Yucky Kodak Portra 800

[film_guy]

I shot 11 rolls of Kodak Portra 800 recently for a concert, and had prints and CD scanned from them. The colors for almost every print, negative and scan came out very yellowish, grainy and unsharp (40-50% of the negs weren't sharp).

I shot the same concert last year with the same amount of film but with a different film (Fuji 800Z) and the colors were right on, grain is visible but more pleasing and 95% of the negs were sharp.

Camera and lenses were the same, lighting's the same and it's the same venue. I made sure to give all the shots a slight over-exposure (by rating them at 640 instead of 800) to help with the shadows and color. Is it just the film's problem?

 

[mabman]

I've had good results with fresh Portra 800, shot at box speed and at 1600 with a 2 stop push. No obvious over-graininess or yellow tint (except when the room had a yellow tint, of course).

Is it possible your camera's meter is off or the battery is going? Graininess and odd colour casts tend to mean underexposure.

Otherwise, I could see this happening with expired film, or film that's been subject to heat, or maybe lab error - possibly pulled it by accident, or their chemistry is bad.

 

[RoBBo]

I don't care how great Portra is, once you've tried 800Z nothing else is going to look good again.
That film is unbelievable.

 

[Stephen Frizza]

I don't care how great Portra is, once you've tried 800Z nothing else is going to look good again.
That film is unbelievable.

I hear this a lot from clients regarding these 2 films.
thats all i have to say

~Steve
the Lighthouse Lab

 

[Photo Engineer]

Out of focus? The lab must have used their fuzzy developer. It makes out of focus images. Off color? That was a lab color balance problem. Try scanning one yourself, or going back to the lab and pointing these problems out to them. It sounds like a scanning or printing problem.

I get good results from both Fuji 800 and Kodak 800 printed on Endura paper.

PE

 

[Stephen Frizza]

As Ron mentioned and I should have added this, Kodak Portra 800 hasn't had problems with colour for me. unless people are shooting it under weird conditions and not correctly filtering the light

 

[film_guy]

I shot the Portra 800 exactly as how I did with the Fuji 800Z a year ago. I gave both films a bit of overexposure for the shadows, and the equipment's the same. The lab I used is a decent lab too, and I never had any problems having my film developed by them in the past 4 years. So I don't see how can both negs have this huge difference in color.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Can you post a scan of the negatives? That would probably help us figuring it out.

 

[jd callow]

I shot 11 rolls of Kodak Portra 800 recently for a concert, and had prints and CD scanned from them. The colors for almost every print, negative and scan came out very yellowish, grainy and unsharp (40-50% of the negs weren't sharp).

I shot the same concert last year with the same amount of film but with a different film (Fuji 800Z) and the colors were right on, grain is visible but more pleasing and 95% of the negs were sharp.

Camera and lenses were the same, lighting's the same and it's the same venue. I made sure to give all the shots a slight over-exposure (by rating them at 640 instead of 800) to help with the shadows and color. Is it just the film's problem?

Not to sound like a jerk but I come to different set of conclusions based upon what I'm reading. Rating ISO 800 colour film @ 640 doesn't equal slight over exposure. Rating that film @ 640 would be heading toward under exposure in my book -- if you hadn't tested the film in advance your are better off bracketing then guessing. What I get from your post is that either you badly focused or the lab badly scanned, and badly colour corrected your film. No scan of a roll of film will show grain and fit on a CD unless the scan is crap and exhibiting grain aliasing. Too yellow from film properly exposed is a colour correction issue and out of focus is either you or the scan -- film doesn't come in sharp or unsharp versions.

 

[mudman]

JD - think about it - Rating 800 speed film at 640 means that more light will hit the film - thus over exposure. This is a common thing to do with print film.

 

[jd callow]

I understand and rating it at 400 to 640 provides a good neg if your metering is compatible and rating it at 640 to 800 heads toward under exposure.

 

[darinwc]

maybee the first concert actually had less light.. that would have meant longer exposures, more apt to blurriness due to camera shake, and possibly more yellow in the lighting.

Look carefully at the prints and see if they were unsharp or had slight motion blurr.

 

[Tom Duffy]

I don't care how great Portra is, once you've tried 800Z nothing else is going to look good again.
That film is unbelievable.

Never liked it. Had too much trouble trying to print it when the original scene was high contrast. Now NHG II, that was a film to die for!

 

[dynachrome]

Both films are quite good when they are used properly but I find that the current version of Portra 800 has finer grain and better sharpness than any of the Fuli 800 color print films. Shooting a subject like a concert, even with color print film, can be very tricky. If you are not using a very narrow angle spot meter or shooting from a spot very close to the stage, metering will be difficult. Concert lighting is typically very contrasty. Under ideal conditions you would find a mid tone of some kind or you would bring an 18% gray card up on the stage. With very contrasty light you are not going for shadow detail. You want the correct reading for 18% gray in an area which his well lit. If the lighting stayed the same then you would use the same f/stop and shutter speed combination for the whole concert. If the light keeps changing then you will have to adjust during the performance. Even sophisticated matrix metering will not work properly if you are too far from the stage and do not have a long enough lens. Your readings will usually overexpose the musicians. Then when the negatives are printed you will get a small overexposed area in the center and a grainy gray area all around it. If you don't have a spot meter then you might consider bringing a longer lens than you intend to use just to be able to meter off of a smaller area.

 

[Richard Harris]

If the image is fuzzy then it's either been shot with camera shake or out of focus or the enlarging/scanning was out of focus. None of these are the films fault. A quick look at the negatives with a loupe (or a standard lens reversed will do) should confirm which. I would second the opinion that when it comes to fast film, Fuji holds the upper hand. Colour casts should be corrected when enlarged or scanned however.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Yikes- looking at this thread made me realize that there is only 1 Fuji color negative emulsion left in 120! Looks like I can't try the 800Z! :confused: I have had good luck with the Portra anyway though

 

[RattyMouse]

I found Fuji Superia 400 available in 120 size when in Rome last summer. Strange how Fujifilm does not produce very many films in 120 size. You'd think that would be priority #1 since more film/shot is consumed.

Still, 400H is a great film and is my go to film for color.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have used both Fuji NPZ800 and Kodak Portra 800 and found both to provide good results. Below are full res scans of each taken under ideal lighting conditions for reference. Fully automatic with no pre or post adjustment except for copyright. Of course reactions under different circumstances may produce varying results.

Fuji NPZ800

Full res -> Fuji NPZ800

Kodak Portra 800

Full res -> Kodak Portra 800