Why is Portra 800 most expensive Portra?

[Lachlan Young]

It might have to do with the backing paper for TMX. It took them a long time to get it working. And it might be more expensive to source.

Tmax 100 is (to the best of my knowledge) on a thicker (unique?) CTA base to try and prevent the sort of problems that plague Fomapan 200 in 120.

 

[koraks]

I was development project manager for one of the more recent Kodak 800 formulations. You received bad information. There's all kinds of info available on this subject.

As @MattKing said, welcome to Photrio!

Could you elaborate, please, and/or perhaps point is towards some more reliable information on this? The way I read Sirius' statement, the thought it brings with me is that it might be a good idea to freeze film for short-term storage, but doing so still won't make it last for decades. In my mind, he might simply have misinterpreted a comment once made by freeze storage of film, extrapolating it beyond the scope of the original comment.

 

[jmrochester]

As @MattKing said, welcome to Photrio!

Could you elaborate, please, and/or perhaps point is towards some more reliable information on this? The way I read Sirius' statement, the thought it brings with me is that it might be a good idea to freeze film for short-term storage, but doing so still won't make it last for decades. In my mind, he might simply have misinterpreted a comment once made by freeze storage of film, extrapolating it beyond the scope of the original comment.

From this Kodak Technical Information Bulletin :
"Certain film keeping conditions can produce effects that are confused with X-ray fog. The older the film, the greater accumulation of actinic radiation. With time, ambient radiation slowly fogs the faster silver halide grains so that the film appears grainier. This is especially noticeable on 800 speed or faster film. Keeping the film cool or frozen does NOT change this effect. Over time, radiation can penetrate or occur naturally in nearly all materials."
This effect is not peculiar to only 800 speed film; it happens with all of them. However, as film speed decreases, the time required to see the effect increases. Therefore, freezing a 100 speed film will likely keep it "fresh" indefinitely. It's a continuum. I've had a brick of 120 Fuji Reala (ISO 100) in my freezer for two decades as a reminder that I shouldn't have sold my Fuji GW690.

 

[Agulliver]

The thing with freezing is that it effectively stops (or vastly slows) chemical reactions....but it does little for background radiation and cosmic rays. Radiation damage is a cumulative effect, meaning the damage becomes greater over time. Assuming we don't lead line our freezers, they offer some but only a little protection. Freezing for a few years won't be an issue. Freezing for a couple of decades becomes a problem with faster films, which are naturally more affected by radiation than slower films.

Other factors that are out of your control will be the background radiation where you live, which might be affected by such things as what rocks are nearby, for example.

Film manufacturers do recommend freezing, but not for decades. I am sure there are plenty of examples of frozen Plus-X or FP4 working fine after 40 years. Probably far fewer of Superia 800 or Royal Gold 1000.....

 

[koraks]

Assuming we don't lead line our freezers

Which wouldn't help all that much anyway, unless you build a pretty massive (literally) shell out of lead around the fridge. Lead lining in the sense of lead-lined bags etc. will attenuate cosmic x-rays a little, but in the end won't add all that much protection on top of atmospheric water content or the structural elements of the house the fridge is in - it'll help more to put the fridge in the basement than to line it with a thin layer of lead.

 

[calico]

Have you tried shooting Portra 400 at iso 200 ?.

Yes. I'm never happy with my Portra 400 images for some reason, even overexposed. There's something special about Portra 800. Seems like a cross between negative and positive film in its look (at least at 400).

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes. I'm never happy with my Portra 400 images for some reason, even overexposed. There's something special about Portra 800. Seems like a cross between negative and positive film in its look (at least at 400).

There's an old Portra 160 sell-sheet that gives the key information - Portra 800 has higher saturation than Portra 400 & quite a bit more than 160, but the same contrast. The VC films had higher saturation & contrast and Ektar has yet more saturation & the same contrast as the VC films. I think Portra 800's saturation/ contrast balance is one of its strongest selling points.

I'd also add that going beyond +1 over correctly keyed exposure is not going to help with getting optimal colour correction (all Portra films are DX-coded for +/-1 stop exposure latitude, whereas most amateur colour neg is +3/-1 and some of the in-between stuff like Pro Image is +2/-1).

 

[letchhausen]

I keep all my film in an orgone accumulator to maintain it's aesthetic energy. I love Portra 800 and now that I know it's grain will increase, I'll likely leave it around longer. I love the grain. Mostly, I use Portra 160 depending on the subject matter, but love 800 for it's qualities. I have a buddy that swears by 400, but other than a speed increase, I don't see it. Since I use my Hassy on a tripod, speed is less important to me and unlike some, I welcome grain and often push 800 a couple of stops.

 

[halfaman]

Yes. I'm never happy with my Portra 400 images for some reason, even overexposed. There's something special about Portra 800. Seems like a cross between negative and positive film in its look (at least at 400).

Portra 400 is a medium contrast and saturation film. A bit dull sometimes but it can handle well different contrast situations and support 1 stop over and underexposure with ease. My workhorse/all-weather choice when I am not sure of what I am going to see or when.

 

[calico]

There's an old Portra 160 sell-sheet that gives the key information - Portra 800 has higher saturation than Portra 400 & quite a bit more than 160, but the same contrast. The VC films had higher saturation & contrast and Ektar has yet more saturation & the same contrast as the VC films. I think Portra 800's saturation/ contrast balance is one of its strongest selling points.

I'd also add that going beyond +1 over correctly keyed exposure is not going to help with getting optimal colour correction (all Portra films are DX-coded for +/-1 stop exposure latitude, whereas most amateur colour neg is +3/-1 and some of the in-between stuff like Pro Image is +2/-1).

Agree, that is key information. I think it is the higher saturation of Portra 800 that I like.....leans more toward positive color film. Yet the same contrast as Portra 400 keeps it looking like neg film.

Interesting about not going more than +1 in exposure. I've heard some people expose Portra 800 at 200 (I don't).

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I keep all my film in an orgone accumulator to maintain it's aesthetic energy.

Ah, I use my orgone generator to maintain aetheric energy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agree, that is key information. I think it is the higher saturation of Portra 800 that I like.....leans more toward positive color film. Yet the same contrast as Portra 400 keeps it looking like neg film.

Interesting about not going more than +1 in exposure. I've heard some people expose Portra 800 at 200 (I don't).

If you like that try Kodak UltraColor 400. I have a freezer full of it.