New Kodak Portra 400 35mm, experiences?

[doolittle]

I have heard good reports about this film for 120mm shooters. Anybody 35mm shooters using it and how are they finding it?

It is meant to be good for scanning, is that the case?

Will be using it for general travel photography (cityscapes, street, portraits and hopefully capturing autumn colours) and plan to convert some shots to black and white also.

 

[redisburning]

the newest generation of portra was designed with scanning in mind.

while I haven't had an opportunity to shoot the 400 stuff, I love the 160 variety.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Yes, in 35mm it is also very good.
But except for portraits you might also consider the new Ektar 100.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[Roger Hicks]

Excellent. Wide latitude with good colours (Frances and I reviewed it for Shutterbug).

Cheers,

R.

 

[doolittle]

Thanks for the feedback!

I am off on a short trip to Paris shortly, and am thinking the light levels are going to be low, so hence thinking of the 400 iso film. I am travelling really light, so I will be bringing just one camera and sticking to one film stock.

 

[gavinlg]

It's awesome - and pushes really well too. 1600asa no probs.

 

[doolittle]

Thanks Roger, found your article. Just what I wanted to know. Sounds the right film for my trip.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Although I still expose at 200. But 400 should be okay too.

Cheers,

Michiel

 

[doolittle]

Although I still expose at 200. But 400 should be okay too.

Cheers,

Michiel

Michiel, do you expose and develop at 200, or expose for 200 and develop for 400?

I am thinking I might shoot it at 200 when the light allows, but allow the extra stop when the light fades.

 

[thegman]

For me, easy the best 400 speed colour film. Such wide latitude, you barely have to meter at all (not joking). I've shot it in 120 and 135, with and without metering, and it always looks great. For me, it's my goto film for my M3, great for low light. I think it'll become a regular in my Rolleiflex too.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Shooting at 200 will give slightly finer grain, slightly reduced sharpness, and slight extra warmth. If you've time to meter, 400 should be fine. If not, err on the side of overexposure -- though this stuff withstands underexposure better than any other colour negative film I have ever tried.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ndnik]

A great film. It has become my standard color negative film. It gives a bit cooler colors in direct sun, I've found. Scans really well.

 

[goo0h]

Yes, in 35mm it is also very good.
But except for portraits you might also consider the new Ektar 100.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

I love both films!

I was saying the other day to a friend, it would be a damn shame if film cameras were to disappear totally tomorrow because personally, I feel we've got some of the nicest color films ever made!

 

[loplop]

I have only shot 3 rolls of the new Portra 400 so far, but I love the stuff. It has much wider latitude than Ektar (which I also love), and the colors are more "natural" over a wide range of exposures. For my upcoming travels, for color, I will take Portra 400 and a little EKtar, also; I would really miss the Ektar if I happened upon a really sunny day and pretty landscapes.

In any case, I don't have a meter, so most of the outdoor shots are "sunny 16" shots--you can do that with this film! A car:

36990023 by ndjedinak, on Flickr

Or how about pretty poorly "metered" indoor, underexposed shot?

23360035 by ndjedinak, on Flickr

I did a little better here:

23360018 by ndjedinak, on Flickr

All those are straight off the scanner at Costco... No correction at all. Portra 400 is one of the few films I've ever tried where I'm generally happy enough with scans as-is without any balancing... It's phenomenal stuff. Buy some!!

 

[doolittle]

Thanks everybody. Have placed my order!

 

[jcrutcher]

You won't be dissappointed! I've shot 10+ rolls and agree with everything said except pushing to 1600 which I have not tried. I use 100-800 with good success.

 

[Trius]

I've not shot this nor the current version of 160 for portraits, but I didn't find Ektar 100 too shabby for portraits. So if the Portras are better for portraits, I need to try some.

Ektar 100, mixed lighting, OM-2 50/1.4 -- the resemblance to any RFF member is purely coincidental ...

 

[jordan.dickinson]

Its a great film with great color. I would highly recommend it...


Leica M7
50 Summilux ASPH
Porta 400

the violet profile by slantface, on Flickr

Leica M7
35 Cron Ver.IV


the stand zach by slantface, on Flickr


the chair and the wait by slantface, on Flickr


the line by slantface, on Flickr

 

[Frank Petronio]

Best film ever made, all I use, 35mm, 120, 4x5.

 

[Waterman100]

Absolutely wonderful colors.

Questions for slantface: What was the digitization process for these images? I.e. where did you develop and scan them? did you use Photoshop?

Many thanks

Its a great film with great color. I would highly recommend it...


Leica M7
50 Summilux ASPH
Porta 400

the violet profile by slantface, on Flickr

Leica M7
35 Cron Ver.IV


the stand zach by slantface, on Flickr


the chair and the wait by slantface, on Flickr


the line by slantface, on Flickr