What is Portra look? My 6x7 scans look like they were shot on digital...

Hello there. I started shooting film recently because I was mesmerized by the look of Portra 400 shot with Pentax 6x7 + 105mm F2.4.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hamadahideaki/6203379757/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lsmart/31790161255/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyphimester/30689244216/

So, I did my studies. I bought the gear, including Microtek 120tf scanner and software (VueScan, ColorPerfect). I knew that I have to overexpose 1-2 stops to get those saturated colors. So I did. I processed at the best local lab I could find with a standard E41 process (no push), scanned the negative myself disabling all image enhancers. I didn't process this scan with ColorPerfect because the linear tiff scans processed this way looks too dull (and bumping up contrast doesn't get it close to what I get just from VueScan using custom white balance and curve adjustments).

The result:

Pentax 6x7 105mm F2.4
Portra 400 exposed as 100



So, none of my photography-related acquaitances recognized this to be shot on film. And I tend to agree, this just looks like it was shot on digital. There is no magic look to me that I was looking for when I became fired up about shooting film and getting those sweet results like I've shown above.

I know this picture lacks some photographic value that is present in the examples above. The background is too boring. So, is it the content that defines film look then? Is there a major gap in my knowledge that prevents me to get the same look?

I was forced to realize that negatives can look anything you like... It's just like RAW files in digital. So, if there isn't any Portra look why did I get the feeling there is one by looking at other's photos?

Welcome to Photrio.
By increasing the exposure by two stops over what the film is optimized for, you tend to flatten the response and make it somewhat more difficult to scan the film.
The examples you linked to are digitally processed in who knows what ways before you see them, but even given that, they depend on the rendition of shadows for at least some of their effect. If you increase your exposure by two stops over what film is optimized for, you markedly affect how shadows render in your negatives.
It is best to learn how to use film first in the conditions it was designed for. When you have that in hand, feel free to experiment with how increased exposure improves some results while impairing others.
If you are scanning and digitally processing, you've got lots of control over colour saturation. I would suggest using those tools instead.

Elix said:

I knew that I have to overexpose 1-2 stops to get those saturated colors.

Click to expand...

Portra isn't really known for saturated colours, for that you're going to want Kodak Ektar or Fuji Velvia. You can change that if you desire though in the scanning process (eg I find a Frontier scanner generates a more saturated/contrasted image than a Noritsu scanner) or in Lighroom
I find Portra generates kind of a neutral image, which makes it ideal for hybrid workflows where you manipulate in processing. Much like Ilford XP2 does for B&W

Would you be willing to send me your linear tif scan so I can invert it with my method?

hi there

do you have prints you are looking at or scans ?
if you have scans, could the reason they look like digital images
be because you converted them to digital ?
often times the "rah rah rah its shot on film"
and " film looks so much different" is hype. unless
the lens has a certain signature, or the film has a certain grain structure or look
an image is an image is an image and even people who are film junkies might not know
what they are looking at. i've posted this before , but still ill post it again ..
i was friends years ago with a digital hater, he lived for film ate and drank traditional photography,
you know, it was part of his soul ... i showed him physical prints, one from a digital camera and one from a darkroom
and he couldn't tell them apart ** .. happened a few times.. so in the end sometimes its all a bunch of hype and nonsense
and posturing, not to say one isn't more fun than the other, or can't be tweeeked differently or manipulated differently or
more satisfying to some folks, but ... whatever

nice image by the way !
i hope you get the bugs out of your process to get the images to look the way you like !

** to make matters worse they were black and white images. and the usual hype is color converted to b/w has
no soul, it looks plastic it looks terrible, its " fill in the blank " and a dead giveaway ... oops

jnanian said:

or the film has a certain grain structure or look

Click to expand...

If you're working with a hybrid workflow I'd say grain is probably the single most important thing when choosing a film stock. Most other stuff can be done in processing.

Elix said:

Hello there. I started shooting film recently because I was mesmerized by the look of Portra 400 shot with Pentax 6x7 + 105mm F2.4.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hamadahideaki/6203379757/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lsmart/31790161255/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyphimester/30689244216/

So, I did my studies. I bought the gear, including Microtek 120tf scanner and software (VueScan, ColorPerfect). I knew that I have to overexpose 1-2 stops to get those saturated colors. So I did. I processed at the best local lab I could find with a standard E41 process (no push), scanned the negative myself disabling all image enhancers. I didn't process this scan with ColorPerfect because the linear tiff scans processed this way looks too dull (and bumping up contrast doesn't get it close to what I get just from VueScan using custom white balance and curve adjustments).

The result:

Pentax 6x7 105mm F2.4
Portra 400 exposed as 100

So, none of my photography-related acquaitances recognized this to be shot on film. And I tend to agree, this just looks like it was shot on digital. There is no magic look to me that I was looking for when I became fired up about shooting film and getting those sweet results like I've shown above.

I know this picture lacks some photographic value that is present in the examples above. The background is too boring. So, is it the content that defines film look then? Is there a major gap in my knowledge that prevents me to get the same look?

I was forced to realize that negatives can look anything you like... It's just like RAW files in digital. So, if there isn't any Portra look why did I get the feeling there is one by looking at other's photos?

Click to expand...

In 6x7 you are reaching indeed a resolution with Portra 400 at E.I. 100 wich in comparison with a Nikon D800 makes no difference.
I am glad about - you're not ?
(to have highest resolution and extreme fine details with some films)
If you don't like this resolution (by the way compliments to your scanning workflow - it seems to be not the worst one) you have a lot of oportunitys to smaler the resolution.
with regards

Start by shooting film at box speed.

Welcome to APUG Photrio

Elix said:

Is there a major gap in my knowledge that prevents me to get the same look?

I was forced to realize that negatives can look anything you like... It's just like RAW files in digital

Click to expand...

A film negative is only "half" of the film process, printing the film on paper or positive film completes the process. Unlike a digital sensor film does not record a scene in a linear series of values. Though even a RAW digital file will be processed in many ways before you view it on your monitor (that process process will be unique to your raw processor, but can be more easily mimicked). When you use a hybrid process the digital processing involved in inverting the negative will be unique to the software you choose, though it should attempt to mimic the final look of a print. Colorperfect publish some of the algorithms they have used, where as vuescan, silverfast, fuji and noritisu etc, publish no such thing.

Part of the reason they make (or used to) special internegative and interpositive films, is to preserve this negative/positive relationship.

With an appropriate LUT, you can theoretically mimic any look within the constraints of the display medium.

If you willing to post a negative, (a miss shot) you may find others willing to take a stab at the post processing...

MattKing said:

Welcome to Photrio.

Click to expand...

Sirius Glass said:

Welcome to APUG Photrio

Click to expand...

Thank you! And everybody else - thanks for your answers, I wasn't expecting such nice feedback!

Ste_S said:

Portra isn't really known for saturated colours, for that you're going to want Kodak Ektar or Fuji Velvia.

Click to expand...

I am not liking the look of Ektar (or especially Velvia) for skin tones as much as I like Portra. You can look at my Faves at Flickr to get an idea of what I am trying to achieve.

Adrian Gabor said:

Would you be willing to send me your linear tif scan so I can invert it with my method?

Click to expand...

Yes, please!!! Most definitely!!! Here's the link to download linear tiff scan.

jnanian said:

do you have prints you are looking at or scans ?
if you have scans, could the reason they look like digital images
be because you converted them to digital ?

Click to expand...

Scans. Yeah, I get what you're trying to say. But then again, all those photos that I liked on Flickr are digital images too.

jnanian said:

nice image by the way !
i hope you get the bugs out of your process to get the images to look the way you like !

Click to expand...

Really? Thanks! I hope this thread will help me with this!

trendland said:

In 6x7 you are reaching indeed a resolution with Portra 400 at E.I. 100 wich in comparison with a Nikon D800 makes no difference.
I am glad about - you're not ?

Click to expand...

I am glad that I was able to achieve focus how I wanted and that resulting scan is quite sharp (esp. when downscaled). But it doesn't have a distinct Portra look (for example, like here).

trendland said:

If you don't like this resolution (by the way compliments to your scanning workflow - it seems to be not the worst one) you have a lot of oportunitys to smaler the resolution.

Click to expand...

Now that I think about it, excessive sharpening can be the reason I find the result to look too digital. I've always used this script for Photoshop to downscale my digital images for posting and it works wonders, but maybe it isn't suited for film scans? I will try using a different downscale method and will post my comparison if I will find it interesting.

Sirius Glass said:

Start by shooting film at box speed.

Click to expand...

I have tried shooting at box speed. I have read a very interesting article by Johnny Patience regarding that pastel look of Portra. For that you need to overexpose by 2-3 stops and then density correct during scanning (which I didn't do, by the way). The picture that I took was most definitely overexposed by 2 stops but it doesn't have that look at all.

Picture by Johnny Patience ©

Ted Baker said:

If you willing to post a negative, (a miss shot) you may find others willing to take a stab at the post processing...

Click to expand...

I will be glad to see the results made by others! I think I can learn a lot from it. Here's the link to download linear tiff scan.
I want to stress that I've made this scan using auto-exposure. Maybe I will need to re-scan using manual exposure to get a different result?

Elix said:

Maybe I will need to re-scan using manual exposure to get a different result?

Click to expand...

Vuescan auto exposure should be close enough to ideal, you could potentially increase the exposure by 50%, half a stop, do you know how use to use that part of vuescan?

Ted Baker said:

Vuescan auto exposure should be close enough to ideal, you could potentially increase the exposure by 50%, half a stop, do you know how use to use that part of vuescan?

Click to expand...

Yes, I know how to lock exposure and adjust afterwards. I am still confused about the absolute values for exposure in VueScan. For example, I can set values from 0 to 11. Is it stops or just the power output of scanner's lights? How will the increase in value (for example, from 2.5 to 3.5) correlate with F-stops? (3.5 - 2.5 = +1 stop) or (1 - 3.5/2.5 = +0.4 stops)?

Elix said:

I have tried shooting at box speed. I have read a very interesting article by Johnny Patience regarding that pastel look of Portra. For that you need to overexpose by 2-3 stops and then density correct during scanning (which I didn't do, by the way). The picture that I took was most definitely overexposed by 2 stops but it doesn't have that look at all.

I will be glad to see the results made by others! I think I can learn a lot from it. Here's the link to download linear tiff scan.
I want to stress that I've made this scan using auto-exposure. Maybe I will need to re-scan using manual exposure to get a different result?

Click to expand...

As far I have observed, a lot of the airy pastel look and specially the high key exposure, comes from the density correction adjustment. I've sat on a Fuji Frontier lab workstation during an event and tested out scanning Portra 400 (my own negs, box speed) with it. The software works wonders with color but density adjustment gives it that lifted look. You can do curves during post processing to approach it. The final touches are in Lightroom.

When I scan myself I am a lot more conservative and the Epson doesn't take denser negatives that well to start off. These labs have more processing that might be though of.

Thanks!

Here's the inverted image done with my PS Action and some slight adjustment by playing with the color balance layers.

You can see that there's more warmth, but I suppose it depends on personal preference. Also, light and atmospheric conditions are always more important than what film you are shooting on.

Prest_400 said:

As far I have observed, a lot of the airy pastel look and specially the high key exposure, comes from the density correction adjustment. I've sat on a Fuji Frontier lab workstation during an event and tested out scanning Portra 400 (my own negs, box speed) with it. The software works wonders with color but density adjustment gives it that lifted look.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input! I will try density correcting this photo. Can you answer this question?

How will the increase in value (for example, from 2.5 to 3.5) correlate with F-stops? (3.5 - 2.5 = +1 stop) or (1 - 3.5/2.5 = +0.4 stops)?

Click to expand...

Adrian Gabor said:

Here's the inverted image done with my PS Action and some slight adjustment by playing with the color balance layers.

Click to expand...

I like the result except the color spot on the wall. Can't understand where it is coming from. But still consider myself interested. Can you tell me what adjustments you made for this look after you've applied your custom action?

I thought someone else might have pointed out already, but isn't Scanning and Scanners a better forum for this topic.

Elix said:

I like the result except the color spot on the wall. Can't understand where it is coming from. But still consider myself interested. Can you tell me what adjustments you made for this look after you've applied your custom action?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the color spot on the wall, to me it looks maybe a bit too cyan but only you can know the true color and conditions on that day.

As far as my workflow, after applying the action I only reduced the Yellow layer by 20% and the Magenta layer by a couple % like so:


You can read about how it works in greater detail on my website.

nmp said:

I thought someone else might have pointed out already, but isn't Scanning and Scanners a better forum for this topic.

Click to expand...

You are the first to point it out, but I think you might be making things too simple. If I was sure the problem (why my photo looks digital) was with the scan only and not anything else I would've posted this in Scanning. I think the name of topic tells exactly what I am trying to understand.

Adrian Gabor said:

You can read about how it works in greater detail on my website.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I think I will give your method a try. Did you compare your workflow with ColorPerfect?

Elix said:

You are the first to point it out, but I think you might be making things too simple. If I was sure the problem (why my photo looks digital) was with the scan only and not anything else I would've posted this in Scanning. I think the name of topic tells exactly what I am trying to understand.

Click to expand...

It's up to you. I was just pointing out this is NOT digital negative - which alludes to a very specific thing, none of which is applicable to the discussion at hand. You might get more eyeballs if this was in another forum. That's all.

Elix said:

Thanks! I think I will give your method a try. Did you compare your workflow with ColorPerfect?

Click to expand...

Not directly, no, feel free to do so and provide comparisons if you can.
I believe ColorPerfect is technically superior in how it works, but I have not seen results from it that achieve that look that we all are after.
I'll make a bold claim and say that my method gives better results faster and with less fuss.

Elix said:

Scans. Yeah, I get what you're trying to say. But then again, all those photos that I liked on Flickr are digital images too.

Click to expand...

people who post stuff on flickr don't post un-tweeked stuff. even if they say they don't they do ... its the way of the internet ...
negative conversion &c its all the same ... just do what you want with the film so you like how it looks, in the darkroom you would have
done the same .. and enjoy yourself ... the water isn't as pure as people suggest ...

jnanian said:

people who post stuff on flickr don't post un-tweeked stuff. even if they say they don't they do ... its the way of the internet ...
negative conversion &c its all the same ... just do what you want with the film so you like how it looks, in the darkroom you would have
done the same .. and enjoy yourself ... the water isn't as pure as people suggest ...

Click to expand...

Absolutely, photography has always been at least a two step process. Hybrid is fourstep - negative/develop/scan/process with all four stages effecting the finished image.

People who post stuff on flickr 'un-tweeked' generally have no idea how much work was/is done in darkrooms.

Elix said:

Yes, I know how to lock exposure and adjust afterwards. I am still confused about the absolute values for exposure in VueScan. For example, I can set values from 0 to 11. Is it stops or just the power output of scanner's lights? How will the increase in value (for example, from 2.5 to 3.5) correlate with F-stops? (3.5 - 2.5 = +1 stop) or (1 - 3.5/2.5 = +0.4 stops)?

Click to expand...

My estimate of 50% was based on a quick squiz of the histogram for the scan.

Answering your guestion RGB Exposure value of 1, is a reference value where the exposure is adjusted such that zero density equals roughly white or 2^16 if stored as 16bit.
a factor of 2 is a multiple and 1 stop, 8 factor of 8 and is three stops etc.
The individual channels use the same scheme.

This should be done by varying the CCD exposure time, i.e. your scan will take longer. These CCD all have what is in effect an electronic shutter, some can be directly controlled by software others can't. n some scanners the ISO may be varied instead. You can find out which using your stop watch... These scanners are basically a digital camera.

The ideal exposure should bring the highlight of the scan (the shadow area) close to the right of the historygram you need to use the raw graph to see this. However keep in mind as long as the densitiest areas of you scan are well away from the left of the history gram you are less likely to notice any difference.

That's why I said the automatic effort from vuescan is probably close to ideal.

I hope this helps and is make some sense.

Elix said:

I have tried shooting at box speed. I have read a very interesting article by Johnny Patience regarding that pastel look of Portra. For that you need to overexpose by 2-3 stops and then density correct during scanning (which I didn't do, by the way). The picture that I took was most definitely overexposed by 2 stops but it doesn't have that look at all.

Click to expand...

What an interesting article, thanks for sharing it. Scanning color film really is a puzzle; the Portra look, the RPL look, the Villa look, the Noritsu look, etc. all have a kind of flavor that you might aim for. Your original scan looked finished and professional to me, and it wasn't until I read the linked article that I noticed the lack of secret sauce in your image. You're fighting for the last 5%, which is cool to see. I'll keep watching and learning.

To my amateur eyes, there is nothing wrong with the original image.
Portra is a very fine grain film which is somehow "optimized for scanning", and will produce little observable grain, especially when shot in medium format. I personally find it to be somewhat desaturated with lower contrast.
What gives a scan a "film look"? To some extent it is grain, which is not apparent in your image. In other cases it is saturated color such as is seen in Velvia scans. In some cases it dark shadows. In some cases, it is quirky color shifts. Looking at the three images linked in the original post, all three have dark shadows lacking in detail. I suspect that in all three cases, contrast has been enhanced digitally and then exposure has been decreased to preserve highlights and produce darker shadows. Although it is quite possible that the photographers carefully planned their lighting environments to get the results they wanted. The original scan on this thread looks a lot like the results I get with Portra, and the lack of real shadows probably explains why it looks different from the reference images.