Portra Color Film shooting advice needed

[bernard_L]

a sheet of white paper is just fine.

Don't! From my sorry experience, esp. at high altitude, the brightener in the paper fluoresces (UV converted to blue). If you take that as a neutral reference, the "neutralized" pictures will in fact be yellowish.

 

[timparkin]

The Original Poster is going on holidays and he has shot so far only a few films. Nonetheless, he chose to only carry film with him, which is very nice to hear! Let's encourage him with practical and sound advice so that he might be a very happy film user also in the future and so that his "inexperience" with film will not damage his photography.
In a line, let's try not to scare him with too much technical details about zone placement, spot metering, color temperature, lighting ratios etc

To the OP I'd say: don't worry too much. Don't worry at all. Colour negative film is ultimately very forgiving. It's certainly easier to use than digital. With digital it's much easier to blow highlights in high-contrast situations. Film simplifies life! Correct and well thought-about exposure certainly gives better results but during holidays very often there's no much time to think too much, e.g. when going around with a group of persons, on a guided tour, a boat etc. In those situations negative film is the safest choice.

A few more suggestions: be careful of heat. Don't let the camera or film let's say in a glove compartment under the sun or in the boot of a car. Keep the film "fresh" when possible. Establish a clear "convention" for used canisters (impressed canisters) and virgin ones. I personally always rewind the film tail inside the canister to distinguish the impressed ones. Perfectionists will prefer to leave the tail outside of the canister (so as to minimize the risk of light leaks) but in that case be scrupulous in marking/separating the used ones. If you use a marker to mark canisters, make the marking immediately, before opening the new roll. Do observe the advice to change your rolls in shade. If you are in the sun in an open desert, do use your body to project a shadow on the camera while changing the roll. When you change canister do use your pump to dislodge dust particles from the inside of the camera. Always have spare batteries with you: don't leave them in the tent, or in the hotel. Find a place to have spare batteries always with you when you have a camera, things like your purse, your document holder, or a pocket of your photographic bag.

Fabrizio

Colour negative film has a lot less dynamic range than digital "in the shadows" hence it's completely different to expose.

Also the thing about keeping film fresh is all very well but people have been shooting reconnaissance for the forces over periods of months in desert conditions. I asked a colleague who did just this work and he said 'no problems'. Another example, a colleague left a sheet of 4x5 Astia in his camperva for four years. It was already about two years old when it was exposed. He developed it and it was absolutely fine.

I'm not saying there might not be the potential for problems but in most cases it's overstated.

Tim

 

[markbarendt]

Don't! From my sorry experience, esp. at high altitude, the brightener in the paper fluoresces (UV converted to blue). If you take that as a neutral reference, the "neutralized" pictures will in fact be yellowish.

Yes brighteners may technically skew the balance slightly, but it doesn't matter, I'm not talking about using these targets for the white balance dropper in PS.

All we need is a target that can provide a reference point, pink (skin tones), work just fine as long as we can measure it and we know what it is supposed to be.

 

[timparkin]

incident or spot test?

Incident or spot?

How would you incident read a scene like this in order to expose Portra 160 (presuming you don't want anything blocked up).

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra-test.jpg

And here's another one..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/photo/white-oak/

and another one..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/photo/worms-tail/

Tim

 

[DREW WILEY]

The old-school trick in lieu of a graycard was, causcasian skin tone = one stop above middle gray.
Doesn't work so well with darker complexions or an in-law of mine was a mailman in Las Vegas
with a very heavy tan (and his wife was pale - yay for a spotmeter!) Lots of the time, solid green grass like a lawn is very close to middle gray, at least for my meters. If I have to do something hokey like using internal metering in an SLR I'll aim it at a lawn or some gray rock or even asphalt
pavement. Think if I was the OP and wanted to keep things simple, I'd opt for Portra 400 with a little
more color saturation rather than 160. It will still have plenty of wiggle room.

 

[Diapositivo]

Incident or spot?

