Kodak Portra 400 NC - what ISO to shoot?

[M. Valdemar]

I recently accumulated some Hasselblad equipment and took up shooting 120 film again. I have several bodies and lenses.

I bought a large lot of supposedly refrigerated recently expired Kodak Portra 400 NC C-41 color film on eBay and have shot five rolls at the rated ISO.

The film seems listless, dull colors and underexposed. It scans very badly.

At the same time, I shot a roll of ancient Tri-X at ISO 400, and it came out perfectly exposed with beautiful scans.

Anyone have any experience with Portra 400? Should it be shot at ISO 200, or is it a crummy film? Maybe my batch is no good or was stored incorrectly? Too bad, because I got a lot of it cheap on eBay.

 

[mfogiel]

This film is fantastic. It simply has to be exposed correctly - i.e. if you take incident reading, expose aT 200 ISO, if you take direct reading, measure the shadows and expose at 400 ISO. This film gives "natural colours" excelling in skin tones and low light landscapes. Take a look at this guy's work, he is using Portra NC films exclusively:
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=1001799

 

[M. Valdemar]

Well, those photos are fantastic, very painterly and definitely far better results than mine.

I'll have to experiment with exposure and do a lot of bracketing on a few rolls. I'm obviously doing something wrong.

I've been using the "sunny 16" rule or using an old Soligor spot meter that seems to agree with my Epson R-D1 meter, but I think I need to drop the exposure down a few pegs.

 

[40oz]

I'm not a fan of Portra NC for general photography, finding it rather dull and "less than natural" color. I could only suggest over-exposing by a stop.

The linked gallery might very well be all Portra NC, but we have no idea how it was treated after exposure. Increasing saturation in photoshop after scanning will not help anyone understand what a film "should" look like. And in browsing the gallery, I still find the colors and general look of the images to be something less than I prefer. They're fine, I just think other films are better for the subject.

 

[Dektol Dan]

I shoot almost exclusively Porta these days (and for all subjects). Porta is the perfectly neutral negative film that has a tonal front and back that allows for the greatest leeway in manipulation in Photoshop. It presents almost no noise in the dark areas and perfectly controlled high lights when scanning. The 400 shows some noise, true, but the 160 almost zero.

I find it works better with lower contrast lenses which can take advantage of Porta's even tonality. Higher contrast lenses don't present as much information as lower contrast lenses in the the shadows, hence more noise with negative films.

I hated Porta at first, and it is not a film for the beginner, but it is perfectly forgiving too.

I have been scanning film since Photoshop 2 and I consider myself pretty skilled at using both. If one hasn't mastered scanning and curves, or is color tone deaf/blind and cannot master subtractive color manipulations it is not for you. Porta sings with the right manipulation, but it does not provide the instant gratification and the garish rich color of that Fuji lovers crave.

 

[40oz]

I would respectfully suggest that there are enough films out there that are capable of capturing a scene to suit any taste, a person might better spend their time on a film that doesn't require such manipulation.

While there are certainly uses for the NC line of Portra films, and everyone is entitled to their preference, I think the basic fact is that the NC films have a subdued color palette and don't tend to capture an outdoor scene as the eye sees it. Or at least my eye, and apparently most eyes. That feature has it's uses for sure, but unless one is intentionally trying to mute the scene, I don't see why one would choose an NC film. I'm certainly not suggesting they are bad or inferior, just different, and there's no reason to use them if they don't give one the image one likes on the negative.

I also personally find the NC films are close to the Fuji Superia range, which I also don't like to use for the same reasons. I'd kind of agree Velvia is somewhat "garish," but might use a more diplomatic term in mixed company 🙂 I personally really like the images from Kodak Gold and MAX films for the way they capture the bright colors without distorting the subtler shades I see in the scene I'm shooting - to me it's a more accurate and versatile film, colorwise. But again, it's personal preference, not an absolute judgement 😎

 

[Bingley]

I love Portra 400NC, for street as well as for landscape photography. I'm shooting it these days w/ a lower contrast lens, however, which supports the point Dan makes above. I shoot it at box speed, and have been very pleased w/ the results.

 

[M. Valdemar]

So far, the results from my Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses are mediocre. They seem extremely underexposed. It's probably my technique, back to the drawing board.

My scanning and Photoshop skills are above average, if I must say so myself.

 

[Bingley]

So far, the results from my Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses are mediocre. They seem extremely underexposed.

That's very surprising. I have not seen that problem shooting 35mm Portra (I don't shoot MF). I wonder if you got a bad batch of film, or if there was a problem in the processing department. 😕

 

[Prosaic]

Anyone have any experience with Portra 400?

Yes, excellent film. Dont know what happened to your samples.

 

[mhv]

So far, the results from my Hasselblad with Zeiss lenses are mediocre. They seem extremely underexposed. It's probably my technique, back to the drawing board.

My scanning and Photoshop skills are above average, if I must say so myself.

Portra 400 looks good even when underexposed one to two stops. Not ideal, but you have something. Take an easy subject in daylight, f/11 @ 1/500s and you should be set.

Portra is not a landscape film, it's a portrait/atmosphere kind of film. When I take pictures at events using flash only, it's the best film I have found.

You might want to look at the VC line for more punchy colors. Nothing extreme, but you'll get a little more bite and contrast.

 

[Rhoyle]

If i recall, Kodak markets NC as a wedding/portrait (hence the name Portra...) film. It is meant to have very even contrast so wedding photogs can capture a white wedding dress with detail in the same frame as a black tuxedo. Believe it or not, this is pretty difficult to do unless you have complete control of the lighting conditions. Portra NC works quite well at capturing just such a scene. There are many photogs who use these characteristics in certain landscape and other types of photography much to their advantage to create certain moods. I'm wondering if since you got of cheap off ebay if there is a reason the seller was trying to dump it. It may have been stored improperly for a long period of time. Otherwise it usually shoots quite well at box speed and has enough latitude to treat you pretty well if you're using the sunny 16 rule.

My 2c...

 

[Roger Hicks]

A vast amount depends on your metering technique.

Spot/shadow: 400.

Incident or broad-area reflected on a sunny day: 200.

Remember that these are NOT ISO speeds but EIs (exposure indices) chosen to give the results you like most.

Cheers,

R.

 

[M. Valdemar]

I'm starting to lean towards the bad batch on eBay theory.

I just developed some Konica C-41 and it was beautiful, same thing for a 1996 roll of Fuji.

I'm going to buy a new roll of Portra to test and see if it's my eBay lot of film that's bad. Maybe they stored it in a hothouse.