Rating portra 400

[dylan77]

I’m pretty new to film and are using portra 400, as I shoot portraits/fashion. I’m continually getting mixed results, from to yellow to quite flat, while achieving more of a digital than film look.

Is there an optimal time to shoot this film, and rate it, And is there a reason my photos look digital?

The first two shots taken was at the end of golden hour in shade. The second photo was taken in Golden hour.

Any of Photos 3 4 or even 5 are what I’m aiming for and which actually look like film and portra. Quite different to mine. Confused

 

[Mesabound]

Those do not look digital to me, and tbh I think they look better than 3-5 (or these would certainly all look better on Portra 400, at least).

Experiment, but I'd guess you'd be happier rating it between 200-320 and pulling the processing appropriately. This will yield the more muted contrast and saturation you've cited. You might also just prefer Portra 160.

 

[dylan77]

Those do not look digital to me, and tbh I think they look better than 3-5 (or these would certainly all look better on Portra 400, at least).

Experiment, but I'd guess you'd be happier rating it between 200-320 and pulling the processing appropriately. This will yield the more muted contrast and saturation you've cited. You might also just prefer Portra 160.

I’m not sure what pulling the processing means? Can I do this with 35mm film?

 

[Mesabound]

Overexposing + shortening the development time = pulling (reduced contrast + saturation)
Underexposing + lengthening the development time = pushing (increased contrast + grain, among other things)

Yes, not sure what labs might offer around you (not all offer push/pull processing) but if you self develop all things are possible. Portra 400 has such a wide latitude you could also just try overexposing by 2-3 stops with normal development (at a certain point, maybe 4 or 5 stops over, you will get noticeable color shifts); might yield desirable results for you. Or shooting it at 400 but shortening the development! Each will have slightly different nuances depending on conditions.

I've actually been experimenting w/ this film for the last month-ish, have currently run rolls at 400, 800, 1600, and 3200. I have one loaded at 320 right now; if I end up with any good examples I will throw them in here.

 

[Alan9940]

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.

 

[bernard_L]

I’m pretty new to film and are using portra 400 (...)

In that situation, I would advise to first understand Portra 400 as it was meant to be by Eastman Kodak; instead of getting into push/pull that may be more or less properly executed by whatever lab you entrust your films to.
The flat lighting of your #4 is IMO mostly a consequence of the on-camera (or nearly so) flash. And the yellow cast of #5 results either from rather heavy-handed d*****l manipulation, or light bounced off a yellow wall behind the photographer.

Any of Photos 3 4 or even 5 are what I’m aiming for and which actually look like film and portra.

Who said so? To me they do not look like Portra; or Gold 200, or Superia 200 or...; except maybe when I tried C-41 at home

 

[BrianShaw]

^^^^^^^^

 

[pentaxuser]

dylan77, I take it that all 5 shots are yours but shots 1&2 do not meet with what you want as these are digital looking and 3,4&5 are not digital looking.

If my interpretation of what you have said is correct then can you tell is what it is about shots 1&2 that look digital and are not what you are looking for

Unitl we know this it may be difficult to say what you need to do to change things

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[dylan77]

dylan77, I take it that all 5 shots are yours but shots 1&2 do not meet with what you want as these are digital looking and 3,4&5 are not digital looking.

If my interpretation of what you have said is correct then can you tell is what it is about shots 1&2 that look digital and are not what you are looking for

Unitl we know this it may be difficult to say what you need to do to change things

Hi. In shots 3,4, more so The main thing I like is that the colours are of less contrast and the whole photos have nice old school film colour to them.

In this following photo the white look quite muted to. This photo is a good example to of being rated right, and shot in the right conditions. Thanks


pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

To me, the shots that the OP seems to like the most appear to be the closest to being under-exposed.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Dylan So I think you are saying that the whites the two ladies are wearing are not bright enough and you want to know what to do to get such whites brighter without affecting the other colours i.e. you are happy enough with the colours of their boots, skin, hair and the grass in the background

If I have got this correct then I wonder if there is anything that can be done at the taking stage with this film. I have no idea if or how scanning can be manipulated to achieve this but this shot looks perfect to me

I'll be frank and say that I fear you may be using the wrong film to get what you want and I cannot suggest what film you might need I'll rely on others to say how you might achieve your aim, assuming that what you want to do can be done at the taking stage

pentaxuser

 

[dylan77]

To me, the shots that the OP seems to like the most appear to be the closest to being under-exposed.

Yes.This is par of what I’m trying to work out, though not sure how to do it, as people say don’t underexpose

 

[dylan77]

Thanks Dylan So I think you are saying that the whites the two ladies are wearing are not bright enough

No this is what I’m looking to achieve.

and you want to know what to do to get such whites brighter without affecting the other colours i.e. you are happy enough with the colours of their boots, skin, hair and the grass in the background

If I have got this correct then I wonder if there is anything that can be done at the taking stage with this film. I have no idea if or how scanning can be manipulated to achieve this but this shot looks perfect to me

I'll be frank and say that I fear you may be using the wrong film to get what you want and I cannot suggest what film you might need I'll rely on others to say how you might achieve your aim, assuming that what you want to do can be done at the taking stage

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

No this is what I’m looking to achieve.

OK Dylan I'll leave it to others like Matt to advise you

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Yes.This is par of what I’m trying to work out, though not sure how to do it, as people say don’t underexpose

Your problem may be related to your metering technique.

 

[dylan77]

Your problem may be related to your metering technique.

My camera has in camera metering

 

[BrianShaw]

Photos 4 and 5 look like a strobe was used. Am I right, and if so... what camera, strobe, and metering? My first reaction was same as Matt... overexposed. That’s not a “film look”, BTW.

 

[BrianShaw]

... and the running girls... I’m struggling to see what you think is wrong about it.

 

[dylan77]

... and the running girls... I’m struggling to see what you think is wrong about it.

No I love this. It would be great to replicate this. The other information I don’t know as these images are off Pinterest

 

[BrianShaw]

No I love this. It would be great to replicate this. The other information I don’t know as these images are off Pinterest

First you need to meet two gorgeous girls!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not see anything wrong with your photographs. Yes learning to use a light meter might make some difference, but stick to box speed with color negative films because there is no need to overexpose nor underexpose.

 

[BrianShaw]

The other information I don’t know as these images are off Pinterest

So you haven’t shot any film yet? Buy a roll of Portra 160 and Portra 400, shoot box speed and let us know what looks best to you. I think you might like 160 best.

 

[MattKing]

My camera has in camera metering

How are you using it?

Every time I take a meter reading - whether with an in camera meter or a separate meter - I evaluate the reading, taking into account my knowledge of the meter's reading pattern, my judgment about the reflectivity of the subject, and my desired results.. I then adjust the camera (if necessary) to take the reading and my evaluation into account.
All of which sounds way harder and more complex than it actually is.
More generally though, can you show us results you have obtained, and tell us how you got them, and what you like and don't like about them?
I would say though that, other than the preponderance of female form, I don't see a lot of consistency in what you are presenting, so it is difficult to advise you how to get where you are going.
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 )

 

[BrianShaw]

Nice example!

 

[grain elevator]

Guys, the OP is not that hard to understand: the first two are his which he's not entirely happy with, the other three are examples from the web.
Dear dylan77, your pictures look good. Not long ago you got lots of advice on white balance in another thread. Now it looks like you want bad white/color balance... At least that seems to be all that your examples have in common. As you have your images scanned anyway, just do that in post. Throw the colours off a bit, and for a look like in the last two examples, raise the black point. I think what you're looking for is more a faded print look than a film look per se.
Btw just copying pictures off the web without at least keeping a link to the source is not very nice to the creators of the pictures.