Any experience with Portra 800?

[v_roma]

I'm not sure but I believe the twinlenslife examples are uprated only and not pushed.

 

[imokruok]

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.

Yes, this is my hope. Plus I'm only shooting 120 these days, so I'm worried a little less about grain.

I'm not sure that I'd ever seriously shoot a 400 at 3200 - more just to play around. But I have no problems doing a 400 at 800, and if it turns out better than the 800? Kodak had better do some product updating if they want to keep an 800 in their product line.

 

[venchka]

I like 120 Portra 800. It makes dull days easy with big cameras and slow lenses.

Old, ancient, expired Portra 800 & Zeiss 80mm/2.8 Planar. Shot taken in the rain.

 

[bensyverson]

I'm not sure that I'd ever seriously shoot a 400 at 3200 - more just to play around. But I have no problems doing a 400 at 800, and if it turns out better than the 800? Kodak had better do some product updating if they want to keep an 800 in their product line.

You might want to actually test 400 against 800 before you make such a hasty judgment... In my experience, there's a lot to be said for Portra 800 versus pushing or underexposing 400. It's still a fantastic film.

 

[Tim Gray]

Just rescanned a Portra 800 shot I took the other year. It was rated at 800. Anyway, I scanned at 4000 dpi, so if you click on the original size in flickr, you can get a sense of the kind of grain you might get. It's the older 800, 800-2, and not the newest stuff, so expect some improvements with fresh film.

Maybe my expectations are low, but I am impressed with this film.


Dan Deacon by ezwal, on Flickr

 

[doubledan]

I recently wrote here that I'd been disappointed with Portra 800, but the fault probably lay with a local lab's processing. I'm happy to see that was indeed the problem. I've just gotten back a roll processed by Preciision Camera -- I took advantage of their special discount on scans for RFF members -- and I am really impressed. It's sharp, skin tones are beautiful, and the film handles difficult mixed lighting as if it had a brain. Now the problem is what to do with these huge 26mp files!

Dan

 

[ampguy]

it's ok, best colors in outdoor light, less grain than kodak max 800, pretty much the only other c41 800 film I've used a lot of. I would probably try portra 400 pushed before buying portra 800 again.

 

[v_roma]

Thought I'd unearth this thread with some very unscientific and subjective test results. I'm still in the process of identifying the best iso 1600 color film solution for me. I tried Superia 1600 shot and developed at 1600, and it is just too grainy for my everyday use (and I like grain). Also tried the new Portra 400 shot at 1600 and pushed twice in development. The grain was perfectly acceptable and much, much less noticeable and jarring than the Superia 1600. Unfortunately, the colors suffered from pushing the film twice and they were often off, which was not the case with Superia. Next off, I will be trying out Portra 800 shot at 1600 or 2000 and pushed twice in development per some earlier suggestions in this thread.

 

[ktran]

For what it's worth, here are some results I've had exposing the new Portra 400 at ISO 3200 (as per my FM2's meter), and then asking the local pro lab to push it three stops (for a 100% surcharge):


Jane Ehrhardt by khoa.sus2, on Flickr


Kalle Mattson @ The Black Sheep Inn by khoa.sus2, on Flickr

The only post-processing I've done is auto-levels in PS Elements (or was that the GIMP?) after an auto-exposure scan on my V500, and then default Neat Image noise removal. I don't quite believe in Mr Canlas' claim that there's "no grain" to this film at ISO3200 (unless I'm reading him wrong), but I definitely consider it very usable, and to be frank, my straight scans of Fuji Superia 400 shot at 400 don't look this good. Ever.

 

[not_in_good_order]

Here are a couple of Porta 800 shots from my Olympus XA. Click the images for a higher resolution view. It is a very nice film for its speed. A tad expensive, but you get what you pay for.

 

[v_roma]

Thanks, ktran and not in good order. Those all look really good. As I said, I am going to try Portra 800 next shot at 1600 or 2000 and pushed twice in development. I will try to come back and post some examples. If anyone already has examples of this handy, it would be great if they could post it.