paradoxbox
Well-known
I was wasting some time on flickr a few moments ago and I came across a bunch of photos, all from different users, but I noticed one thing: They all had a sickly green/blue cast to them, and they were ALL PORTRA!
Why does anyone use that film?! It's so ugly. It's always a real turn off to see an otherwise awesome photo destroyed by the ugly portra green tint.
I use some generic $2.80 a roll ISO200 color film that produces way better tones - slightly warm but much better accuracy than the green tinted world Porta seems to show in every shot! Porta looks like a scuba diver's point of view in every frame.
Why does anyone use that film?! It's so ugly. It's always a real turn off to see an otherwise awesome photo destroyed by the ugly portra green tint.
I use some generic $2.80 a roll ISO200 color film that produces way better tones - slightly warm but much better accuracy than the green tinted world Porta seems to show in every shot! Porta looks like a scuba diver's point of view in every frame.
Jobin
Established
Can you post a link to the site you are viewing? I am shooting a wedding in a couple weeks with portra 160.
jippiejee
Well-known
Probably a scanning failure. With the proper presets in Silverfast Portra looks awesome.
I've used this film and never saw the cast you're mentioning.
paradoxbox
Well-known
I don't doubt that scanning probably has something to do with it, but some films are easier to correct for than others..
Here's an example of a nice photo but with a harsh tint:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daily-photography/5499294601/in/photostream/
or another
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bossnas/6061639055/
I wonder if the introduction of the new porta 400 has anything to do with it? Maybe it's messing with people's scanner settings.
Here's an example of a nice photo but with a harsh tint:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daily-photography/5499294601/in/photostream/
or another
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bossnas/6061639055/
I wonder if the introduction of the new porta 400 has anything to do with it? Maybe it's messing with people's scanner settings.
PrecisionCamera
Precision Camera & Video
Ditto, I'm in love with portra and never had an issue with green casts...
anjoca76
Well-known
From my experience, the current Kodak C41 films are excellent, but they need to be properly exposed or else the colors can get very strange. I shoot them all at box speed, and when in doubt I err on the side of slight overexposure. Ektar in particular does not do well underexposed, and while gorgeous in landscapes, it does not suit skin tones well at all.
The problem could also be that those people thought the colors looked good on their monitors, but on calibrated monitors they look bad. When properly exposed, I've never had much trouble with Porta.
The problem could also be that those people thought the colors looked good on their monitors, but on calibrated monitors they look bad. When properly exposed, I've never had much trouble with Porta.
Jobin
Established
I see what you're saying in these photos but I do think it is scanning or some other factor. Before selecting portra for my go-to color film, Iv viewed many photos that look great. Best color film IMHO. But then again, I am no expert.
N.delaRua
Well-known
Umm Porta 160 is probably my favorite film ever. I found it really neutral in all aspects including contrast and color when I shot it through my hazy cron 50 DR.
Thats actually a plus for me because then I can do whatever I want in post.
Thats actually a plus for me because then I can do whatever I want in post.
thegman
Veteran
I'd say scanning failure, I think Portra 400 is an awesome film.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Of course it's the film's fault. Scanning skills are 100% reliable. 
But seriously, first time I have ever read of somebody complaining that Portra is worse than cheap-o film.
If it's on the Internets, it's gotta be true.
But seriously, first time I have ever read of somebody complaining that Portra is worse than cheap-o film.
If it's on the Internets, it's gotta be true.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm with you, but I only use 160. When I use it in 6x6 and take a picture of someone others always want to know what kind of digital camera I use because they want the same flesh tones. I'm tired of defending film so I tell them a Pentax DSLR which I do have but barely use.
rolleistef
Well-known
if the film is so much used for cinema, it probably has to be fairly consistent! I can understand how much you can grind your teeth down from not getting good results with a scanner though. Nearly worse than wet printing!
filmfan
Well-known
Portra 160/400/800 medium format is probably the most-used C-41 color film by professionals. Open any mag and I venture to bet that a majority of the film shots are on that film.
gb hill
Veteran
I love Portra 160 NC so much Kodak sent me 10 free rolls of the stuff.
stompyq
Well-known
Old expired Portra 160 NC gives me the green/blue cast.
awbphotog
Well-known
Of course it's the film's fault. Scanning skills are 100% reliable.
But seriously, first time I have ever read of somebody complaining that Portra is worse than cheap-o film.
If it's on the Internets, it's gotta be true.
Same here...never heard an argument of this type. I love me some Portra. Only time I've had problems with casts were while rolling through some 50 rolls of 'demo only' 160VC that my university had graciously given me from their old Kodak stock.
seakayaker1
Well-known
Use the Porta 160, 400, & 800 in 35mm format and love the film. Also have used the 160 & 400 in 120/220 medium format.
No complaints, love it.
No complaints, love it.
hteasley
Pupil
I love the new Portra 400, and haven't noticed these issues mentioned. One of my favorite pictures I've taken with it:
paradoxbox
Well-known
interesting.
this may have something to do with it. i wonder if all those photos i saw were taken on expired or poorly stored portra.
the above shot of the girl shows very nice warm colors. definitely no green cast.