What film is this?

[Pete B]

I think the sky looks portra but the lower half of the image looks like some consumer film. I'd be happy with those results.
Pete

 

[rwintle]

I was going to guess Portra 160 simply because it kinda sorta looks like colours in one shot I took once on that film.

And then I would have been wrong.

It's all so disappointing... 😀

 

[Rob-F]

My wild guess is Fudak Colorchrome 200.

Fudak? Shouldn't that be Kofu?

Well, he's already said what it is. Somehow everyone but me seemed to know it was a color negative film and not a transparency film. I was thinking it looked like Astia, what with the rather low saturation. But it is not.

 

[Huss]

I think the sky looks portra but the lower half of the image looks like some consumer film. I'd be happy with those results.
Pete

Those are some very sweet Portra B&W conversions in your Havana flickr thread Pete.

 

[Prest_400]

My guess was Portra 160.... Missed by 1 1/3 stops!

It has that gentle look of negative film, and slightly high keyed. Akin to what is preferred in the Wedding world.

 

[brbo]

I was going to say Portra 160. I liked the greens (that I rarely do in Portra 400) so I thought it was 160.

Does your scan say 'Portra'? I think it does.

I follow you on flickr and your scans are GREAT! To think that they come from V500 is almost an insult for the rest of us (I know I have to work very hard for my scans from 4990 to get them anywhere and very little on scans from better scanners).

 

[mani]

I follow you on flickr and your scans are GREAT! To think that they come from V500 is almost an insult for the rest of us (I know I have to work very hard for my scans from 4990 to get them anywhere and very little on scans from better scanners).

I agree with this. I'd love to know your workflow - if you're willing to share...?

 

[GarageBoy]

I think the sky looks portra but the lower half of the image looks like some consumer film. I'd be happy with those results.
Pete

+1

jealous of your pp skills

 

[brbo]

I agree with this. I'd love to know your workflow - if you're willing to share...?

He already posted his workflow. Basically, nothing more* than visually setting endpoints. The scan in his article is really not particularly good (the rest of the stuff on flickr is scaned much much better), quite a nasty cast left on the clouds, but Ektar can be like this sometimes.

* of course this is the hard part, some people can do it, some can't

 

[Ranchu]

'quite a nasty' cast is overstating it. The nicest thing about swift1's method is all the beautiful highlight detail, imo. Those clouds for instance.

To Colton, I wanted to mention, if you don't have color control checked, it's my understanding that the scanner software is no longer using the scanner profile epson made for it. And what you are doing is manually mapping what comes out of the ccd's to your output space (adobe?). So, the color managenent chain of custody is not being used. It might be hard to retain the characteristics of a specific film in this case.

I could be wrong, but that's my understanding..

 

[mani]

He already posted his workflow. Basically, nothing more* than visually setting endpoints. The scan in his article is really not particularly good (the rest of the stuff on flickr is scaned much much better), quite a nasty cast left on the clouds, but Ektar can be like this sometimes.

* of course this is the hard part, some people can do it, some can't

I was looking at the Flickr images when I chimed-in on the thread. Thanks for the link - bookmarked now. I love to see different workflows - there's something new to be learned from everyone.

 

[brbo]

'quite a nasty' cast is overstating it. The nicest thing about swift1's method is all the beautiful highlight detail, imo. Those clouds for instance.

Are we talking about the same scan? I've never seen clouds looking like this in real life...

 

[Ranchu]

I'm on a crap monitor, but did I notice you posted a different picture. Nice try.

*edit: no, we're not, I'm talking about the picture in the OP.

 

[brbo]

I'm on a crap monitor, but did I notice you posted a different picture. Nice try.

*edit: no, we're not, I'm talking about the picture in the OP.

Nice try?! I specifically said "scan in the article" that I was linking.

IMHO, this quick edit looks a bit better...

 

[Ranchu]

Nice try was regarding your statement about the picture in the OP which you didn't make. I'm not going to edit it out because I made a mistake.

My opinion of the clouds in the OP, and the highlights in Swift1's other pictures remains the same. It looks to me that you want to talk down to the dude's contributions, but thanks for editing the clouds, that's so great.

He already posted his workflow. Basically, nothing more* than visually setting endpoints. The scan in his article is really not particularly good (the rest of the stuff on flickr is scaned much much better), quite a nasty cast left on the clouds, but Ektar can be like this sometimes.

* of course this is the hard part, some people can do it, some can't

 

[brbo]

It looks to me that you want to talk down to the dude's contributions, but thanks for editing the clouds, that's so great.

With comments like "I follow you on flickr and your scans are GREAT! To think that they come from V500 is almost an insult for the rest of us" I somehow show disrespect to Colton?

Just for the record, that was absolutely not my intention.

 

[Swift1]

Are we talking about the same scan? I've never seen clouds looking like this in real life...

I should point out that my personal system and workflow all use Adobe RGB 98 Color Space and I quite often don't convert my web images to sRGB. There may be some differences in how the images appear to you.
That being said, I wrote that article nearly a year ago, and have since learned quite a bit more about film scanning and digital imaging in general.
I've also learned that there are flaws in the particular image that I used, and I eventually hope to rewrite that article with better techniques and a better sample image.
It was never my intention to say that this was the "correct" way, only to share (per request) what was (at the time) my way.
Photography for me is an ever evolving process. I'm usually the first to look back and see the flaws in my past methods 🙂

 

[Swift1]

I was going to say Portra 160. I liked the greens (that I rarely do in Portra 400) so I thought it was 160.

Does your scan say 'Portra'? I think it does.

I follow you on flickr and your scans are GREAT! To think that they come from V500 is almost an insult for the rest of us (I know I have to work very hard for my scans from 4990 to get them anywhere and very little on scans from better scanners).

Thank you 🙂
Incidentally, I just ordered a refurb V750-M Pro. I hope it lives up to my expectations 🙂

 

[Tijmendal]

Thanks to everyone who guessed.
With all the Superia guesses, maybe I need a different strategy 😀

The film was 35mm Kodak Portra 400, taken using a Contax G2, and scanned using my Epson V500.
I shot this using autu exposure, without EV compensation, and since it was quite bright out, I'm guessing the negative was probably underexposed by 1/2 stop.

You mean the foreground of the negative was? Because I absolutely LOVE the tones. Very rich and contrasty.

I'm pretty new to shooting color negative (I shoot 90% B/W and all my color work is slides), but for my upcoming trip to Iceland I want to bring some Portra. I most often see people recommending to underexpose color negative/Portra by 1-2 stops, but most of the time that gives that airy feel, which I'm personally not a huge fan of. I'd much rather get the contrasty, colorful look you've got.

 

[Swift1]

You mean the foreground of the negative was? Because I absolutely LOVE the tones. Very rich and contrasty.

I'm pretty new to shooting color negative (I shoot 90% B/W and all my color work is slides), but for my upcoming trip to Iceland I want to bring some Portra. I most often see people recommending to underexpose color negative/Portra by 1-2 stops, but most of the time that gives that airy feel, which I'm personally not a huge fan of. I'd much rather get the contrasty, colorful look you've got.

With color negative film, unexposure = more contrast, overexposure = less contrast.
It's also quite difficult to blow out highlights with color negative film.