Am I the only one who thinks Portra film looks awful?

whitecat said:
I use Reala for nature and Portra for architecture. I think they are both fine films and like BW appreciate their characteristics depending on the subject matter. I also like that Portra is available in 220 which helps feed my Bessa III. Just wish Reala was still available in 35mm.
Click to expand...

I still have some Reala in 35mm format left in the freezer. I bought 100 rolls at one time. They cost $1 each.
 
paradoxbox said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi,

like the others, I can not confirm this.

What I can confirm is what lots of others already have experienced that Portra 400 give a very strong yellow cast in mixed light situations (tungsten light with daylight). With only tungsten light Portras yellow cast is quite extreme.
Both Provia 400X and Pro 400H are much better in this respect and deliver more natural colors in such situations.

Portra 400 New is a good film, but not better than the former films Portra 400NC-3/VC-3.
Finer grain? The improvement is so small that I needed 100x enlargement with a microscope to see it, and even then it is very small.
In normal shooting conditions with regular enlargement of prints there is no grain difference between former 400 NC-3 and the new Portra.

But the finest grain of all 400 ISO color films has Provia 400X. And this film has also the highest resolution (25% more than Portra 400) and best sharpness.
And excellent skin tone reproduction, too. I regularly shoot portraits and fashion with it.

Cheers, Jan
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
Really disgusting, those Portra colors. Terrible green tints ... I was taken in by all the hype and decided to take a picture of my little niece on Portra 400 and now ... she looks like a little Alien ... AAAARGH ... Kodak really don't have a clue what they're doing ... or maybe this is a big conspiracy to drive everyone to digital cameras ... Hey!! I want my money back!!

:bang::bang::bang:



emma02small von eames68 auf Flickr
 
Like the OP, I have had very little luck with scanning Portra. I'm using a Plustek 7600i and Silverfast 8 on a 27" iMac calibrated with Colormunki.

Those of you that have had great scanning results, please post some recommendations on scanning technique/settings.
 
AlexanderR said:
Like the OP, I have had very little luck with scanning Portra. I'm using a Plustek 7600i and Silverfast 8 on a 27" iMac calibrated with Colormunki.

Those of you that have had great scanning results, please post some recommendations on scanning technique/settings.
Click to expand...

One way to improve the results when using Silverfast is to not necessarily use the correct film setting for the emulsion you're using. Just experiment and pick the one that works best for you (or create your own).
 
Jamie123 said:
One way to improve the results when using Silverfast is to not necessarily use the correct film setting for the emulsion you're using. Just experiment and pick the one that works best for you (or create your own).
Click to expand...

Yep, that's how I scan (except with Aperture).
 
Jamie123 said:
One way to improve the results when using Silverfast is to not necessarily use the correct film setting for the emulsion you're using. Just experiment and pick the one that works best for you (or create your own).
Click to expand...


That's one thing I've been doing. Still overall disatisfied with my results. I have a few rolls left to experiment with.
 
paradoxbox said:
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.
Click to expand...

All Portra, if you see a green cast recalibrate your monitor.
http://treewithoutabird.com/more-square-pictures/

Cheers,

Kevin.
 
If you do a Google search you will find that this isn't in the OPs head. There have been lots of discussion about this topic and as some pointed out above there are a lot of variables that can account for this. That's not to say it's the film's fault either. When exposed, developed and scanned properly it is a wonderful film. However, it is rather finicky in all three departments.
 
I've found Portra comes back from the lab with really nice prints, but it is a absolute pig to scan. Mine always has a red/magenta cast. The best film I've ever scanned was Fuji Reala. Beautiful, straight out of the scanner.
Thats the main reason I shoot E6, crap in - crap out. No messing.

Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom