Tried some Portra

[SoulfulRecover]

Everyone raves about Portra 400 so I picked up a few rolls for my road trip but the other evening while shooting some digital for fun, I tossed a roll of 120 into the mamiya just to give it a shot and see how it went. Seems the film came out a bit "hotter" than the digital images and Im not sure why. Is it just because of films capability to capture a broader range of tones? Anyway, I wasn't too pleased with how my first roll came out and would love some feed back on how to improve my lighting for studio use with film.

Untitled by Shutter_Inc., on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

I think you've under-exposed this shot, and the shadows have been pushed way, way down onto the bottom part of the "toe" of the film's characteristic curve. That's why I think it looks soooo contrasty: the shadow areas did not get nearly enough exposure. If this is a scan of the negative, then with most scanners it's going to look not optimal, since the shadows are basically, clear areas on the negative. Most color negative film should have a pretty good, generous exposure for the shadows. I have NOT shot the new formulation of Portra, but my gut feeling tells me to set your meter 2/3 of an ISO step LOWER than the rated ISO, to ensure more shadow bias.

You don't mention how you are metering your color neg shots, but metering is kind of a big deal in terms of how it is done, and what you read off of, and what kind of meter, and what Exposure Index you shoot the film at if not using the nominal ISO value. Without more info, it's tough to give a lot of concrete advice, except "exposure for the shadows", so there's some "meat on the bones" when the film goes into the scanner. If for example, you "peg a highlight" by using an incident meter and measure the flash on her forehead, with the dome aimed right at the main light, that exposure is going to be at the least, two stops too LITTLE for those shadows...and the shadows at that incident light/forehead reading will be verrrry thin on detail, and the film will be pretty clear in those shadows. Same thing if you shoot a digital capture and "peg" the highlight value of an in-camera JPEG--that's not the right exposure amount needed for NEGATIVE film...but it is close to right for positive film or digital JPEG.

 

[limr]

Try Portra 160.

I haven't heard much about shooting Portra 400 at anything other than box speed, but perhaps it's one of those films that is best when shooting at a slightly different rating than the box ISO. For example, I've heard people who've had more luck shooting HP5+ at 200 rather than the box speed of 400.

As for the technical stuff about metering portraits...yeah, listen to Derrel

 

[minicoop1985]

Another "Listen to Derrel" (broken record over here), but perhaps Ektar may be of some use? I find its tones just... different. Something to experiment with, perhaps.

 

[cgw]

I think you've under-exposed this shot, and the shadows have been pushed way, way down onto the bottom part of the "toe" of the film's characteristic curve. That's why I think it looks soooo contrasty: the shadow areas did not get nearly enough exposure. If this is a scan of the negative, then with most scanners it's going to look not optimal, since the shadows are basically, clear areas on the negative. Most color negative film should have a pretty good, generous exposure for the shadows. I have NOT shot the new formulation of Portra, but my gut feeling tells me to set your meter 2/3 of an ISO step LOWER than the rated ISO, to ensure more shadow bias.

You don't mention how you are metering your color neg shots, but metering is kind of a big deal in terms of how it is done, and what you read off of, and what kind of meter, and what Exposure Index you shoot the film at if not using the nominal ISO value. Without more info, it's tough to give a lot of concrete advice, except "exposure for the shadows", so there's some "meat on the bones" when the film goes into the scanner. If for example, you "peg a highlight" by using an incident meter and measure the flash on her forehead, with the dome aimed right at the main light, that exposure is going to be at the least, two stops too LITTLE for those shadows...and the shadows at that incident light/forehead reading will be verrrry thin on detail, and the film will be pretty clear in those shadows. Same thing if you shoot a digital capture and "peg" the highlight value of an in-camera JPEG--that's not the right exposure amount needed for NEGATIVE film...but it is close to right for positive film or digital JPEG.

Agree. That it's a somewhat dead shot has less to do with the film than the lighting set-up and iffy metering. Can only say I generally like 120 Porta 400 rated at 320/250.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

For metering I simply matched my settings on my dslr. apparently a big mistake! I should probably invest in a decent light meter if Im going to be using film in a studio environment I suspect and practice with it. I have never been good at using them for some reason even when outside just metering ambient light. Normally I just use the built in meter in my FM2 or RZ67.

Good thing I am not embarrassed by my screw ups hahaha. Thanks guys for helping me with this.