Kodak Portra

[ackers8888]

Portra can be beautiful when used outdoors, but I have had really poor results for shooting indoors or in slight darkness.

I recently returned from Istanbul. I only took Portra 160 NC with me. This has since been discontinued and replaced by the new Portra. £5.59 a roll for 400 iso. Incredible..

For this price per roll, being great outside but useless inside is just not good enough for me anymore.

Ideally i would like a 200 iso colour negative film suitable for general use. Low in saturation and rendering natural colour. Indoor and outdoor.

I'm going to get a load of different films this week and test them all. Can anyone recommend any I may have missed out on? i would also consider using slide film. I have had nice results from Fuji Sensia 200. But Velvia/Ekta at 100 are too slow..I am even considering trying Agfa Vista. I know some use Fuji Superia, even Matt Stuart exclusively, but i have never had good results from this.

Any ideas free of sarcastic remarks would be really helpful Thanks

 

[keytarjunkie]

Fuji generally has a cooler tone, so you might like the indoor results better...personally I can't stand Pro 400H, but Pro 160S is one of my favorite films, and a similar film to Kodak Portra NC, but cooler.

 

[thegman]

I'd go Portra 400, the new one, it handles underexposure very well, and if you want to shoot it at 200, you certainly can do.

 

[ackers8888]

Thanks for that guys.

Handling underexposure would be useful. Is this the main improvement between the new and old Portra?

 

[bensyverson]

At what speed are you rating the Portra 160? I rate 160 at 80 or below, so I would not pick it for indoor use. Indoors, you need at least an extra stop to give you any exposure in the blue-sensitive layer. Otherwise you wind up with a 100% orange image.

I've been shooting Portra 400 at 160, which is a great compromise. You get better shadow detail outdoors, and a good negative indoors. If I really need more speed, Portra 800 is nice. I rate that at 320.

 

[Paddy C]

I cannot answer some of your specific questions, but I have always liked 400H rated at 200 processed normally. I'm an outdoor natural light shoot however so your mileage may very.

I think you should certainly add it to your test list.

 

[Tim Gray]

Thanks for that guys.

Handling underexposure would be useful. Is this the main improvement between the new and old Portra?

The main improvement is finer grain. Plus it's supposed to scan easier. Many people will tell you that it has better exposure latitude than the previous 400NC and 400VC, but in my tests, it's pretty much the same. Which is to say it's pretty damn good. Of course, the finer grain makes the grain increase when underexposing less in your face, so in an indirect manner it *does* make it a bit easier to underexpose.

I've had no problems with the new Portra 400 indoors. If you want, use a partial correction filter like a KB6 for tungsten light. Or just shoot it without. If I know I'm going to be shooting a whole roll or more in tungsten, I slap on the KB6 filter. If not, I don't really stress about it.

Below is a shot of Portra 400 in Tungsten light (3200K) exposed at 400 and color corrected during the scanning/photoshop stage:


Portra 400 Tungsten proper exposure + hand by ezwal, on Flickr

Below is a shot of Portra 400 in Tungsten light (3200K) exposed at 400 through a KB6 (80D) filter and color corrected during the scanning/photoshop stage. You'll notice slightly better colors compared to the previous pictures, particularly in the blues. If you didn't have a KB6 filter, you'd probably do almost as well given it a bit more exposure...


Portra 400 Tungsten KB6 proper exposure + hand by ezwal, on Flickr

And just for comparison's sake, here it is again, without the KB6 filter, but overexposed by one stop (at EI 200). Normal development though.


Portra 400 Tungsten +1 by ezwal, on Flickr

 

[Florian1234]

I was just to suggest you Fuji Superia, because that's what I think is sold overhere in Germany in drugstores of "Schlecker" as their own branded films "AS Fotoland". I used their 400 iso films and they also sell it as 200.

 

[philipb]

Try some Kodak Gold 200. Really, it's better than many give it credit for. And cheap. Buy it from 7dayshop, Sainsbury's, etc.

It can handle all sorts of under/over exposure and scans easily.

I've stopped fretting over what film to use and just get on with it now. Although I do try the odd roll of Ektar and get confused again!

Gold 200:

 

[Jamie123]

Ok, first things first. Portra 160NC and VC have been replaced by Portra 160. Portra 400 is the replacement for Portra 400NC and VC. Which one are you unhappy with? I've used Portra 400NC indoors and have no complaints whatsoever. I don't know what you're doing to get useless results. I don't use ISO160 films indoors with available light so I can't comment on that.

In any case, if you want an ISO 200 film that's suitable indoors the best option IMO would be to shoot Portra 400 at 200. Personally I really prefer Kodak's neg films to Fuji but it seems that in the UK Fuji films are cheaper so why not give it a try? It's really not just about what film you use but also what speed you expose it at and what scanning workflow you have. The only way to find out what suits you best is to do your own tests and comparisons.

 

[Lilserenity]

Likewise here, I never really had any problems indoors with Portra 400NC or the new Portra 400.

These were shot with Portra 400NC at f/3.5 1/60th (Manual mode on my OM2n)


(Click to enlarge)


(Click to enlarge)

Both are 35mm.

This is the new Portra 400 at night lit by tungsten, pretty dull picture but it handles very well, this time shot at f/1.8 (or f/2.8 can't recall) 1/60th on my OM2n with a 50mm lens:


(Click to enlarge)

I think for a piece of 35mm film, Portra 400 handles exceptionally well with no flash on an SLR (think mirror slap!)

I guess this is the rule of thumb, it's now more expensive (about £4.50-£5 a roll I find), so, don't take the same picture twice, and nail that focus, commensurately you may find you spend less.

Vicky

 

[rovnguy]

Try Fuji Reala and rate it at 200 vice the as is 100. It also scans well and desaturates to B&W well.

 

[Bingley]

I love Portra 400NC and 160NC, but for indoor use I'd go w/ an 800 film from Fuji. Fuji Pro 800Z was a lovely film (I still have a few rolls) but has been discontinued, but I think Fuji still makes an 800 film under the Superia label.

I haven't tried the new Portra yet, but am taking several rolls w/ me to Maine this weekend.

 

[Mackinaw]

I'm not a big color shooter but recently tried out a few rolls of new Portra 400 in my Rolleiflex 6006. Very impressive stuff! Beautiful colors when used with natural light or with a flash. Here's one taken in a somewhat dim-light setting. Exposure was F2.8 at 1/125th.

Jim B.

 

[ackers8888]

Likewise here, I never really had any problems indoors with Portra 400NC or the new Portra 400.

These were shot with Portra 400NC at f/3.5 1/60th (Manual mode on my OM2n)


(Click to enlarge)


(Click to enlarge)

Both are 35mm.

This is the new Portra 400 at night lit by tungsten, pretty dull picture but it handles very well, this time shot at f/1.8 (or f/2.8 can't recall) 1/60th on my OM2n with a 50mm lens:


(Click to enlarge)

I think for a piece of 35mm film, Portra 400 handles exceptionally well with no flash on an SLR (think mirror slap!)

I guess this is the rule of thumb, it's now more expensive (about £4.50-£5 a roll I find), so, don't take the same picture twice, and nail that focus, commensurately you may find you spend less.

Vicky

they look good...i'd expect the first 2 to look good though as the light is mostly natural. impressed with the third one too. i think i'll pick up a separate film for night stuff, maybe a fuji 800. i'll give all the films a test this weekend. cheers everyone.

 

[ackers8888]

Try some Kodak Gold 200. Really, it's better than many give it credit for. And cheap. Buy it from 7dayshop, Sainsbury's, etc.

It can handle all sorts of under/over exposure and scans easily.

I've stopped fretting over what film to use and just get on with it now. Although I do try the odd roll of Ektar and get confused again!

Gold 200:

i used to pick this film up from the £1 shop...i still quite like it and carry some in my bag

 

[ackers8888]

Ok, first things first. Portra 160NC and VC have been replaced by Portra 160. Portra 400 is the replacement for Portra 400NC and VC. Which one are you unhappy with? I've used Portra 400NC indoors and have no complaints whatsoever. I don't know what you're doing to get useless results. I don't use ISO160 films indoors with available light so I can't comment on that.

In any case, if you want an ISO 200 film that's suitable indoors the best option IMO would be to shoot Portra 400 at 200. Personally I really prefer Kodak's neg films to Fuji but it seems that in the UK Fuji films are cheaper so why not give it a try? It's really not just about what film you use but also what speed you expose it at and what scanning workflow you have. The only way to find out what suits you best is to do your own tests and comparisons.

i only mentioned using 160 at night, not 400. 400 is fine.