]

When optically printing normally exposed and developed Portra 800 to Fuji DPII paper (comparable to Maxima), I find the contrast to be (surprise surprise) normal or slightly high. Underexposing by a stop and push processing would make the results come out somewhat harsh. Flashing the paper will help reel in runaway highlights on a white wedding dress etc. I doubt I'd personally find the look of pushed Portra 800 very appealing for a wedding shoot. I'd personally shoot digital instead for more flexibility. If it somehow must be on film, then I'd lean towards Portra 800 shot at box speed and using a large aperture and favorable optics - i.e. stabilized lenses and/or wide-angle to limit the impact of slower shutter speeds.

 

[arturo_rs]

When optically printing normally exposed and developed Portra 800 to Fuji DPII paper (comparable to Maxima), I find the contrast to be (surprise surprise) normal or slightly high. Underexposing by a stop and push processing would make the results come out somewhat harsh. Flashing the paper will help reel in runaway highlights on a white wedding dress etc. I doubt I'd personally find the look of pushed Portra 800 very appealing for a wedding shoot. I'd personally shoot digital instead for more flexibility. If it somehow must be on film, then I'd lean towards Portra 800 shot at box speed and using a large aperture and favorable optics - i.e. stabilized lenses and/or wide-angle to limit the impact of slower shutter speeds.

Here in southern Spain, at 11 in the morning, the sun will be out. Inside the church, maybe, there will be sufficient light. I think that I will be able to shoot at box speed. I will use a 50mm at f2

 

[BrianShaw]

May I ask, are you the “official wedding photographer “ or a guest taking pictures? The reason I ask is that here in the US we frequently see draconian rules on photography in certain denominations of churches, yet getting a waiver from the pastor is often just a matter of asking. Professionals get more waivers than guests and “unanticipated “ flashes during the service are often overlooked except by the grumpiest of clergy. Although the fussy wedding coordinators are sometimes completely different story. . If professional, ask for a waiver and run a test, if possible. If a guest, use a digital camera and focus more on celebrating the nuptials rather than photography. A 50mm viewpoint, assuming 35mm camera, might be okay but likely will be a bit boring. Good luck and best of success in however you approach this situation.

 

[arturo_rs]

May I ask, are you the “official wedding photographer “ or a guest taking pictures? The reason I ask is that here in the US we frequently see draconian rules on photography in certain denominations of churches, yet getting a waiver from the pastor is often just a matter of asking. Professionals get more waivers than guests and “unanticipated “ flashes during the service are often overlooked except by the grumpiest of clergy. Although the fussy wedding coordinators are sometimes completely different story. . If professional, ask for a waiver and run a test, if possible. If a guest, use a digital camera and focus more on celebrating the nuptials rather than photography. A 50mm viewpoint, assuming 35mm camera, might be okay but likely will be a bit boring. Good luck and best of success in however you approach this situation.

A guest. About the flash...things have changed here. 20 years ago, to use flash was normal. Nowdays, people see you rude for using flash. Today most people make the photos with the smartphone. Very poor quality photos I have to say. For them, good ones.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sometimes capturing a great moment with lesser gear, composition and content, far exceed lesser composition/content with higher technical quality. And it sure exceeds missing the moment…

 

[BrianShaw]

The older I get, the more I understand going to such an event as a guest rather than “the official paid photographer” (as indicated by the OP in post 17) to celebrate without distractions like a camera.

 

[koraks]

The reason I ask is that here in the US we frequently see draconian rules on photography in certain denominations of churches

This is really rare in Europe. You can generally photograph to your heart's content in European churches, although flash is indeed frowned upon or even expressly forbidden (in larger churches that draw a lot of tourists) and the same may go for tripods. Restrictions may apply during mass esp. in touristy places. Generally if you're part of a wedding entourage and you're photographing the wedding, nobody will mind.

The older I get, the more I understand going to such an event to celebrate without distractions like a camera.

Most couples like photos of their wedding. And if it's not them, then it's the parents, family etc. I sympathize with your sentiment, but would like to note it's the exception, not the rule. Besides, the question is basically about how to photograph this wedding, not whether or not it should be done in the first place.

 

[BrianShaw]

Unfortunately you’re interpreting something out of context in my comment. But I won’t get argumentative…

 

[koraks]

This could have been prevented if you had explicitly stated what you meant. I think the way I interpreted your statement wasn't far-fetched given the context of the thread as it stands.

And clarifying something doesn't have to be argumentative.

 

[Truzi]

BrianShaw seemed perfectly clear to me.