Rating New Portra 400 @ 800, 1600, 3200...

[umcelinho]

I've read a few reviews on the New Portra 400 regarding how it holds up when shot as a higher iso and then pushed accordingly. But what I haven't found is the outcome of shooting it 1, 2 or 3 (4 stops would be too much, i assume) but developing at box speed.

My current film workflow it so get all my color negs developed and scanned at a lab that doesn't do pushing. I do know another good lab who will push, when i need so, but their scans are awful. So I'm wondering if anyone has tried shooting at different exposures developing at 400, to get a better feeling on what i can expect. wondering if i could underexpose a bit on low light shots and still get a good IQ (varying exposure in the same roll)

I don't have Portra 400 available where I live, will be buying abroad, otherwise i'd be posting the results instead 🙂

thinking about how it turns out at 50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400-12800-25600 (why not?)

if anyone has tried something in that sense, i'd appreciate to learn the outcome.

thanks!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I've read a few reviews on the New Portra 400 regarding how it holds up when shot as a higher iso and then pushed accordingly. But what I haven't found is the outcome of shooting it 1, 2 or 3 (4 stops would be too much, i assume) but developing at box speed.

My current film workflow it so get all my color negs developed and scanned at a lab that doesn't do pushing. I do know another good lab who will push, when i need so, but their scans are awful. So I'm wondering if anyone has tried shooting at different exposures developing at 400, to get a better feeling on what i can expect. wondering if i could underexpose a bit on low light shots and still get a good IQ (varying exposure in the same roll)

I don't have Portra 400 available where I live, will be buying abroad, otherwise i'd be posting the results instead 🙂

thinking about how it turns out at 50-100-200-400-800-1600-3200-6400-12800-25600 (why not?)

if anyone has tried something in that sense, i'd appreciate to learn the outcome.

thanks!

Hi,

The existence of Portra800 can give you a clue... 😉

Your image will start degrading at 800, and will be losing blacks and showing muddy colors and grainy shadows past 800...

Some people get confused sometimes because of in camera metering: if you photograph someone dressed with dark clothes with your camera set at 1600 with Portra400, and you shoot at the settings your camera indicates, you'll be shooting close to 400 instead of 1600, and you'll think color negative can be pushed 2 stops. But it can't... The real speed you gain after a push2 by a pro lab is a bit less than half a stop AND you lose tonality... Color negative requires the best possible exposure... you can overexpose it (+1 or even +2) without losing image quality, but it's not a technology for considerable underexposure... You can see it very easily with one roll metered with an incident light meter doing the same image three times changing exposure... You'll find differences at -1, and you'll hate images at -2... Of course, it all depends on what you consider good... The best film for color in low light is Portra800: it can be shot at 2000 incident with a push2, and yet skins are great. At 2000 and 1.4 you can shoot most low light scenes...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[cjbecker]

I shoot the 400 from 100 to 1600 and have it processed normal. At 3200 i have it pushed one stop, and it still looks fantastic. 6400 i have it pushed 2 stops and also with 12,800. the 6400 is still good but not fantastic. 12,800 not great. The pics below are some examples. Make sure to check the bottom right. These are also are straight from RPL, I only resized them.

6400 pushed 2 stops in developing.

6400 pushed 2 stops in developing.

the one on the left is 6400 pushed 2 stops in developing and the one on the right is 12,800 pushed 2 stops in developing.

 

[nonuniform]

I push Ektar 100 and Portra 400 by 2 stops, but I'm not a fan of Portra 800. I dunno, it's a color thing.

Anyhow, you lose shadow detail and you will see color shifts. Depending how good you are at the scanning workflow, the color shifts can be managed.

You may, or may not like the results of underexposing film and processing normal, +1 or +2. Only you can make that distinction, and honestly, there is no substitute for experimenting with your own cameras, shooting the way that you want to shoot. If you like the results, yay! If not, well, keep experimenting.

 

[mod2001]

i also use Portra 400 now from 400 to 1600 (in bright daylight i use a ND-filter) without pushing in the lab. Tried push 1 +2 in the beginning but didn't like the results.

 

[anerjee]

What is "2000 incident"? Sorry -- relative newcomer.

Hi,

The existence of Portra800 can give you a clue... 😉

Your image will start degrading at 800, and will be losing blacks and showing muddy colors and grainy shadows past 800...

Some people get confused sometimes because of in camera metering: if you photograph someone dressed with dark clothes with your camera set at 1600 with Portra400, and you shoot at the settings your camera indicates, you'll be shooting close to 400 instead of 1600, and you'll think color negative can be pushed 2 stops. But it can't... The real speed you gain after a push2 by a pro lab is a bit less than half a stop AND you lose tonality... Color negative requires the best possible exposure... you can overexpose it (+1 or even +2) without losing image quality, but it's not a technology for considerable underexposure... You can see it very easily with one roll metered with an incident light meter doing the same image three times changing exposure... You'll find differences at -1, and you'll hate images at -2... Of course, it all depends on what you consider good... The best film for color in low light is Portra800: it can be shot at 2000 incident with a push2, and yet skins are great. At 2000 and 1.4 you can shoot most low light scenes...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

ISO2000: just a bit more than one-stop push (1 1/3...) Color negative films accept a 1 1/3 underexposure from incident metering with a Push2 (as called by pro labs) without compromises in color, shadows or grain... Results are similar to perfect exposure ones, with a very small bump in contrast.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Tim Gray]

This might be of interest. Portra 400 shot at various amounts of over and under exposure and developed at box speed. 'Proper' exposure in this set is defined as the exposure my incident meter gave me directly in front of the color checker. So you have a reference shot in which to compare the other shots. The scans were compensated for reasonably good images (courtesy of Precision Camera).

I ran the test in sunlight from a window, in tungsten light set at 3200 K, and tungsten light at 3200 K with a KB 6 filter on the lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/sets/72157625883846979/

 

[nonuniform]

That *is* useful!

Thanks for putting that together.

 

[Creagerj]

I'm actually fairly impressed with the results at 6400. I have to try pushing Portra to see how I like it now.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

This might be of interest. Portra 400 shot at various amounts of over and under exposure and developed at box speed. 'Proper' exposure in this set is defined as the exposure my incident meter gave me directly in front of the color checker. So you have a reference shot in which to compare the other shots. The scans were compensated for reasonably good images (courtesy of Precision Camera).

I ran the test in sunlight from a window, in tungsten light set at 3200 K, and tungsten light at 3200 K with a KB 6 filter on the lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/sets/72157625883846979/

Hi Tim,

I remember when you did that test (and shared it here on RFF) long ago... Any photographer using color negative film seriously (that means having fun and getting great color 🙂) can chime in and confirm here -again- how easily you lose your clean shadows, your blacks, your fine grain, etc., when you underexpose it more than one stop, no matter if you develop film normally or for more seconds.

Besides, a scan is an autoexposure photograph of a negative frame, "a new creation", and those digital images don't really show differences very well.

How can someone be "impressed" on ISO400 color negative film shot at 6400? Why would the same company make the same film but with ISO800 speed? Why, being the best film company ever, can't they offer a version going to 1600? Not even a P3200 one?

Apart from that, at ISO2000 with a fast lens, we can photograph anywhere...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[anerjee]

Wow, I am impressed. I have gotten far less useful results with Portra at 1600 -- lots of grain and noise in the darker sections of the frame. In fact I seem to be getting noise even at 400. I think that may be because of my scanner (Plustek).

Anyone has experience doing something similar with standard home scanning hardware/software (V600/Vuescan) etc?

This might be of interest. Portra 400 shot at various amounts of over and under exposure and developed at box speed. 'Proper' exposure in this set is defined as the exposure my incident meter gave me directly in front of the color checker. So you have a reference shot in which to compare the other shots. The scans were compensated for reasonably good images (courtesy of Precision Camera).

I ran the test in sunlight from a window, in tungsten light set at 3200 K, and tungsten light at 3200 K with a KB 6 filter on the lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/sets/72157625883846979/

 

[Creagerj]

Hi Tim,

I remember when you did that test (and shared it here on RFF) long ago... Any photographer using color negative film seriously (that means having fun and getting great color 🙂) can chime in and confirm here -again- how easily you lose your clean shadows, your blacks, your fine grain, etc., when you underexpose it more than one stop, no matter if you develop film normally or for more seconds.

Besides, a scan is an autoexposure photograph of a negative frame, "a new creation", and those digital images don't really show differences very well.

How can someone be "impressed" on ISO400 color negative film shot at 6400? Why would the same company make the same film but with ISO800 speed? Why, being the best film company ever, can't they offer a version going to 1600? Not even a P3200 one?

Apart from that, at ISO2000 with a fast lens, we can photograph anywhere...

Cheers,

Juan

You almost seem offended.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Just like the other time, when I look at the N image, it doesn't look like a correct exposure, but more like an overexposure... (I'm not talking about the glare at all...) I mean a digital overexposure (as with levels)... Maybe Tim metered well but the lab uses to give some digital overexposure to their scans in order to help some people's dark images? Anyway on the test it's visible how image suffers after -1... The real way to see what's possible, and how much the images suffers, is printing to a decent size...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[ampguy]

Haven't done it, but have seen it pushed and processed to 1600 which looked like very good results, oddly, as good or better than my Portra 800 native shots. I think the lab used was a specialty one in LA, forget the name.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You almost seem offended.

No Joe, I've really tried to use color negative beyond its limits... Indeed I wish I had not seen "internet tests" lots of times in the past, because they're not the best way to get close to reality... Color negative film is the most amazing technology... But its limit is underexposure... I wish Portra400 could be used at least @1600 remaining as good as it is, but that just can't be...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[umcelinho]

thank everyone fo inputs. i am aware that shooting it at box speed should lead to the best results, but what i wanted to see is how it behaved, and i think it performs better than fuji x-tra 800, what i've been shooting lately.

i agree that pushing would be better, but instead of paying R$15 per roll developed and scanned (roughly $10) i'd have an extra R$8 ($5) to have it push developed at another lab to then scan at the other (price is the same as developing+scanning). it's not only an increase in cost per roll but also a PITA to take uncut film from one lab to another (also increases chances of scratching, getting dust etc... that's why i'm trying to find a good solution using just 1 lab.

i know portra 800, even though i haven't tried it yet, but i wonder if it would be too close to portra 400 in terms of speed, considering it's a stop faster. also, it may be that kodak releases the new portra at a new speed instead of 800, or an 800 with a higher latitude... who knows.

also, i've had better scanning experiences straight from the lab than when scanning at home with a plustek 7500i. so i sold it.

 

[kzphoto]

Haven't done it, but have seen it pushed and processed to 1600 which looked like very good results, oddly, as good or better than my Portra 800 native shots. I think the lab used was a specialty one in LA, forget the name.

Probably Richard Photo Lab. It's the one lots and lots of famous photographers are flocking to these days. Jose Villa, Riccis, etc etc.

 

[Tim Gray]

How can someone be "impressed" on ISO400 color negative film shot at 6400? Why would the same company make the same film but with ISO800 speed? Why, being the best film company ever, can't they offer a version going to 1600? Not even a P3200 one?

I pretty much agree with you. While I never tested pushing with this film, I'd rather shoot Portra 800 than underexpose 400. I rather like Portra 800. Also remember whenever you see shots that have been pushed - you don't know how the person metered. Also people usually post the good results and not the bad ones 🙂

Yes, I think the lab scans a bit hot - most of my highlights on their scans are a bit brighter than I'd do myself. On the other hand, I don't particularly care for 95% of the shots I get scanned (certainly not for these). I know I can always rescan any important frames at home and there is PLENTY of info in the highlights in the actual negative.

I can provide a raw scan of one or two frames if people wish.

anerjee - If you know what you are doing, you should be able to get comparable results with a decent home scanner. I scanned a couple of frames with my Coolscan V to see if I got better/worse results, and they were close enough (ignoring sharpness) that it wasn't worth scanning them all for pictures I don't really care about. This was part of a larger test with 400NC and 400VC - I was interested in the relative differences.

 

[ampguy]

1600 looks good here:

http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/

and good exposure latitude here:

http://www.landscapegb.com/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/