PortraVC400 shot at EI100

SoulJance · Mar 8, 2011

Just started a new roll and took some shots at a friends wedding (I was not their photographer though few) and did not reset the ASA and started shooting at EI 100. I do have a lab that does pull film but I would like to know what to expect.
In BW film i should get more sharpness, less grain, but how does pulling affect colour films?
Has anyone shot at EI 100 as I would like to see the shots.

markbarendt · Mar 8, 2011

At "just" 2 stops over personally I wouldn't even pull, at 4 maybe, but not at 2. There is normally plenty of room on the film curve for 2-3 stops extra.

The negatives will be a bit thicker than "normal" and there will be plenty of shadow detail, enlarger times will be longer. Shouldn't even be an issue for your lab to scan and print if that's the plan.

Many people shoot 2 stops over with C-41 films like this as standard practice.

Athiril · Mar 8, 2011

If you dont pull your contrast/lighting conditions will look like lower ratios than they really are. Anyway it should be fine.

I'd only pull 1 stop if you really want to pull, but it's not necessary, save yourself the expensve at the lab unless you DIY.

SoulJance · Mar 8, 2011

I should mention that I do use a hybrid workflow for my colour work so I will be scanning the neg, could this cause problems?
Thanks for the replies mark and Athiril

Athiril · Mar 8, 2011

It shouldn't. Ektar at +4 and +5 stops were noisy in some parts due to the terrible SNR of any current generation scanner (you mostly need a scanner thats up to 2 decades old for good SNR, good optics, etc), New Portra 400 handled it easy. +2 shouldn't be any kind of issue.

markbarendt · Mar 8, 2011

SoulJance said:
I should mention that I do use a hybrid workflow for my colour work so I will be scanning the neg, could this cause problems?
Thanks for the replies mark and Athiril

I don't know specifically how they do it, but the lab I use has no issue scanning +2 negs.

For specific hybrid process questions http://www.dpug.org/forums/home.php is the right place to ask. Hybrid work questions at APUG are off topic.

markbarendt · Mar 8, 2011

BTW welcome to APUG

lns · Mar 8, 2011

You'll lose detail in the highlights, but that can look kind of interesting and a little ethereal. Actually, it's a look that I've seen emulated by digital wedding photographers. White skin, for example, will lose detail. But especially, for women that can actually be very flattering. If I were a wedding photographer I'd probably overexpose by one stop just for that reason. You may have to worry about blowing the highlights in the dress. But you'll get good detail in the black clothes.

If your photos were taken in bright sunlight, you might want to pull one stop. Have you talked to your lab?

-Laura

hrst · Mar 8, 2011

With current color neg films, you probably WON'T lose detail in the highlights, even in difficult situations! 2 stops over is nothing special.

I'd just have them developed normally and enjoy, but of course you can ask for pull processing... If you really were to blow out your highlights by placing them long into shoulder, pull processing wouldn't help that much, anyway, as it more likely lowers overall contrast. With lousy scanners, it may help a bit though.

Tim Gray · Mar 8, 2011

hrst said:
With current color neg films, you probably WON'T lose detail in the highlights, even in difficult situations! 2 stops over is nothing special.

I'd just have them developed normally and enjoy, but of course you can ask for pull processing... If you really were to blow out your highlights by placing them long into shoulder, pull processing wouldn't help that much, anyway, as it more likely lowers overall contrast. With lousy scanners, it may help a bit though.

Agreed.

Athiril · Mar 8, 2011

lns said:
You'll lose detail in the highlights, but that can look kind of interesting and a little ethereal. Actually, it's a look that I've seen emulated by digital wedding photographers. White skin, for example, will lose detail. But especially, for women that can actually be very flattering. If I were a wedding photographer I'd probably overexpose by one stop just for that reason. You may have to worry about blowing the highlights in the dress. But you'll get good detail in the black clothes.

If your photos were taken in bright sunlight, you might want to pull one stop. Have you talked to your lab?

-Laura

No you won't lose detail in the highlights, and dodgied up images blowing out detail in post that's actually there in the original, then colour casting the white point and making it look like "70's" colour (which isn't 70's colour) is amateurish and is almost always cover up of poor photography.

Pro (not amateur picked up a camera last month) wedding photographers don't blow out skin detail, let alone want to do that on purpose.

holmburgers · Mar 8, 2011

I had the exact same thing happen this weekend at a friends wedding except I was shooting NC.. spooky. I assumed it would be ok but I'm glad to see confirmation of this.

Athiril · Mar 8, 2011

Found some Flickr of 400VC @ 100.

X'mas brunch by dacookieman, on Flickr

Tim Gray · Mar 8, 2011

Portra 400VC at EI 12. 5 stops overexposed.

Athiril · Mar 8, 2011

Tim Gray said:
Portra 400VC at EI 12. 5 stops overexposed.

Not an APUG issue but I'd like to point out that for flatbed scanners this might cause tremendous noise (since most people will be getting some kind of scan as their output image somewhere in the process), not sure how it is with 400VC, but I know it did with Ektar for me at +4 to +5, but +5 on New Portra 400 handles very well in a 'real world' situation - lighting ratios look like they become significantly lower/compressed.

MattKing · Mar 8, 2011

What was the light like at the wedding?

If it was very contrasty, I would suggest a one stop "pull". If a lot of your shots used on camera flash in a large, otherwise dark room, I'd suggest a two stop pull.

If it was a cloudy day, with even, flat lighting, you will probably be fine.

lns · Mar 8, 2011

Well, Tim and Athiril, I definitely lost detail in the highlights the other day when I overexposed a few shots of the new Portra 400, not in test shots but in actual photos. YMMV, and that's great news. Negative film has a lot of latitude. Of course it depends on the EV range in your photo, and how strong and contrasty the light is. If you are shooting in shade, or indoors in even light, it will be easier to over-expose with less effect. Good point. I do agree and should have been more detailed in my answer. But overexposure will be much more noticeable in strong sunlight, for example. And despite the nice latitude of negative film, it's not endless. There will be some effect, whether it shows up in every photo or not. So I will stand by my experience that if you overexpose two stops you will lose detail in the highlights.

In fact, I consider the picture in post #13 to be very nicely exposed for the main subject, but also to have lost detail in the highlights where the sun strikes. So perhaps we just have different experiences or expectations. That's why I always learn so much on this forum.

-Laura

markbarendt · Mar 8, 2011

lns said:
Well, Tim and Athiril, I definitely lost detail in the highlights the other day when I overexposed a few shots of the new Portra 400, not in test shots but in actual photos.

Laura how were your shots printed?

hrst · Mar 9, 2011

Latitude really is not endless, but it is so long that two stops is quite little in proportion, so if you blow out the highlights with that, you would very probably blow them out even when shot normally. Blowing out also isn't on/off style of thing like in digital cameras. Contrast gets lower and lower, and at some point, your expectation is not met anymore.

But yes I agree, it is possible to blow out highlights with neg film with two stop overexposure, IF the scene contrast is really huge, and IF your expectations for the highlight contrast are just on the edge. It will then look "a little bit washed out", and it would be "somewhat less washed out" when normally exposed.

In any case, the most important factor is how the negs are printed. Extreme highlights may need careful dodging and burning or contrast masking, regardless of whether the film was overexposed or not.

markbarendt · Mar 9, 2011

I do agree that the latitude isn't limitless but I am also always surprised by how much is there.

One point that needs to be remembered is that paper (like other output types) has a short curve and straight exposure is always "place & fall".

In a straight exposure of a amply exposed negative, only a certain percentage of the negative's curve will hit the printable part of the paper's curve. Change the exposure through the negative and the placement of all the tones move, still a straight print though.

If instead, we fix the printing exposure, then changes in camera exposure will change the placement of the tones in the print. Shadows and highlights will move on or off the paper's curve based on the exposure/development of the negative. The other thing that changes though is where the rest of the printable tones fall.

If say placing a face a stop above middle tone or the white dress 2.5 stops over middle tone is the definition of proper paper exposure, and adjustments to the straight exposure are made, then the highlights from a negative exposed at 400 and one exposed at 100 will be very, very similar, if not indistinguishable.

Athiril · Mar 9, 2011

lns said:
Well, Tim and Athiril, I definitely lost detail in the highlights the other day when I overexposed a few shots of the new Portra 400, not in test shots but in actual photos. YMMV, and that's great news. Negative film has a lot of latitude. Of course it depends on the EV range in your photo, and how strong and contrasty the light is. If you are shooting in shade, or indoors in even light, it will be easier to over-expose with less effect. Good point. I do agree and should have been more detailed in my answer. But overexposure will be much more noticeable in strong sunlight, for example. And despite the nice latitude of negative film, it's not endless. There will be some effect, whether it shows up in every photo or not. So I will stand by my experience that if you overexpose two stops you will lose detail in the highlights.

In fact, I consider the picture in post #13 to be very nicely exposed for the main subject, but also to have lost detail in the highlights where the sun strikes. So perhaps we just have different experiences or expectations. That's why I always learn so much on this forum.

-Laura

Sorry it hasn't lost detail at all, I think you need to recalibrate your monitor, and if you're not on a calibrated monitor but a typical low quality LCD (especially the ones Apple ships) then such a judegement can't be made by a visual inspection. And your exposure must have off +5 or more stops to begin with before overexposing those 2 stops. Or you simply do not understand image reproduction from a negative. I overexpoed Portra 400 in the sun +5 stops, the brightest highlights have detail in them.

IE: The following is +5 stops, there isn't anything on there in the real scene that had contrast that doesnt have contrast on the negative (no contrast = no detail/blow out/burned out etc), comes a point where you got to decide what shall be black and what shall be white on your neg though. The detail isn't lost at +5 in direct hard Aussie sun, it certainly isn't lost at +2. That is a problem with your workflow and not the materials (New Portra 400).

OCAU Melb Photowalk Week 2 #11 by athiril, on Flickr

markbarendt · Mar 9, 2011

Athiril said:
comes a point where you got to decide what shall be black and what shall be white on your neg though. The detail isn't lost at +5 in direct hard Aussie sun, it certainly isn't lost at +2. That is a problem with your workflow and not the materials (New Portra 400).

Exactly.

True for old Portra too.

GeorgK · Mar 9, 2011

The key question is: does your scanner allow the adjustment of exposure time to handle the dense negs? It is not only a problem of S/N ratio (although a good S/N does not hurt in such a case), but at "normal" exposure the highlight areas in the negative appear almost black to the scanner's CCD, which means noise and flat gradiation (and compensating the "flat" highlights in post-processing will introduce even more noise and visible posterization).
Actually, a lot of complaints about "grain" in scanned negatives simply mean scanner noise.
Sadly, most of the electronic garbage that is actually sold as "film scanners" (Reflecta/Pacific, Quato/Plustek...) only has a fixed exposure time (=scan speed) and cannot handle overexposed / overdeveloped negatives very well.

Georg

Athiril · Mar 9, 2011

They dont appear almost black on negs.

Not an APUG issue, but VueScan allows exposure to be adjusted even on many flatbeds, but you dont need to do that, the regular exposure with Epson Scan or whatever makers software captures the entire histogram of negs, you just got to expand the levels to include it all.

Plustek dedicated scanners are terrific quality.

DanielStone · Mar 11, 2011

I shot this at ISO 160, but there's still printable(in the darkroom) detail on the brightest highlights. I scanned this on the Imacon at school, but that scanner can't handle +4 or +5 highlight detail, even with a 3F scan.

Also, this was shot on a 220 roll(in the RZ I have for sale here), so fine details in hightlights or shadows will resolve better than on 35mm, primarily due to more "meat" of a negative(surface area)

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy161/mr_danielstone/DS_Alexandsachi_2010_0913.jpg

-Dan

PortraVC400 shot at EI100

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency