Any experience with Portra 800?

[v_roma]

Hi everyone,

I'm a big Portra 400NC fan and I'm testing out the new Portra 400 now, which I suspect I will like as well. But, having moved to a city with long, gray winters with a lot of time spent indoors, I'm finding that I need something faster. How does the Portra 800 compare with the Portra 400s? What about Portra 800 pushed to 1600 or, alternatively, Superia 1600? I don't mind grain as long as it is not so heavy that it dominates the photo completely and becomes the first thing you notice.

Thank you!

 

[sojournerphoto]

I really like the colours and texture I get from Portra 800. I'll see if I can find something to scan for you later, but iirc the first two on this post (click to make them big as they were for my neice to print) are Portra 800 in 35mm. I've just bought a few rolls in 120 to shoot alongside some new 400, but 35mm is worth playing with too.

Mike

 

[doubledan]

I recently tried one roll of Portra 800 and was disappointed, but I strongly suspect the problem was sloppy development by a local photo lab that I used because I was in a hurry.

But if you have the new Portra 400 Professional, I wonder if you need any other color negative film for extra speed. I've lately seen a few things on the web that say you can shoot this new film at 1600, 3200, maybe even 6400, and get great results with minimal grain. Haven't read closely enough to determne if these people were shooting different speeds on the same roll and then developing at box speed -- if so, the latitude would be amazing. But the results (i.e., posted images) look very, very good.

One thing these posters agree on: it's a mistake to use Portra Pro at LOWER speeds than 400, as one often does with other color negative fillms. It produces an unpleasant yellowish cast.

Good luck. Will be interested to know what you decide.

Dan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Portra800 is great in natural light. And has beautiful grain if well exposed... For normal development meter it incident at 800, and if necessary, it can be metered at 1600 incident asking for a push2 at a pro lab, but less light than that makes it suffer. A lot better than superia1600, and the best fast color film IMO.

I recommend you to use it several months before it expires, and develop it at the best lab you can find. If you find a Kodak Q-certified lab using Kodak C-41 chemicals, you'll get the most out of it.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[umcelinho]

I haven't tried Portra 800, but Fuji 800z, the grain level surprised me, it felt like a 400 iso film. I've pushed Portra NC (which I like a lot too) to 800 with good results, the lower saturation helps when pushing.

Superia 1600 I'd specially recommend if you want to push it to 3200 or 6400. At 1600 it's quite grainy, and although I haven't directly compared, I think an 800 iso pushed to 1600 should look better than the native 1600. Still it gives a good amount of detail if properly exposed.

Superia 1600:

Portra 400NC pushed to 800

 

[v_roma]

sojourne: thanks. those portra 800 shots are definitely great. I think I could definitely live with that.

doubledan: you know, that had occurred to me and I have asked around about pushing the new kodak portra. I will probably try that first since I have the new portra in hand and eventually try portra 800 for comparison. I would love to have a side-by-side comparison of portra 400+1 versus portra 800 and portra 400+2 vs. portra 800+1 but I just don't run through enough film to make testing this practical. I'll start with portra 400+1 and see where it goes.

EDIT: Thanks, Juan and Marcelo. It looks like I have some options. Like I said above I will try the new portra 400+1 first and take it from there. Shooting at ISO800 will help but I have a feeling I could use 1600 fairly often. Ideally, what I would like is a moderate grain color 1600 film. Superia 1600 does not look to be it. Maybe te closes to that will be portra 800 shot at 1600 and pushed twice, like Juan suggested, or even the new portra 400 shot at 1600 and pushed twice. I've seen photos of the new kodak portra 400 pushed twice that looked fine but it's hard to say how dependent it is on the lighting conditions, lab, etc, and if most of the pictures did not looks so good and we're only seeing the ones that came out well.

 

[Tim Gray]

I've had good results with the latest Portra 800. I've been meaning to but have yet to shoot a roll of it and get it pushed. I've read that shooting it at 2000 and getting a two stop push is the way to go if your are interested.

I've run some tests on the new Portra 400, but haven't seen the results yet (still waiting on the mail). Honestly, unless you do a side by side test with both films, it will be hard to gauge how they actually stack up - there are just too many other variables.

Here's a couple shots:


chickens by ezwal, on Flickr

Some nasty fluorescent indoor lighting:

. by ezwal, on Flickr

I have more examples on flickr for the newest revision (800-3). If you go to the full size you can see the 2000x3000 scan of them.

 

[v_roma]

Honestly, unless you do a side by side test with both films, it will be hard to gauge how they actually stack up - there are just too many other variables.

Yes, completely agree. I guess the best I can do is try one of these options myself and see if I'm happy with it. I was only trying to get some information to get me going in the right direction. Again, because I don't go through rolls that quickly, I'd hate to "ruin" a roll by pushing more than the film can handle. Pushing portra 400 once sounds safe enough and I'll probably try pushing it twice at some point, when I'm feeling more adventurous 🙂

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah I know what you mean. Though it really is worth the money to sacrifice two or three rolls to do a test. Set up a scene and shoot all the rolls one after the other. Run -2 to +4 or whatever range tickles your fancy. It's, what, $30 for film, development and scanning? Then you'll now how they work and you won't have to worry about ruining a roll because you went too far out if it's limits.

Like I said, I'm waiting for my Portra 400/400NC/400VC comparison to come back from the lab. Once I look at those results, I'll try to do a Portra 800 and/or Portra 400 push test in the coming weeks. I guess I'll probably just stick with a +2 push and find the right EIs for that push. I guess I could do +1 pushes as well, but from what I've seen, these two films handle 1 stop of underexposure pretty well without longer development.

 

[bensyverson]

Love this film... It looks much, much better than pushing 400.

 

[ibcrewin]

Ben, is this 120? or 35mm? Looks really good.

 

[bensyverson]

Ben, is this 120? or 35mm? Looks really good.

Thanks! It's plain old 35mm... some notes about my scanning workflow can be found in the in the comments for one of my photos on flickr.

 

[gavinlg]

I love portra 800. Gives lovely colors and tones and grain and works sooo well in natural light. I've tried fuji 800 a fair bit as well but don't like it at all - it's always been cold and harsh in comparison with ugly grain.

 

[imokruok]

I like, not love Portra 800. The results that I've seen pushing the new Portra 400 are extremely intriguing, and I will likely do that the next time I want to shoot at higher speeds. I recommend this link for a great example - someone pushed it to 3200 and it looks great.

http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2010/12/kodak-portra-400-miami-south-beach-fl.html

And I have heard about the yellowish cast from overexposure, but some of this pics I'm seeing on Flickr don't entirely bear that out.

 

[v_roma]

I'd seen the Jonathan Canlas photos you linked to and most of them do look great. I do see a yellowish cast in a couple (most noticeable on the left picture of the 6th row). We also don't know how much post-processing was done. All that said, these were pushed three times and, for that, they look great. I bet you can definitely push once to 800 without getting many problems.

 

[bensyverson]

I recommend this link for a great example - someone pushed it to 3200 and it looks great.

http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2010/12/kodak-portra-400-miami-south-beach-fl.html

I like those ISO 3200 samples. But notice they all have very dense blacks and tons of contrast... And they're medium format of course, which helps with grain.

I'm not saying it's not a useful workflow, but with color negative, there's no amount of Photoshop or photochemical pushing that will create shadow detail where none was exposed. So Portra 400 pushed vs 800 native would look pretty similar, but the 800 should have the edge in the shadows.

 

[Tim Gray]

I always take examples of pushed film with a grain of salt. Test it yourself. You never know if someone is exposing a 400 film at 3200, but giving an extra stop and a half of exposure over what the meter says at 3200. Or if they meter off a shadow and use that reading for their exposure with no adjustment.

 

[chris00nj]

I like Portra 400, but Portra 800 seems produce underexposed results shooting at box speed. I prefer Fuji 800z.

 

[thegman]

I like Portra 800, more so than 800z, but it looks like the new Portra 400 will push to 800 with great ease, and beyond:

http://www.twinlenslife.com/search/label/New Kodak Portra 400

I think Portra 400 will become *the* fast colour negative.

 

[bensyverson]

Again, no shadow detail in those shots... 800 would have given a little more.