How would you incident read a scene like this in order to expose Portra 160 (presuming you don't want anything blocked up).

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra-test.jpg

And here's another one..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/photo/white-oak/

and another one..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/photo/worms-tail/

Tim

Not to hijack the original topic, with colour negative, first picture, I would point the dome toward the camera from an arm length, while projecting a shade on the dome with the other hand, or, if possible, I would measure the exposure on the shade side of the walls. By the way, this picture definitely looks like it was taken with a digital camera rather than with film, the highlights on the upper right corners are clipped, which can clearly be seen by the grey sky, "recovery" function didn't recover colour information. That's strange, scanners should have no problems in capturing all the dynamic range of a colour negative. A colour negative should - if its dynamic range is exceeded - gently blend skyblue into white without any grey sky in between, which is a typical digital-capture behaviour.

Second picture, it's not clear to me what it is, the situation.

Third picture, I would just point the dome toward myself although I cannot see if the environment surrounding the photographer might falsify the reading (something reflective near me and not near the rocks), and I would rely on the colour negative dynamic range to preserve as much sky as possible before the blending into the white.

Not easy to say as the incident meter should be put near the subject so as to capture the light reflected from nearby objects (the grass in the first example reflects some light back to the walls) so if it isn't possible to put the instrument near the subject one must have recourse to some mental calculation.

Fabrizio

EDIT: and I must add that I like the third picture in particular

 

[timparkin]

Not to hijack the original topic, with colour negative, first picture, I would point the dome toward the camera from an arm length, while projecting a shade on the dome with the other hand, or, if possible, I would measure the exposure on the shade side of the walls. By the way, this picture definitely looks like it was taken with a digital camera rather than with film, the highlights on the upper right corners are clipped, which can clearly be seen by the grey sky, "recovery" function didn't recover colour information. That's strange, scanners should have no problems in capturing all the dynamic range of a colour negative. A colour negative should - if its dynamic range is exceeded - gently blend skyblue into white without any grey sky in between, which is a typical digital-capture behaviour.

Depends on the situation - high cirrus and haze can change things..

Here's the raw scan showing most of the dynamic range..

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra-test.jpg
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/richard-contrast-test-glencreran-crop.jpg
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/richard-contrast-test-glencreran-crop2.jpg

Second picture, it's not clear to me what it is, the situation.

Oak leaves underwater with the reflection from the overcast sky being broken by an overhanging branch creating a semitransparent area. Correct incident would have to be taken underwater I imagine.

Third picture, I would just point the dome toward myself although I cannot see if the environment surrounding the photographer might falsify the reading (something reflective near me and not near the rocks), and I would rely on the colour negative dynamic range to preserve as much sky as possible before the blending into the white.

Pointing it towards me would pick up the sun reflecting off me as it just peeks behind the cloud and would end up underexposing the cliff face which is probably about EV5-6 in the darkest areas. You couldn't get to those areas without abseiling off the edge of the cliff. You could probably try to find an appropriate shadow that looks like it's getting a similar light.

Not easy to say as the incident meter should be put near the subject so as to capture the light reflected from nearby objects (the grass in the first example reflects some light back to the walls) so if it isn't possible to put the instrument near the subject one must have recourse to some mental calculation.

Agreed..

 

[Diapositivo]

Oak leaves underwater with the reflection from the overcast sky being broken by an overhanging branch creating a semitransparent area. Correct incident would have to be taken underwater I imagine.

Very interesting effect. I would just use the incident light meter the usual way as it seems to me that the water veil is quite thin (most oak leaves seems to float rather than being under the water line).

"Incidentally" that's a typical case where in-camera meter suggestion would easily lead to underexposure.

 

[markbarendt]

Incident or spot?

How would you incident read a scene like this in order to expose Portra 160 (presuming you don't want anything blocked up).

http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static/tmp/portra-test.jpg

And here's another one..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/photo/white-oak/

and another one..

http://www.timparkin.co.uk/photo/worms-tail/

Tim

First and third are way easy;

Dome retracted, so any flat face incident meter.

