Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,946   Posts: 1,585,862   Online: 1014
      
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73
  1. #31
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,519
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    That makes sense in the studio. It rarely makes sense for me in the field which just doesn't seem to be that bright. Shooting in bright sun is rare - overhead lighting is not usually good anyway, when the sun is high. And there are always ND filters. Considering the difference in speed is, as folks pointed out, 1-1/3 stops that's just not a huge difference. It's not like Portra 400 versus the old Ektar 25, say.
    If you're shooting with, like I am, a Rolleiflex or other in-lens shutter camera with a top speed of 1/500th, it does make a difference because in normal daylight conditions (say from 9am to 6pm, depending on the season) you're pegged at f16 at 1/500th of a second with 400 speed film in the camera. There is a BIG difference in look from f8 to f16. And, if you're shooting something that doesn't take 52mm filters, carrying around a set of neutral density filters is both costly and a pain in the ass, and trying to use 4x4 inch gelatin ND filters is less costly but more of a pain in the ass. So I'll take the slower film.

  2. #32
    mweintraub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    633
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    If you're shooting with, like I am, a Rolleiflex or other in-lens shutter camera with a top speed of 1/500th, it does make a difference because in normal daylight conditions (say from 9am to 6pm, depending on the season) you're pegged at f16 at 1/500th of a second with 400 speed film in the camera. There is a BIG difference in look from f8 to f16. And, if you're shooting something that doesn't take 52mm filters, carrying around a set of neutral density filters is both costly and a pain in the ass, and trying to use 4x4 inch gelatin ND filters is less costly but more of a pain in the ass. So I'll take the slower film.
    Have you tired overexposing Portra 400? I'm still testing this film out over exposed.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,221
    Here in the UK beneath steel-grey clouds I'd love normal conditions to be f16 1/500. I think with 400 film f4 1/500 is normal. My film of choice is 800 speed, occasionally I get fooled on a sunny day and load 100 speed only for the clouds to return and then I'm stuck at 1/30.
    Steve.

  4. #34
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,214
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    If you're shooting with, like I am, a Rolleiflex or other in-lens shutter camera with a top speed of 1/500th, it does make a difference because in normal daylight conditions (say from 9am to 6pm, depending on the season) you're pegged at f16 at 1/500th of a second with 400 speed film in the camera. There is a BIG difference in look from f8 to f16. And, if you're shooting something that doesn't take 52mm filters, carrying around a set of neutral density filters is both costly and a pain in the ass, and trying to use 4x4 inch gelatin ND filters is less costly but more of a pain in the ass. So I'll take the slower film.
    I shoot quite a bit of Portra 400 in my Yashicamat but rarely see those kinds if exposures. I know they are typical for those hours on a bright sunny day but that rarely seems to be when I shoot.

    I don't have ND filters but I did get a bay 1 to 52mm adapter abs use that for my regular B&W filters on the Yashica.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #35
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,214
    Quote Originally Posted by mweintraub View Post
    Have you tired overexposing Portra 400? I'm still testing this film out over exposed.
    One stop or two stops over you probably won't be able to tell the difference except it will be finer grained, have loads if shadow detail and maybe a bit less contrast. Of course the same thing is true of the 160.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    225
    I've shot both and the one I would choose is more based on the color reproduction than the speed. I found 160 to be more saturated, not as much as Ektar, but much more than 400. I find the 400 to be less saturated and produce a brightness range that looks more natural to me. The 400 looks more like the Ektachrome I used to shoot years ago.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,820
    Nice to have choice.

  8. #38
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,013
    Images
    227

    Portra 160 vs 400

    The reason I would bother to shoot Portra800 (or 400 for sheet film) would be to balance natural light with studio light to get a certain effect on location.

    But given a controlled environment, I would certainly use 160, I scan, and even shooting 4x5 I found 400 too grainy.

    I prefer transparency film for color, but if that's ever not available I would choose the 160 for studio work as you describe.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #39
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,214
    400 too grainy in 4x5??

    Something is wrong. Grain from 400 is absolutely invisible to me in 5x7 prints from 35mm. That's a 5x enlargement. How big are you printing your 4x5s? That would be 20x25 (20x24 in standard sizes) from 4x5.

  10. #40
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,013
    Images
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    400 too grainy in 4x5??

    Something is wrong. Grain from 400 is absolutely invisible to me in 5x7 prints from 35mm. That's a 5x enlargement. How big are you printing your 4x5s? That would be 20x25 (20x24 in standard sizes) from 4x5.
    From a SCAN done at 2400dpi I can see grain. It's a discoloration that bothers me, almost like the effect of "dead pixels" in a long exposure image taken on a digital camera (just using that as the description as I can't describe it better than that).

    It was mentioned Portra400 was designed for scanning, so I'm using the method the film was designed for.

    All I can say is that it looks ugly 1:1

    I took a 4x5 sheet using Portra400 against Provia100f in 4x5

    Yes Provia is a slower emulsion and probably finer grained, but there was no noticeable grain or odd pixel issues in the Provia and a lot with Portra400.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin