Why Did Kodak Ruin Portra 400NC?

[Stuggi]

I've noticed that prints from mini-labs are usually a lot more saturated and have more contrast than the scans I get from the same negatives when I use my own scanner (hybrid workflow, so I have no use for proof prints). Their scanners seem to be setup any which way they happen to be and only adjusted when they start to get weird prints, I usually get sepia toned scans when they try to scan BW400C that's been B&W-developed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Stuggi got it right. The operators probably bust the saturation to unbelieveable because that is that is digi-snappers ask for. One the machine is adjusted, they do not how to set the saturation correctly. There is nothing wrong with the Portra 400 film.

Steve

 

[batwister]

I've had a few rolls lab scanned and my lab tends to really overdo the contrast and saturation, which I then remedy. I actually thought many of the 'raw' scans were surprisingly muted - shot on typical British overcast days however. Ektar is my colour film of choice and the palette couldn't be more different than Portra 400.

 

[j-dogg]

New 400 is designed for neg scans, doesn't print as well.

Thus said, I still prefer 160nc.

 

[FilmOnly]

I thank everyone for the replies--they are very helpful.

I just got back my second batch, this one with Portra 400NC, Portra 400, and Fuji Pro 400H. What an interesting comparison these three rolls have made. I note that there must have been something amiss in my first batch of Portra 400 (the new version), as this roll looks much, much better. I gather it was either in processing, or with the photographer (me).

I think some of what I saw may have been a result of the lighting conditions. In ther first batch, I noticed that my notes indicated that I shot many of the photos around noontime. While I avoid this during summer month, I suppose this may present something of an issue even in fall or winter. In any case, I like what I see in both the new Portra 400 and in Pro 400H. Both are nice films, and I will continue to shoot both until I can declare a "winner."

Thus, I take back my remark about Kodak "ruining" Portra 400.

I welcome any further comments or suggestions.

 

[DarkMagic]

Uncorrected latitude of Kodak Portra 400 shown below.

Link to larger version -> Kodak Portra 400 A

You can recover shadows and highlights easily.

Link to larger version -> Kodak Portra 400 B

Uncorrected mix light - CF bulb and window lighting

Link to larger version -> Kodak Portra 400 C

A couple of other samples of uncorrected longer exposure modes greater then a few seconds.

Links to larger versions -> Kodak Portra 400 D & Kodak Portra 400 E

I also happen to like Fuji Pro400H as well as Provia 400X so definitely give those a try.

Due to reprocity failure, i dont belive all those EV+ steps are correct

 

[Les Sarile]

Just to clarify the procedure more precisely, I used a reference white balance bullb, determined optimal aperture @ 1/125 and adjusted the shutter over and under this reference as shown. The EV steps are fixed and no compensation/adjustments were made to account for reciprocity error in this test. If by the RE you mean the color shifting at +8 and above then I believe that is just from extreme over exposure and the scanner doing it's best "auto exposure". I have not done a "proper" long exposure test with this film but I have certainly taken numerous longer then 8 second exposures with it that clearly show it is unaffected at least to about 30 seconds except the reference artificial light isn't exactly white balanced. Picture below is uncorrected.

 

[j-dogg]

I had new 400 done from a wedding I shot and the colors came out pretty neutral. I actually bumped up the saturation a little in a couple of the shots. It's no Kodachrome or VC, but it's not 160NC either.

 

[F/1.4]

The only thing I don't like about Portra 400 is how orange it is. I've pretty much switched to Pro 400H or Ektar for skintones. 400H is better if you want that light and pastel tone, Ektar is easily the best film if you want natural looking punch to the color.

 

[stavrosk]

The only thing I don't like about Portra 400 is how orange it is.

You print optically?

 

[Russ - SVP]

I burn (expose) my Portra 400 at 320, and get VERY good results.

 

[macfred]

... overly saturated, unnatural, neon-ish ...

For me it's definitely not - a few with the Portra 400 new :

Fishing vessel (and seaman-to-be) by Andreas, on Flickr

Hang out the laundry - 1 by Andreas, on Flickr

Fishing vessel WR225 - Den Oever by Andreas, on Flickr

and with Portra 160 (like it for pleasing skin tones and for landscapes too) :

Mia (wearing my beanie) by Andreas, on Flickr

Rißbach, Hinterriss-Eng / Tyrol Austria - 2 by Andreas, on Flickr

 

[macfred]

But I guess I know what you mean - Portra can look crappy with wrong color management in scanning process ... This is a cheap drug store scan - this can be done better ...

Mia and gas pump by Andreas, on Flickr

 

[Russ - SVP]

Portra 400 snap. Straight scan from negative. 24mm glass with polarizing filter.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I thank everyone for the replies--they are very helpful.

I just got back my second batch, this one with Portra 400NC, Portra 400, and Fuji Pro 400H. What an interesting comparison these three rolls have made. I note that there must have been something amiss in my first batch of Portra 400 (the new version), as this roll looks much, much better. I gather it was either in processing, or with the photographer (me).

I think some of what I saw may have been a result of the lighting conditions. In ther first batch, I noticed that my notes indicated that I shot many of the photos around noontime. While I avoid this during summer month, I suppose this may present something of an issue even in fall or winter. In any case, I like what I see in both the new Portra 400 and in Pro 400H. Both are nice films, and I will continue to shoot both until I can declare a "winner."

Thus, I take back my remark about Kodak "ruining" Portra 400.

I welcome any further comments or suggestions.

I have found Portra 400 to be an amazing emulsion. Nice colors, very fine grain, and it scans beautifully. I find the 160 version to be a tad fuller in color. More suited for portrait work. But, a very good film. Both of them deliver wonderful flesh tones too.

Russ