tonyjuliano
Wooden Indian
I’ve pushed this film a full 2 stops (yes, mixing base, 1 push and 2 pushes on the same roll!) and then processed normally with very little image degradation.
Now, Jonathan Canlas has shown he is getting tremendous results all the way up to 3200 ISO.
See the fantastic images, and read all about it on his BLOG.
Now, Jonathan Canlas has shown he is getting tremendous results all the way up to 3200 ISO.
See the fantastic images, and read all about it on his BLOG.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tony,
Yes, it is marvellous stuff: my review echoes your enthusiasm and is currently with Shutterbug. Even so, at the risk of seeming to pick nits:
First, what you're doing is not pushing. It's underexposure. Pushing is underexposure and overdevelopment.
Second, the ISO remains constant: 400. Underexpose (or overexpose) and it's no longer ISO, but EI (Exposure Index). This may seem the most nit-picking point of all, but as we're dealing with an ISO standard, it seems to me that it's worth pushing for correct usage.
Third, a LOT depends on subject matter. Low contrast subjects can stand more underexposure than contrasty ones, depending on how they're metered.
Fourth, I suspect he may have a sluggish shutter. I've had good results at EI 3200 with one camera but found EI 1600 to be the absolute limit with another.
Cheers,
R.
Yes, it is marvellous stuff: my review echoes your enthusiasm and is currently with Shutterbug. Even so, at the risk of seeming to pick nits:
First, what you're doing is not pushing. It's underexposure. Pushing is underexposure and overdevelopment.
Second, the ISO remains constant: 400. Underexpose (or overexpose) and it's no longer ISO, but EI (Exposure Index). This may seem the most nit-picking point of all, but as we're dealing with an ISO standard, it seems to me that it's worth pushing for correct usage.
Third, a LOT depends on subject matter. Low contrast subjects can stand more underexposure than contrasty ones, depending on how they're metered.
Fourth, I suspect he may have a sluggish shutter. I've had good results at EI 3200 with one camera but found EI 1600 to be the absolute limit with another.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
tonyjuliano
Wooden Indian
Roger, I agree on all counts, except for possibly the shutter issue (I've seen others get similar results). My terminology sometimes goes out the window when i get too excited.
Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for clarifying.
Last edited:
GSNfan
Well-known
So actually you pulled the film to EI 100?
Tim Gray
Well-known
The old Portra 400s were capable of surviving 1 and 2 stops of underexposure as well, in the right lighting, the right subject, and with the right setting of black points.
Here's 400VC 1.5 stops underexposed, normal development. I never corrected the lab scans, but it would be quite easy to push the black level up a bit to correct for the murky shadow tone and it would look quite good.
400VC -1.5 by ezwal, on Flickr
Here's 400VC 1.5 stops underexposed, normal development. I never corrected the lab scans, but it would be quite easy to push the black level up a bit to correct for the murky shadow tone and it would look quite good.
400VC -1.5 by ezwal, on Flickr
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tony,
Thanks very much indeed for not taking it the wrong way.
The only thing that worries me about Kodak's current line up is that both Ektar 100 and Portra 400 are so good that they may decide they don't ever need to improve them.
Of course, films can always be improved. But the sales 'suits' don't always understand that. In my opinion Kodak took a wrong turn when they didn't appoint Carl Kohrt to run the company in 2000 or whenever it was.
Cheers,
R.
jja
Well-known
Tony, thanks for the link, this looks very interesting. Do you know anything about Canlas's post-processing methods? Does he have to boost saturation and do other tricks to get this kind of rich color? And please share your own results with us.
bensyverson
Well-known
I have not had much luck underexposing the new Portra 400 and "pushing" in Photoshop. But that's a torture test for any color negative film—the shadows go black pretty easily. I haven't tried pushing in development yet, but that's next on my list.
All in all, this is a fantastic film. Despite the hyperbole that you read in blogs, it's not a quantum leap over 400NC, but it's a nice incremental improvement.
All in all, this is a fantastic film. Despite the hyperbole that you read in blogs, it's not a quantum leap over 400NC, but it's a nice incremental improvement.
tonyjuliano
Wooden Indian
Tim Gray
Well-known
Tim Gray
Well-known
One last though: My interpretation of most of the ravings you hear about the new Portra. Most of them are coming from a smallish community (wedding film photographers) who were all using 400H. Personally, I'm guessing they haven't tried the last couple revisions of the Portra 400 films. Remember, we got 400NC/VC-2 back in 2006 and version 3 in 2008. If the last time you checked was a couple years ago, you might have missed out on several improvements.
bensyverson
Well-known
Agreed—400H is a pretty terrible film in general, but especially when compared to 400NC-2, 400NC-3 and Portra 400.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Haha, terrible? I don't know if I've ever heard someone say that. It always looked pretty nice to me and seems to handle fluorescents pretty well.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tim,
Well, I have tried 'em and I'm not a wedding photographer, but I'm still very impressed indeed with the new Portra.
Cheers,
R.
Tim Gray
Well-known
Sorry Roger, didn't mean you at all. I was more referring to the twinlenslife blog, Canlas, and riccis. Their posts are very informative, but kind of cross posted everywhere and inspire titles like, "Portra 400 - Changed the game for colour neg film!"
I've not seen your review yet. I'll keep an eye out for it. I am very excited though about the film - it looks great. I've got three rolls of test shots at the lab now.
I've not seen your review yet. I'll keep an eye out for it. I am very excited though about the film - it looks great. I've got three rolls of test shots at the lab now.
bensyverson
Well-known
Maybe it was user error, but I found the 400H to be excessively grainy. It was more in line with Portra 800 in my tests...
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Having used Portra 400 NC in the past year for weddings (I'd be proud to say I'm one of the "smallish" community, mainly because I stand 5'9"
) I can say that the "old" Portra was plenty good for scanning and the skin tones were sublime in natural, daylit light. If the new portra is just as good (if not better) then I'm going to be an extremely happy camper.
Cheers,
Dave
35photo
Well-known
So when you guys are scanning the New Porta what neg profile are you using? I have Silverfast and have profiles for NC and VC.....
v_roma
Well-known
I'd be interested to hear from other people who've acutally pushed the new portra as I was planning on trying this myself. If the film could handle push +2 well, I could see myself using it as extensively. I've never pushed film before and would like to understand how much of an impact it really has. I understand pushing will increase grain and contrast but also heard it will decrease resolution (not sure why other than increased grain?) and, presumably, makes the film a little less forgiving in terms of getting the exposure right.
NLewis
Established
The linked site clearly states that the film was pushed in development by three stops. Wow, great results. Too bad that we get the best film ever now that nobody uses film anymore.