italy74
Well-known
Here I am, guys
and this time I can talk a bit more. I can also show you some untouched scans but I warn you, don't look at them for the quality (the lab did in 1500x1000 which is nuts) rather for the comment I'm going to provide in a minute.
Prints are indeed beautiful and generally colours are pleasing and nicely saturated while maintaining a good fidelity for skin tones. Also flash and indoor light affected few or nothing skin with its usual yellowish cast. Maybe a tad more than the NC but MUCH LESS than the VC - at least to my eye and for what I'm used to see printed here. Scans looks a bit more yellowish than prints, actually, especially on the picture about Sara (see below)
Imho, it works great for reds, purple, pinks, blues (yes, it may be used also as a sky film) and greens. Where I was surprised to have apparently some issues were whites and a certain tonality of dark (copper) reds, or dark brown typical of hair and some eyes.
First whites, the strangest thing I had ever seen. In an evenly lit place under a cloudy sky (go figure!) I was shooting with a F6 (! - metering should not be an issue LOL) and a 200 mm and had the necessity to underexpose half stop to get a decent DOF. There were lots of colours in the image; what I didn't expect in such a context where whites which "exploded" as if they were strongly overexposed (again, the frame was UNDEREXPOSED half stop, thus I would have expected a darker white at most) - I had a bunch of flowers whose details just vanished in a white blot, period. Also the edges of some hats and flags were barely visible.
Second, copper reds. A few evenings ago, I went to visit a colleague of mine who just had a baby and took a few snapshot of them: both my wife, his wife and his older daughter have copper red / brown hair and eyes. Well, again F6, Metz 48 AF1 - 1/60s F/5.6, bounced flash. Everything was fine except hair (Betta's and Sara's were two darkish blot on prints) and eyes (Sara's eyes were even scaring, you know those dark holes you see in certain horror movies? You couldn't distinguish the iris from the pupil). Also here I was surprised of such "strange" underexposure (by much) while the rest of the picture was lit more or less evenly.
To make it short, and to let you look at the images, gladly scans retained those details who went lost in prints thus I just have to warn the lab about this, but at first I was surprised that a new film would have failed so badly for two colours (whites and dark reds) which aren't that rare in images, especially of people.
Here are the links to the 4 pictures with comments - they are in Italian since I had to show to the Kodak man asking for my opinion, but you already know the story, thus is not a problem. Again, as usual, prints are MUCH better than what you see on screen, except the missing details you may see ONLY on screen. Other pictures have been affected on prints but this is just a sample.
By the way the event I stumbled upon by chance was a ceremony for the soldiers and the men fallen in all wars.
WHITES /1: look at flowers ( 1/250s - F/8 - -0.5 EV)
WHITES /2: look at hats (1/180s - F/8 - -0.5 EV)
REDS /1: Look at Betta's hair
REDS /2: Look at Sara's hair and eyes
Here's the link at the whole gallery, still hidden.
http://italy74.smugmug.com/All-the-rest-2/Other/Portra-400-nuova/14598816_rqZGP
and this time I can talk a bit more. I can also show you some untouched scans but I warn you, don't look at them for the quality (the lab did in 1500x1000 which is nuts) rather for the comment I'm going to provide in a minute.
Prints are indeed beautiful and generally colours are pleasing and nicely saturated while maintaining a good fidelity for skin tones. Also flash and indoor light affected few or nothing skin with its usual yellowish cast. Maybe a tad more than the NC but MUCH LESS than the VC - at least to my eye and for what I'm used to see printed here. Scans looks a bit more yellowish than prints, actually, especially on the picture about Sara (see below)
Imho, it works great for reds, purple, pinks, blues (yes, it may be used also as a sky film) and greens. Where I was surprised to have apparently some issues were whites and a certain tonality of dark (copper) reds, or dark brown typical of hair and some eyes.
First whites, the strangest thing I had ever seen. In an evenly lit place under a cloudy sky (go figure!) I was shooting with a F6 (! - metering should not be an issue LOL) and a 200 mm and had the necessity to underexpose half stop to get a decent DOF. There were lots of colours in the image; what I didn't expect in such a context where whites which "exploded" as if they were strongly overexposed (again, the frame was UNDEREXPOSED half stop, thus I would have expected a darker white at most) - I had a bunch of flowers whose details just vanished in a white blot, period. Also the edges of some hats and flags were barely visible.
Second, copper reds. A few evenings ago, I went to visit a colleague of mine who just had a baby and took a few snapshot of them: both my wife, his wife and his older daughter have copper red / brown hair and eyes. Well, again F6, Metz 48 AF1 - 1/60s F/5.6, bounced flash. Everything was fine except hair (Betta's and Sara's were two darkish blot on prints) and eyes (Sara's eyes were even scaring, you know those dark holes you see in certain horror movies? You couldn't distinguish the iris from the pupil). Also here I was surprised of such "strange" underexposure (by much) while the rest of the picture was lit more or less evenly.
To make it short, and to let you look at the images, gladly scans retained those details who went lost in prints thus I just have to warn the lab about this, but at first I was surprised that a new film would have failed so badly for two colours (whites and dark reds) which aren't that rare in images, especially of people.
Here are the links to the 4 pictures with comments - they are in Italian since I had to show to the Kodak man asking for my opinion, but you already know the story, thus is not a problem. Again, as usual, prints are MUCH better than what you see on screen, except the missing details you may see ONLY on screen. Other pictures have been affected on prints but this is just a sample.
By the way the event I stumbled upon by chance was a ceremony for the soldiers and the men fallen in all wars.
WHITES /1: look at flowers ( 1/250s - F/8 - -0.5 EV)
WHITES /2: look at hats (1/180s - F/8 - -0.5 EV)
REDS /1: Look at Betta's hair
REDS /2: Look at Sara's hair and eyes
Here's the link at the whole gallery, still hidden.
http://italy74.smugmug.com/All-the-rest-2/Other/Portra-400-nuova/14598816_rqZGP
Last edited:
Matus
Well-known
With all the respect - do I understand correctly that you are judging performance of a new film purely based on 1 hour lab prints and scans?
I would not expect much from a lab prints or scans when the process of color and contrast adjustment is fully automatic. To get any decent color from a scan of a negative film you need some kind of film profile to get the colors at least remotely correct. I have that experience with Kodak Ektar. As this is a new film it is quite possible that your lab does not have the profiles for it yet.
Would not it make more sense to have the film scanned by a pro lab that would deliver you raw scans without any automatic adjustments?
just my opinion ...
I would not expect much from a lab prints or scans when the process of color and contrast adjustment is fully automatic. To get any decent color from a scan of a negative film you need some kind of film profile to get the colors at least remotely correct. I have that experience with Kodak Ektar. As this is a new film it is quite possible that your lab does not have the profiles for it yet.
Would not it make more sense to have the film scanned by a pro lab that would deliver you raw scans without any automatic adjustments?
just my opinion ...
italy74
Well-known
Ciao Matus
well, usually this lab works well (usually they do at least 3000x2000, no idea why this time they changed), at least for local standards and it's not a 1h lab, although they can do also very quickly. It has been a case and my task was to provide a few impressions (the film is indeed good) if something specific caught my eye. RAW scans would have been better but here (countryside of Parma) are rare and require much more time and money and a specific request which I didn't do.. It's the way it works here and of course I'll provide other pictures as soon as I can. My main worry was about skin tones under flash / indoor lighting since using portra 400 NC or VC led to different results. The compromise obtained is definitely pleasing.
If I hadn't had such "issues" I wouldn't have neither mentioned them, but they were too evident to pass on them.
well, usually this lab works well (usually they do at least 3000x2000, no idea why this time they changed), at least for local standards and it's not a 1h lab, although they can do also very quickly. It has been a case and my task was to provide a few impressions (the film is indeed good) if something specific caught my eye. RAW scans would have been better but here (countryside of Parma) are rare and require much more time and money and a specific request which I didn't do.. It's the way it works here and of course I'll provide other pictures as soon as I can. My main worry was about skin tones under flash / indoor lighting since using portra 400 NC or VC led to different results. The compromise obtained is definitely pleasing.
If I hadn't had such "issues" I wouldn't have neither mentioned them, but they were too evident to pass on them.
Last edited:
Riverman
Well-known
Dino. I see what you mean by the whites but otherwise this looks like this will be a fine substitute for 400NC of which I have a few rolls left.
In all of the "film is dead" debates that go one, I'm always assured that black and white film and darkroom materials will live on for a long, long time.
What worries me more, especially as someone who enjoys shooting and printing in colour, is the availability of color materials.
While Kodak have narrowed the range slightly by adopting this new Portra 400, at least there is a high quality fast C-41 speed out there. I've always preferred Kodak's portrait films to Fujji's offerings. Never been a big fan of Fuji 400H and always found the Kodak offerings softer and more pleasant.
In all of the "film is dead" debates that go one, I'm always assured that black and white film and darkroom materials will live on for a long, long time.
What worries me more, especially as someone who enjoys shooting and printing in colour, is the availability of color materials.
While Kodak have narrowed the range slightly by adopting this new Portra 400, at least there is a high quality fast C-41 speed out there. I've always preferred Kodak's portrait films to Fujji's offerings. Never been a big fan of Fuji 400H and always found the Kodak offerings softer and more pleasant.
btgc
Veteran
Really great film has to be available in bulk rolls 
bwcolor
Veteran
Good to hear that Portra is out. I wish you your own C-41 kit and a good scanner. I think that you will be much happier.
italy74
Well-known
Well, keep in mind I live in a condo flat, and, God willing, a kid may be coming within 1 yr or so. I could even reserve some space for me but I'd spoil my marriage.... Besides while I might be interested in b/w, a colour kit would need knowledge and material I don't have at all. Probably when I'll be retired (long way to go) I might consider the idea to develop and print film for those who never surrended to digital... Anyone of you read that novel by Asimov in which future kids discovered printed books by chance and debated how nice should have been studying together and not remotely through a computer ?
By the way.. since I had also another hint elsewhere to get a scanner.. Aside the Coolscan 5000 I might afford next year, which options I'd have to work nicely with film stripes and framed slides ?
Anyone of you read that novel by Asimov in which future kids discovered printed books by chance and debated how nice should have been studying together and not remotely through a computer ? By the way.. since I had also another hint elsewhere to get a scanner.. Aside the Coolscan 5000 I might afford next year, which options I'd have to work nicely with film stripes and framed slides ?
bwcolor
Veteran
I work sixty or more hours per week, have two kids and do my own B&W and C-41 with minimal equipment and minimal investment. There is little talent, or skill involved in C-41 development at home and it certainly is a good deal when looking at money invested and outcome.
The scanner is a different issue. I would ask your question when the time comes for you to consider buying. I use an Epson V-750 Pro and Nikon 9000ED and I would suggest that a scanner like the V-750 would serve you well, especially for medium format. By the time that you decide to purchase, there might be better options.
So, kid, wife and small apartment are solved by using a changing bag, a sink and a minimal of equipment. Clean up afterward and your wife should be happy with you.
The scanner is a different issue. I would ask your question when the time comes for you to consider buying. I use an Epson V-750 Pro and Nikon 9000ED and I would suggest that a scanner like the V-750 would serve you well, especially for medium format. By the time that you decide to purchase, there might be better options.
So, kid, wife and small apartment are solved by using a changing bag, a sink and a minimal of equipment. Clean up afterward and your wife should be happy with you.