Anyone not really like Portra?

[Kramertron2000]

Hey guys, I just got a roll of Portra 400 (35mm) back that I shot through my Nikkormat, and have to say I wasn't all that impressed.

The grain was fairly nice, and it gave a fairly pleasing soft appearance, but I found most of the images to have weird colours. Many of them seemed overly yellow (almost like a sepia effect in some) and a couple had a bit of a bluish cast. Overall the colours were a bit boring, and lacked a lot of the vibrancy they had in real life. Ill upload some pictures later to demonstrate what I mean, but most of them were shot in bright daylight (from about 1pm to 3pm in the tropics).

I admittedly didnt choose the best lighting for many, and messed up the metering a lot too, so ended up with blown out highlights, but the overall colour rendition was weird on almost all of them. I found the same (but even more yellow) with Kodak ultramax, where I really liked the colours I got from fuji superia 400, which were more true to life and had nicer contrast.

Anyone else here not like portra all that much? Im trying out Ektar next, and Im hoping its purported vibrancy and high contrast is more up my alley.

By the way almost all of my shots were of plants/flowers and landscapes if that means anything.

 

[limr]

Portra isn't necessarily to everyone's taste, but it can also have a learning curve for discovering which images are really better suited to Portra rather than another film. It can also depend on the lens. It has some decent latitude, so messing up exposure won't necessarily mess up the image, though it will affect it. Overexposure can give a bluish cast to the image, for example, though this is an easy fix if you are scanning and editing images digitally. It's also true, however, that Portra lends itself better to some scenes than to others. It's about learning the situations at which Portra excels. Film is a tool. Not all tools are appropriate for all jobs.

Before you blame the results on the film, you have to eliminate variables to determine what was responsible for the unsatisfactory results. First, shoot another roll in the same camera with better lighting and correct metering. Then try it in a different camera to see how it affects contrast. Try to do so under similiar lighting and correct metering again so you can see if there was a difference based on the one variable that was different.

It all depends on your preferences, too, of course. (For the record, I prefer Portra 160 to the 400.) You might take to Ektar better if you are looking for brighter colors, though when you shoot your roll of Ektar, you will definitely need to pay more attention to metering. Ektar is not as twitchy as slide film, but it doesn't leave much wiggle room.

For reference, some plants/flowers/landscapes taken with Portra:

Portra 400 in a Lubitel 166B


rs Pathway by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Portra (can't remember if it was 400 or 160) in a Mamiya 645 Pro TL


Sorghum 1 by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Portra 160 in a K1000


Day 211 - Boats in Strunjan cropped by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[AlanKlein]

Portra is for portraits, hence the low saturation and no eye popping colors. Of course, if you scan it you can play a little with saturation in post processing. Ektar will be more to your taste although I use Velvia 50 slide film because I like the color pallet and ability to know right away when the exposure was correct. Velvia is tough on people though. Ektar would be better yet still give more pop.

Leonore, I like your shots, Neutral colors are nice too. They're calming and peaceful to look at.

 

[webestang64]

Your disappointment could be from the development and scanning. Portra is a fine film. The 160 ISO Portra came out as a replacement for the old Kodak Vericolor 160 that was fantastic for pastel colors. The 400 I have only shot a few rolls, I found it quite nice but for 400 speed film I prefer Fuji 400 (rated at 320).

 

[Kramertron2000]

Those pictures are beautiful Limr - especially that first one.

I think I can rule out the camera and lenses because I only used 2 lenses, one which I used with the fuji superia which came out mostly quite nice, and the other is new, but in shots I took with both lenses for comparison they looked very similar. Someone on a facebook group did mention the lab the local camera shop sends them too sometimes produces funny colours, so its possible its just the scans/development. Ill upload a couple of decent and bad pictures from the roll when I get home.

I think also Im just not the biggest fan of the subdued colours and lower contrast. I think I liked the ultramax better, but it looks very old fashioned in a lot of the pictures from that roll.

Im not game to try slide film yet because its not very forgiving and I have to send it even further away to get developed, so Ill hold off until I get a bit of developing practice at home under my belt.

 

[Derrel]

The processing of the film and the printing or scanning of it are always a factor to be considered. One of _the_ biggest problems with shooting color negative film, as opposed to shooting color slide film, is that labs often make bad prints, or bad scans, from color negative film.

 

[jcdeboever]

I love Portra but like limr said, it excels in situations and she brings up a good point about glass, it loves a good micro contrast prime lens for sure. I could use it as an everyday film in all honesty, I like it that much but that is my taste. I love Ektar too but shoot some people with it and you'll be disappointed. I like Kodak Color Plus 200 for general use, color film, I think it's way under rated. Kodak Gold or Ultra works for everyday use as well but when I develop a roll of Portra, my eyes tear up a little.

@Derrel brings up a good point too, it's harder to scan color film. Another thing is, Portra needs to be kept refrigerated. I only buy it from one source, where I can see it in the fridge. I literally bring a cooler with me when I buy it because the drive is more than an hour from home and I am usually working so it can't sit in my truck all day.

 

[limr]

Thanks @AlanKlein and @Kramertron2000

I guess it also depends on a person's definition of "subdued" or "neutral." I think that Portra captures subtle shading better than Ektar, but I find it can be quite vibrant as well, and don't consider it a low-contrast film. I like Ektar well enough, but I find the colors border on garish at times.

So yeah, I'm sure you can get more out of Portra than you think, but it still comes down to what you like and want to achieve, and whether or not it's the film that lets you achieve that more often than not.

Am curious to see what the scans look like. As mentioned, the quality in color scans seems to vary much more than that of black and white images. And it can make a real difference.

 

[Kramertron2000]

Yeah Im fairly certain its a combination of user error (under or over exposure) and the scans. Another thing I noticed was the grain, while not unpleasant, is much more noticeable than it was on the scans from the same lab (just a chain camera store - they have to send them to another town to develop and scan) using fuji superia.


These show the funny colour cast I got on many of them. The first one was shot in bright sunlight at just after midday (in the tropics, so very intense lighting), while the second two were in deep shade, with a longer exposure on the one with the yellow colour. The one of the water feature is very dull and almost sepia looking compared to what it really looked like in the afternoon sun.


This one the flower was actually a very dark red, and the grass a fairly lush green - again very bright sunlight, so it may have just been overexposed.

Im using a Nikomat FTn (which has a maximum shutter speed of 1/1000s), and either a 35mm f/2.8 (old single coated lens with a goldish reflection) or a 50mm f/2 multi-coated lens. both lenses produced similar tones, which I confirmed by taking the same or similar shot with each lens to compare.

These ones are some I was actually happy with, although in a couple the highlights were still a bit harsh (user error)


Also interesting about refrigeration. The nearest place that I could buy Portra from a shop I can go into is about 1000km away, so I have to get pretty much everything posted, which takes at least a week due to our horrible postal service, and dont have the option of seeing how its stored. I usually keep my film in the fridge until Im ready to use it, but the only stuff I can buy locally is fuji superia 400, kodak ultramax, and TriX, and all of those are just on the shelf at airconditioned room temperature. When I get my scanner later in the week Ill also upload some of the ones they accidentally printed instead of scanned from the roll of Ultramax I shot - most of them had a really strong yellow cast, and their printing machine couldnt figure out some long exposure shots I tried (they came out as three pictures blended into two - half star trails, half car driving past in the dark, then star trails again lol)

 

[Dave Colangelo]

I have mixed feelings on it but that is largely because i have had some really really nice results with slide film and that has become my color stock of choice. As for color neg film I have found a few things that are generally good to keep in mind,

• A bit of over exposure is far better than a bit of under exposure
• Slide film will produce nice bold colors but is easier to botch on the metering, neg film is more forgiving but can, in some cases be more muted.
• Refrigeration is important for long term storage but time kills anything, shot fresh film when you can.
• Get your film processed by someone that knows whats up.

The unfortunate truth (at least here in the states) is that C-41/E-6 labs are a dying breed and dying fast at that. If you can find one near you they are likely running old machines that are hanging on by a thread. The few labs that are left tend to actually have a fair bit of volume come through and dont always have time to constantly calibrate their machines so color variations can sometimes be seen. Scanners open up a virtually unlimited world of correction and mistake options, if you get serious about it getting a scanner and scanning at home can really help drive you crazy but really help control results as well.

 

[Kramertron2000]

The same is definitely true over here in Australia too. Currently the closest place I can get colour developed (which is through chain camera store) is getting it sent to Cairns (400km away), and Black and white would be Brisbane (1300km away). Most of the film and gear Im ordering is coming from Melbourne (about 3000km away). All of these places take a minimum of a week (for Cairns) to send stuff to and back.

Interestingly though, there seems to be a bit of a resurgence here - where Im guessing the smaller population of Australia helps. We were having a discussion on places to get film and stuff on a local film photography Facebook group, when someone mentioned to avoid going through the chain store and to send it to more specialized places down south, when someone who actually worked at the store chimed in and mentioned that they are actually looking at starting up a new film lab at the store here. They have also been sold out of the film they carry for a few weeks now.

I picked up an Epson V370 scanner today, so now I need to clear some space on my PC for the software. I also got a tank to develop my own film today, so Im going to have some fun (and maybe frustration) over the next few weeks.

 

[jcdeboever]

The same is definitely true over here in Australia too. Currently the closest place I can get colour developed (which is through chain camera store) is getting it sent to Cairns (400km away), and Black and white would be Brisbane (1300km away). Most of the film and gear Im ordering is coming from Melbourne (about 3000km away). All of these places take a minimum of a week (for Cairns) to send stuff to and back.

Interestingly though, there seems to be a bit of a resurgence here - where Im guessing the smaller population of Australia helps. We were having a discussion on places to get film and stuff on a local film photography Facebook group, when someone mentioned to avoid going through the chain store and to send it to more specialized places down south, when someone who actually worked at the store chimed in and mentioned that they are actually looking at starting up a new film lab at the store here. They have also been sold out of the film they carry for a few weeks now.

I picked up an Epson V370 scanner today, so now I need to clear some space on my PC for the software. I also got a tank to develop my own film today, so Im going to have some fun (and maybe frustration) over the next few weeks.

Developing your own is fun IMO. Color is a PITA to scan at times so get ready for that. Not sure about the V370, I have a feeling you're going to be disappointed in the sharpness. A dedicated 135 scanner is the way to go. Film being flat helps a great deal. Certain films dry flatter than others which helps them scan better on a flatbed. I noticed that TriX takes a lot longer to flatten out (usually 8 hours) with a weighted clip on the bottom. Final wash is always a challenge to get a clean, streak free negative. I use dish soap in distilled water at 20° C. Believe eve it or not, consistent water temp across all stages is really a good thing. Don't over agitate! Experiment and log your agitation times to see what gives the best results, it varies with type of water. Most of what I read on internet is way, way, wrong for my well water, way too aggressive for the emulsion. I recently developed some film at someone's house and my negatives turned out way different using my normal method.

I love TriX. I have tried a pretty good variety the past couple months and always come back to TriX, I love the grain structure, contrast, overall look. It likes D76 stock for a finer grain look but I prefer HC110 because it's so convenient and lasts a long time. Water temps across the board, including wash state give excellent results. Don't over agitate HC110 and do not wash over 5 minutes, makes a huge difference in negative. If you over wash, it will curl negatives more and negatives will appear flat in tonality. I agitate way less than the prescribed times with my water. At box speed, 3 inversions first 30 seconds, then 2 inversions at 2 min, and 2 at 4 min, that's it (6 min dev time) Log and experiment to find your best agitation scheme. I use a water stop, no acid based stop bath at 20° C 1 min, 8 inversions. Rapid fix for 5 min at 20° C with same agitation scheme as developer, wash for 5 min at 20° tap water, couple inversions in this time. Final wash 20° for about a minute in distilled water with some dish soap, 2 gentle inversions. I don't squeeze off excess either, makes a difference.

For c41 color, I follow the directions with half the recommended agitation because my water is well water. Seems to work good for as little as I shoot of it. Scanning is another subject and varies on film, Portra seems to be the hardest to dial in, Ektar is a punchy PITA, lol.

 

[Kramertron2000]

Thanks for the tips! Its interesting, but not surprising that different water (even at different houses on the same water supply) produces different results using the same technique because the water chemistry can vary so widely. When I was at uni I did an analytical chemistry subject, where we tested water from different taps around campus (among other sources), and even there the levels of pretty much everything we tested varied fairly substantially.

The scanner is mainly just for making basic scans to check the pictures and for uploading to the internet etc, so Im not overly concerned about getting super high quality - Im happy to send the ones I want professionally scanned or printed away to get done properly. Itll also come in handy for quickly scanning prints (eg when they accidentally print the negatives rather than scan them like they did with my Ultramax roll) and documents when I dont want to have to mess around too much.

Im going to be starting out developing black and white, because I cant get it done locally at all, then when I get a bit more experience move on to colour. Temperature is going to be somewhat problematic because its so hot here, so even with an ice bath and aircon it could be hard to keep it stable. I have a really old paterson tank (single 35mm roll size, with the twisty top which can only be swirled, not inverted), which is actually unused and still in its box. Ill be starting off with rodinal because it seems to be popular in Australia, so I should be able to get some more local advice and it has the best storage qualities (wont go bad in the heat or if I leave it unused for a while), and rapid fix for fixing.

My first black and white roll that I put through my Trip 35 (chems wont get here until next week some time) was TriX, and I have 3 rolls of Rollei Infrared 400 I want to try next. I like the fine grain, high contrast and modern look (plus the ability to get cool infrared effects with a filter) it seems to have in the pictures Iv seen. Im also interested in trying out Rollei Retro 80s.

For colour Ill probably still get them scanned when I get them developed for the time being to avoid the headaches of doing it myself, but Ill still mess around with the negatives and see if I can get a better scan than the shop does.

 

[Dave Colangelo]

If you like fine grain try out Ilford Pan50 Run in DDX. Rodinol/Rodinal (or what ever they are calling it these days) is not known for fine grain but it all depends on method as noted, agitation, temp, and even metering methods will have an impact on this.

I generally like to grab a gallon of distilled water for my processing. Its 1USD at the local drug store and ensures consistency (at least to a point). I have used tap water as well but for me, here in Philly, the water is notoriously hard and I have seen streaks from it.

For washing I can get really good results (streak free) with 2 drops of LFN and a tank full of water. I leave a little space in the tank here to allow shaking it around. Then a distilled wash after the LFN bath and a hang dry.

 

[Kramertron2000]

Ill probably have a go with tap water for my first roll (TriX), mainly because it was just a test roll anyway - I shot it through a Trip 35 I got recently, and made a few mistakes, like forgetting to change the focus zone, and I noticed some haze on the back of one of the inner lenses that Im hoping wont affect the pictures too much (even if it does, I cant do anything more about it because when I tried to pull it apart to clean it I almost stripped most of the screws, then got stuck at the middle element where the screws were completely seized,and I ruined all my tiny screwdrivers in the process). If the tap water leaves streaks or marks Ill just get distilled water.

Also, just looking back at the pictures I uploaded, they actually look fine on my phone screen, but terrible on my computer. Weird. That is another issue Ill probably face when I scan my own negatives - how the screen affects the look of the pictures. Probably would be a good idea to save them to at least a couple of different devices and see how they look before I settle or decide they look crap and scrap them.