One reading pointed directly at the light source/sun.

A second reading pointed at the camera.

Average the two.

This is classic "duplexing".

The one in the middle is a placement choice, visualize what you want, then take a normal Dome out incident reading pointed at the camera, then open up the lens to add about 2-stops of exposure (season to taste) and place the water surface in zone 7+ to 8 ish.

 

[kbrede]

The old-school trick in lieu of a graycard was, causcasian skin tone = one stop above middle gray.
Doesn't work so well with darker complexions or an in-law of mine was a mailman in Las Vegas
with a very heavy tan (and his wife was pale - yay for a spotmeter!) Lots of the time, solid green grass like a lawn is very close to middle gray, at least for my meters. If I have to do something hokey like using internal metering in an SLR I'll aim it at a lawn or some gray rock or even asphalt
pavement. Think if I was the OP and wanted to keep things simple, I'd opt for Portra 400 with a little
more color saturation rather than 160. It will still have plenty of wiggle room.

I'm taking Portra 160 and 400. My plan is to use the 400 mostly for 'in the city' shots and overcast days outside the city. The 160 I was hoping to reserve for wildlife, macro, lava abstract and landscape type shots in the Galapagos.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just remember that 160 is the softer of the two films, and flora,fauna,and rocks might look a little bland. It's more a portrait film giving gentle skintones. Portra 400 will have more spunk and obviously allow faster shutter speeds. Please excuse all my complicated explanations in the foregoing posts - but it might become useful in the long run to someone. Like I said, I'd just buy a slightly warm sky
filter and leave it on the whole time to both protect the lens and correct a little for excess blue
at high altitude or along the beach. Use whatever metering technique you are most comfortable with, including in-camera metering. Switching meters takes practice to perfect, and a vacation is
generally not the right time for that kind of distraction! Above all, have a fun and safe trip!

 

[kbrede]

Just remember that 160 is the softer of the two films, and flora,fauna,and rocks might look a little bland. It's more a portrait film giving gentle skintones. Portra 400 will have more spunk and obviously allow faster shutter speeds. Please excuse all my complicated explanations in the foregoing posts - but it might become useful in the long run to someone. Like I said, I'd just buy a slightly warm sky
filter and leave it on the whole time to both protect the lens and correct a little for excess blue
at high altitude or along the beach. Use whatever metering technique you are most comfortable with, including in-camera metering. Switching meters takes practice to perfect, and a vacation is
generally not the right time for that kind of distraction! Above all, have a fun and safe trip!

No need to apologize. This thread has given me a lot of things to try. I'm going to be shooting several rolls of film this weekend and try some of the techniques I've learned here. After looking at the results I'll see what works for me and what doesn't.

The roll of Portra 400 I shot I experienced blue cast in the shadows. I didn't know what it was. The 81A filter showed up today.

By "softer" do you mean color or IQ? I was thinking 160 would be better at IQ, for shooting macros and close up photography. I was looking for a film that would give more naturalistic colors, at least not garish vibrancy. Is there a better film out there in the 100 ISO range for my purposes? I haven't even shot a roll of Portra 160, so there's no problem with me trying something different at this point.
Thanks,

 

[hugopoon]

You can get away with murder on Portra. Take a polariser and enjoy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The blue in the shadows is probably because that's what's there! Remember how the impressionist
painters scandalized the norm by actually putting blue in the shadows? Films can sometimes overreact. That's why corrective filters are needed. Portra 160, like I insinuated, is engineered to produce pleasing skintones under a variety of conditions, even if it is at the expense of correct reproduction of certain other hues. Portra 400 will probably be more realistic terms of landscape color, Ektar even moreso. Portra 160 is also much lower contrast to accomodate a wider range of illuminance and not accentuate things like skin blemishes, but therefore might come out looking
washed out and bland with respect to colors in nature. Just depends how you shoot. Might be good
insurance to practice with both and take both on the trip, though 160 would be more tolerant of
multiple airport X-rays.