1750Shooter
Established
Just got back my first 3 rolls of Porta 160 & to say I'm underwhelmed is an understatement! I used it on the recommendation of several people & while the photos are clear, the color isn't really bright. I was using a Leica R3 with/35mm Elmirat & a Fuji GA645Zi & the results were the same. I was shooting a tulip farm in full bloom and the colors just weren't as bright. Has anyone else had this problem. I'm thinking that I need to go back to Velvia, but someone suggested Kodak Ektar... Thanks for any input.
thegman
Veteran
Depends what you're expecting really, I think Portra 160 is supposed to be fairly "subdued" in it's colour rendition. For flowers etc. I'd say stick with Velvia or Ektar.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Portra is for portraits so their color direction is for skin tones. It is hard to say without a photo, but I use both films and Portra is for real colors and Vevia gives them a little boost.
Portra 160:
Velvia 100:
Same kid.
Portra 160:
Velvia 100:
Same kid.
rinzlerb
Established
Portra has more balanced "correct" color, I think. I've come to use it most often. I get more excited about Ektar, but if I end up shooting some people on the same roll (and I rarely finish my rolls in one outing) they turn out pink on Ektar. It's easy to crank up the saturation on Portra in post-processing (if you do that) and get vivid, Ektar/Velvia-like color, as in this picture shot on Portra 400. I haven't had the same luck trying to get pink Ektar people to look normal again.
boomguy57
Well-known
Yeah, it's supposed to be subdued as people have said. I'm a big fan of Portra 400; I don't really like Velvia as it is a bit uber-saturated for my taste. I prefer Provia.
Film is all about experimentation: if you don't like Portra, try something else!
Film is all about experimentation: if you don't like Portra, try something else!
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
You could say that Portra is subtle, realistic and gives flexible, workable scans, while Velvia has over-the-top saturation, bordering on garish....
or you could say that Velvia has bright, vivid colours that "pop", and Portra looks dull and lifeless in comparison.
They are just different, one's not really a replacement for the other.
or you could say that Velvia has bright, vivid colours that "pop", and Portra looks dull and lifeless in comparison.
They are just different, one's not really a replacement for the other.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Shooting things like a tulip farm would have most people suggesting Ektar or Velvia I think. Those would be the "right" films for the job.
However, Portra is flexible. So if you are scanning (or had good scans done) I would think you should be able to up the vibrancy and/or saturation and get something closer to what you want.
However, Portra is flexible. So if you are scanning (or had good scans done) I would think you should be able to up the vibrancy and/or saturation and get something closer to what you want.
millus1974
Film Shooter...Forever!!
I don't know if these are flat color but i love them, i still have a stock of Portra 160 NC that i prefer so much to the new Portra 160
Portra 160NC - Nikkor-N 35-1.4 - Giampa e Andrea 1 di Emiliano L. Maiello, su Flickr
Portra 160NC - Canon 50-1.2 - Laura di Emiliano L. Maiello, su Flickr
Portra 160NC - Nikkor-N 35-1.4 - Giampa e Andrea 1 di Emiliano L. Maiello, su Flickr
Portra 160NC - Canon 50-1.2 - Laura di Emiliano L. Maiello, su Flickr
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Where are you having it processed? I love Portra 160NC, though I haven't shot it in a while. Used to send it directly to Kodak for processing and it always looked great. They stopped processing it, along with most other shops, and the last two places I tried to get some processed, at a local Walgreens, and another local drugstore who "sent it out", the processing was awful and the negatives looked like mud.
I think the film is still remarkable, I just wish I could find someplace that could still do a good job processing it.
Best,
-Tim
I think the film is still remarkable, I just wish I could find someplace that could still do a good job processing it.
Best,
-Tim
wilonstott
Wil O.
It's all in how you handle the scans man. I think scans that are more saturated at the baseline are harder to work with. I'm not talking about some crazy photoshop overhaul either--mostly contrast adjustments, saturation, vibrancy, blackpoint, and highlight retention. I also use Aperture, so I'm not much help translating workflow to another platform.
These are all 35mm Portra 160. Scans are from Walgreens.
I think it's a great film. I shoot it at box speed.
These are all 35mm Portra 160. Scans are from Walgreens.
I think it's a great film. I shoot it at box speed.
Araakii
Well-known
Awesome shot!!! Love the color a lot.
And why do flowers shots have to be vivid and saturated? Shooting it with Portra NC with a washed out look can be quite engaging to me.
1750Shooter
Established
Thanks for all your advice. I don't have a scanner (I live on a 40' boat), but tried it w/a friend's scanner & Photoshop & no matter what we tried the colors looked "helped" to my eye. I'm testing Ektar & Velvia 100F to see which I prefer. I take photos mostly of flowers w/some landscapes thrown in so peoples face color isn't important to me. If I'm going out to shoot people, I dig into my stock of Ko0dak Gold 200. Just FYI, if you are in or near Portland, OR., Blue Moon Camera has a fabulous lab & Jake & the guys will go out of their way to get it right for you.
wilonstott
Wil O.
You got digital versions of the shots? I'm curious to see what they look like.
What scanner and scanning software are you using?
Does the software have a preset for the film?
I don't use photoshop much (aperture, as mentioned earlier), but I do know a few little tricks that can help bring things out (emphasis on little and tricks.
Something that serves as a quick fix a lot of times (and you may be a PS whiz, so this may sound novice--if so, sorry) is going to Layer->Duplicate Layer-->and with that layer select Overlay and play with the Opacity (0-100%. Essentially, from what I can tell, that algorithm affects contrast and saturation of various frequencies.
Aside from that, I also tend to slightly lower saturation in post, but slightly increase vibrancy, which only affects certain color frequencies--actually, it only affects muted colors, and does not affect already saturated colors.
Again, this may or may not help--you may already know what you're doing, and I don't want to sound preachy or prescriptively erudite.
It may sound like I'm really trying to sell the film, but the thing is, I really think it's a fantastic film, and in many ways, I find it superior to Ektar--primarily because daylight shadows don't tend to go blue (I've had this problem with Ektar) and Reds don't blow out (also an issue with Ektar--well, it's seems to be an issue with any film to a certain extent).
Either way, may not be the film for you--if not, too bad, but when I used it, I really felt like I'd found something. However, when I got the base scans, the were rather unremarkable--but extremely workable--perhaps that's why I like the film so much--great, and I mean great, latitude, tiny grain, sharp, and the color, in my opinion is balanced--which means I could tweak it in post and get everything right.
Anyway, I really hope it works out.
What scanner and scanning software are you using?
Does the software have a preset for the film?
I don't use photoshop much (aperture, as mentioned earlier), but I do know a few little tricks that can help bring things out (emphasis on little and tricks.
Something that serves as a quick fix a lot of times (and you may be a PS whiz, so this may sound novice--if so, sorry) is going to Layer->Duplicate Layer-->and with that layer select Overlay and play with the Opacity (0-100%. Essentially, from what I can tell, that algorithm affects contrast and saturation of various frequencies.
Aside from that, I also tend to slightly lower saturation in post, but slightly increase vibrancy, which only affects certain color frequencies--actually, it only affects muted colors, and does not affect already saturated colors.
Again, this may or may not help--you may already know what you're doing, and I don't want to sound preachy or prescriptively erudite.
It may sound like I'm really trying to sell the film, but the thing is, I really think it's a fantastic film, and in many ways, I find it superior to Ektar--primarily because daylight shadows don't tend to go blue (I've had this problem with Ektar) and Reds don't blow out (also an issue with Ektar--well, it's seems to be an issue with any film to a certain extent).
Either way, may not be the film for you--if not, too bad, but when I used it, I really felt like I'd found something. However, when I got the base scans, the were rather unremarkable--but extremely workable--perhaps that's why I like the film so much--great, and I mean great, latitude, tiny grain, sharp, and the color, in my opinion is balanced--which means I could tweak it in post and get everything right.
Anyway, I really hope it works out.
wilonstott
Wil O.
Oh, here's my flickr--everything shot in Mississippi and New Orleans was shot with New 160 and some with New 400.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wilonstott/
Should be tagged with the film I used.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wilonstott/
Should be tagged with the film I used.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Wrong film for the subject.
For your subject 'tulip farm in full bloom' slide film definitely works best. The color brillance is unique.
If I photograph such subjects, I always take slide film for it (negativ film has its merits in other situations).
My preferred films for such subjects: Provia 100F and Provia 400X. Excellent natural and vivid colors. And both have better contour sharpness and resolution than Portra.
In dull lighting I take Velvia 100F.
Cheers, Jan
bensyverson
Well-known
If you want more contrast... add more contrast...
morback
Martin N. Hinze
I don't know if these are flat color but i love them, i still have a stock of Portra 160 NC that i prefer so much to the new Portra 160
Portra 160NC - Nikkor-N 35-1.4 - Giampa e Andrea 1 di Emiliano L. Maiello, su Flickr
Portra 160NC - Canon 50-1.2 - Laura di Emiliano L. Maiello, su Flickr
Very nice colors. Portra NC has always been a favorite of mine. Unfortunately my corner of the world has finally run out of stock and I will now be forced into the new Portra line...
Wil's shots look a bit too clean and saturated to me (compared to the old Portra), but maybe it's the lens (ASPH or Zeiss?). Makes me a bit nervous, but I don't really have a choice anyways.
As for the OP, Portra is not for pop/saturation. Kodak offers Ektar if you like that route.
Matus
Well-known
The look you get from any given film (after developing and scanning) depends not only on the characteristics of the film itself (and the exposure, obviously), but also on the contrast of the scene (which depends on the light) and on how the film is scanned.
If you get automated scans that were not adjusted reasonably before being stored as 8 bit JPEG than boosting color and adjusting black point (and such) in PP may give you 'rough' transformations in color and banding.
Try to get good scans first (16 bit Tiff) and play with them with some software you have at hand.
But in general - if you use low contrast film like the Portra 160 to shoot low contrast scene you will have hard time to get stronger colors. Provia or Velvia or at least Ektar may be a better way to ...
*******
You may find useful the color film comparison by Tim Parkin (link HERE)
If you get automated scans that were not adjusted reasonably before being stored as 8 bit JPEG than boosting color and adjusting black point (and such) in PP may give you 'rough' transformations in color and banding.
Try to get good scans first (16 bit Tiff) and play with them with some software you have at hand.
But in general - if you use low contrast film like the Portra 160 to shoot low contrast scene you will have hard time to get stronger colors. Provia or Velvia or at least Ektar may be a better way to ...
*******
You may find useful the color film comparison by Tim Parkin (link HERE)
HHPhoto
Well-known
Just an additional recommendation to my posting above (and my recommendation to use slide film for this subject):
Make yourself free from the "digitilisation constraint". Scanning film is only one option of several options. And in most cases it is the worst option.
You always loose resolution (even drum scanners are not able to get the full resolution from modern films; but optical printing and slide projection can do that).
Most scanners intensify filmgrain by scanner noise.
You need excellent color management to get the colors right (with slide film this is much easier because you always have your slide as color reference; a color negative can not serve as a color reference).
And using a high resolution photographic medium like film, and then watching it on a computer monitor with its extremely low resolution of only about 1 MP? It makes absolutely no sense.
So simplify your photographic life and make things as easy as possible:
A slide on a lightable (with daylight color temperature) will give you the right color. No further work needed.
With an excellent slide loupe, e.g. from Schneider or Rodenstock
http://www.schneider-kreuznach.com/foto_e/zubehoer_lupen.htm
http://www.rodenstock-photo.com/en/main/products/magnifiers/aspherical-magnifiers/
you get the best image quality. Best resolution and sharpness, no grain visible, and almost a 3 dimensional effect.
Same is of course valid for slide projection, if you want your pictures in the biggest and most impressive way.
As soon as you have your tulip farm shots the first time on slide film, and then watch the picture with an excellent slide loupe on a lighttable and in projection, you will never again think about scanned color negativ film.
Two completely different worlds quality wise.
Cheers, Jan
RObert Budding
D'oh!
I learned to appreciate Portra when I printed it in a darkroom.