Portra 160 more finicky than Portra 400?

[mafoofan]

I have been a very constant Portra 400 shooter and get the exposure right at least 90% of the time. But this weekend I knew I was going to be shooting a lot in the daytime, so I figured I'd give Portra 160 a try.

The short of it is that at least 40% of my shots appear under-exposed. Is Portra 160 less forgiving than Portra 400? I've found the latter to be super flexible and really wanted to like the slower speed as well.

 

[Gumby]

I've never experienced that.

 

[mafoofan]

Oh, to clarify: I'm shooting 35mm, with a Leica MP. So, I am largely relying on the internal light meter combined with common sense adjustments.

Also, when the the shots hit the mark--they are gorgeous.

 

[Shutterspark]

I get the impression it's a little less forgiving too. Something like a whole stop for underexposure. Depends where you draw the line.
I haven't had that much experience with 160 though, 400 film is just so much more flexible.

 

[Gumby]

What camera; what type of internal metering system?

My experience is generally with Porta in 120 and incident metering. For 35mm I use Nikon with center-weighted meter. With both I've had really great exposures 99% of the time at box speeds.

 

[kokoshawnuff]

I've not been to happy with the results I get from the new 160 (colors and exposures). Like you I've been metering using my Leica.

 

[kzphoto]

I'm with Gumby on this -- I use Portra 160 with great results, but I always incident meter. I usually expose at ASA 100 -- most 160 films prefer ASA 100, at least in my experience.

 

[Gumby]

I've not been to happy with the results I get from the new 160 (colors and exposures). Like you I've been metering using my Leica.

Truth be told... I like the old 160NC better for most of the work I do with it, but what's a guy going to do?

 

[kzphoto]

On Fuji 160S, at ASA 100, all incident metered: http://kzphoto.org/nick-ashley

 

[mafoofan]

This is the best I was able to squeeze out of the Portra 160:

 

[corposant]

This is spot-metered on the ground to the right near the foreground. I don't have many complaints about the dynamic range here.

 

[kokoshawnuff]

Truth be told... I like the old 160NC better for most of the work I do with it, but what's a guy going to do?

I loved the NC when it was available, but I never shot enough C41 to stock up when it was discontinued

 

[Araakii]

Do you scan your own negs? Or did you judge the under/overexposure by looking at the negs themselves? What was the lighting condition?

 

[chris7521]

I always shoot 160 @100 but, develop normally. I get good results. Not to my liking shooting @160. Seems to like a little overexposing.

 

[Gumby]

I loved the NC when it was available, but I never shot enough C41 to stock up when it was discontinued

I'm shooting my last roll right now... slowly. There's a propack of 120 NC at a shop near me and I think I should buy it. I didn't stock up either.

 

[Lord Nikon]

I have been a very constant Portra 400 shooter and get the exposure right at least 90% of the time.

I mean this like a coach would tell his athlete-
No, you don't get the exposure right 90% of the time.
90% of the time the exposure you choose is within the very large tolerances of acceptability with that film.

The short of it is that at least 40% of my shots appear under-exposed. Is Portra 160 less forgiving than Portra 400? I've found the latter to be super flexible and really wanted to like the slower speed as well.

Is a Ducatti less forgiving than a Vespa? Hell-yes. You can do anything on a vespa. Dudes with skirts on ride vespas all day after throwing back a few appletinis(hows that for some screwed up imagery)... If you mess around with a performance machine you will get pwned. Now, when your in the mood to pay attention to your machine and go like hell there is only one real choice...

So to it is with film.

The things that make the one film very forgiving hold back its absolute peak potential. The things that give the other film very high peak potential make it harder to use well.

In conclusion, I think that with a little more practice you will get the hang of it.

 

[boomguy57]

I think that the grain is so good on 400, I haven't bothered with 160 in a while. I usually push it to 800 as well, to good effect.

 

[charjohncarter]

The old reasoning with B&W films and exposure latitude was 400 films had more latitude than 125 films. This was because with the 400 film there was a greater variety of grain sizes which when exposed to light went to full sensitivity change at different rates. The 125 film although they had different sized grains the difference in these sizes was much smaller therefore not as much exposure latitude.

With box cameras like the brownie series there was only one exposure (one aperture, and on shutter speed). To work around this problem Kodak came out with a three layered film: Verichrome and later Verichrome Pan. These films had great latitude.

Maybe this is what you are experiencing this with the Portra series. Here is some more information of 160 films:

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100_grainstructure.htm

and this one makes mention of a less exposure latitude:

http://shutterfinger.typepad.com/shutterfinger/2011/06/kodak-portra-160-user-review.html

 

[mafoofan]

Do you scan your own negs? Or did you judge the under/overexposure by looking at the negs themselves? What was the lighting condition?

I scan my own negatives on a Nikon 5000ED. I am judging exposure based on the image I am able to pull out after optimizing my tone curve for maximum contrast without clipping.

I always shoot 160 @100 but, develop normally. I get good results. Not to my liking shooting @160. Seems to like a little overexposing.

Yeah, I shot at 200. Clearly a mistake. I thought I had heard it recommended to underexpose this film a bit. I'll try again at 100.

I mean this like a coach would tell his athlete-
No, you don't get the exposure right 90% of the time.
90% of the time the exposure you choose is within the very large tolerances of acceptability with that film.

Yes, this is true. I didn't mean to blame the film. My point was simply that I knew I couldn't have been off by more than a stop or so most of the time, implying that the 160 speed Portra is less flexible than the 400 speed version. However, based on the shots that came out right, I am convinced that the slower film produces a richer, creamier image when its potential is reached.

Check out the baby photo I posted above. What do you think?

I think that the grain is so good on 400, I haven't bothered with 160 in a while. I usually push it to 800 as well, to good effect.

This is what I thought, but I think the best images I got from the 160 are a level or two beyond what I can get with the 400.

The old reasoning with B&W films and exposure latitude was 400 films had more latitude than 125 films. This was because with the 400 film there was a greater variety of grain sizes which when exposed to light went to full sensitivity change at different rates. The 125 film although they had different sized grains the difference in these sizes was much smaller therefore not as much exposure latitude.

. . .

Maybe this is what you are experiencing this with the Portra series.

Very interesting. That would certainly explain it.

 

[wilonstott]

I shoot it at box speed with a Digisix incident. Works out fine. It may be a bit less forgiving than the 400 and not quite as saturated, but I can tell a difference in resolution. I use it a lot, and have had good results.
Here are some: