Rating portra 400

[pentaxuser]

How are you using it?


Does this example appeal to you? It is from scanned film (actually slide film) and it definitely looks like film to me, but the most important ingredient in the recipe was the light.
(I chose the example to match your preferred subject matter )
View attachment 259378

Wow, Matt, isn't this a young Meryl Streep? A slightly quizzical look with great colour saturation on the lips . I suppose she could be the "Mid-West farmer's daughter" much loved by the Beach Boys. Perhaps she was the inspiration for "Good Vibrations"

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps she was the inspiration for "Good Vibrations"

She would have to be a lot older than she is for that.
That was from 2013, on 645 Ektachrome.
She and her sister are/were neighbours of one of the people in my Darkroom Group. They both did some part-time modelling while working their way through school. Our group organized a photo shoot, and they volunteered as the models. We also had a makeup artist. Everybody had a great time, the models got some experience with photographers shooting everything from 8x10 with strobe to handheld 35mm and digital as well as prints for their portfolio, and we got to have some photo shoot experience.

 

[DH_Studio]

I rate Portra 400 at 200 and have the lab develop normally. Portra can take a lot of overexposure so 1 stop isn't a problem. I typically shoot desert scenes with this film and have never seen anything I'd describe as flat. Experiment some more and I'm sure you'll arrive at results acceptable to you.

Hey Alan. Wondering what the benefits you get from rating at 200 are? I've heard a lot of people rate a stop or two lower but I'm not totally clear on the benefits.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey Alan. Wondering what the benefits you get from rating at 200 are? I've heard a lot of people rate a stop or two lower but I'm not totally clear on the benefits.

There are virtually none, a little shadow detail, maybe. PE discussed that many times in the threads and a quick search will provide pages of information.

 

[Mesabound]

I think a lot of people do it just as insurance against underexposure, since you can overexpose 400 by a few stops before the differences become clearly visible.

There are exposure tests on youtube that can demonstrate how negligible the difference in appearance is between EI 400 and 200.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

I'm not a big fan of Porta 400 but like people have suggested here, maybe underexpose 1-2 stops to get that washed out look. Just bracket your shots and understand the light around you. Fun part of film photography is to experiment!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'm not a big fan of Porta 400 but like people have suggested here, maybe underexpose 1-2 stops to get that washed out look.

There is never a reason to underexpose.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

There is never a reason to underexpose.

What do you mean? OP wants that muted color look and by underexposing you'll get it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What do you mean? OP wants that muted color look and by underexposing you'll get it.

That could be done by rubbing dirt on the front of the lens too.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

That could be done by rubbing dirt on the front of the lens too.

Ok, show us how?

 

[BrianShaw]

Ok, show us how?

... on a Hasselblad, please.

Personally, I’d either use Portra 160 or a softar... or both.

 

[YoIaMoNwater]

... on a Hasselblad, please.

Yea Siriusly please.

 

[grat]

To the OP... I reread this thread twice, because I didn't see anyone suggesting the obvious.

Pick a scene, ideally, use a tripod. Meter it however you like. Reduce that exposure (preferably by shutter speed) 3 stops. Then start increasing one stop at a time until you've gone from something like -3 to +6, including the target (total of 10 exposures).

Then develop as normal.

Go through the results, decide what looks best. Underexposure will produce muted, muddy colors and dark shadows. Overexposure will produce washed out, faded images with color shift. If you like the faded, odd colors, consider Fuji 400H-- it requires less over-exposure for the washed out look.

 

[MattKing]

Hey Alan. Wondering what the benefits you get from rating at 200 are? I've heard a lot of people rate a stop or two lower but I'm not totally clear on the benefits.

Sometimes, metering can be challenging.
With colour negative films, if you are going to meter incorrectly, or in situations where it is difficult to determine how best to meter, over-exposure tends to cause less damage than under-exposure.
Thus the prevalence for rating ISO 400 film at 200.

 

[Alan9940]

Hey Alan. Wondering what the benefits you get from rating at 200 are? I've heard a lot of people rate a stop or two lower but I'm not totally clear on the benefits.

The difference between rating it at 400 vs 200 is negligible, but I like the added insurance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Box speed. It's that simple, provided you correctly meter for it. Don't bother with any of that push/pull complication until you understand this particular film way better. Back in horse and buggy days people tended to err on the overexposure side, which is still doable, but why? With color neg films, a SLIGHT overexposure (or slighlty lower ASA rating) is preferable to underexposure, but is still no substitute for learning how to use a light meter proficiently. Minor color balance issues can be corrected with appropriate filters at the time of the shot.

 

[pentaxuser]

A good suggestion, Grat, although I fear that our OP Dylan77 may be chasing the Holy Grail or should I say "have been" as he doesn't seem to have been around since the 14th November, the day after he posted.

pentaxuser​

 

[grat]

Perhaps he was offended by the generalized suggestion of "learn to meter"-- even though it's good advice.

There are a number of film photographers on Youtube who I follow-- some for inspiration and instructional value, because they explain not only what they're doing, but why, and I consider that useful information-- but a few I follow for entertainment purposes. Several of them have this obsession with over-exposed images that turn regular colors into pastels everywhere, because apparently they think that's how film should look.

The ones who insist on putting VHS "tracking noise" on their videos, I ignore, because when I used VHS, that meant your tracking was off, and your heads needed cleaning.

To me, the OP's photos that he had issues with, looked reasonable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The OP is just a Troll. Get over it.

 

[bluechromis]

To the OP... I reread this thread twice, because I didn't see anyone suggesting the obvious.

Pick a scene, ideally, use a tripod. Meter it however you like. Reduce that exposure (preferably by shutter speed) 3 stops. Then start increasing one stop at a time until you've gone from something like -3 to +6, including the target (total of 10 exposures).

Then develop as normal.

Go through the results, decide what looks best. Underexposure will produce muted, muddy colors and dark shadows. Overexposure will produce washed out, faded images with color shift. If you like the faded, odd colors, consider Fuji 400H-- it requires less over-exposure for the washed out look.

Exactly.

 

[pentaxuser]

The OP is just a Troll. Get over it.

He may even be someone else now

pentaxuser