Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,913   Posts: 1,584,697   Online: 663
      
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 73
  1. #41
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    Well if you enlarge the scan on the screen enough, yeah. 2400 dpi 1:1 would be a huge image. But if you print it, you won't see it unless you go really, really big. And if you display on the web you won't see it unless you crop a tiny bit out and make a big image out of it. If you zoom in on the scan, well, of course you will see it. And what is your final display? Someone looking at a 2400 dpi from 4x5, a 9600x12000 pixel image (roughly, I know it's not quite actually 4x5) at 1:1? The only person who is ever going to do that will be you when you scan it.

    I think it's more correct to say it's designed to scan well, but "designed for scanning" sort of implies, or seems to, that it is not as good as prior films for wet printing and that doesn't seem true to me. The Portras are excellent films (as is Ektar. I know you'd love some of that old Ultra 50 but I can tell you it could be a PITA to color balance in wet printing. Once you nailed it though it was really super saturated. It seemed to fit the Fuji paper my lab used better than the Kodak paper I used; at least I was never able to print it quite as good as they could, while with Kodak and even Fuji films I could always do as well or better.)

  2. #42
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226

    Portra 160 vs 400

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Well if you enlarge the scan on the screen enough, yeah. 2400 dpi 1:1 would be a huge image. But if you print it, you won't see it unless you go really, really big. And if you display on the web you won't see it unless you crop a tiny bit out and make a big image out of it. If you zoom in on the scan, well, of course you will see it. And what is your final display? Someone looking at a 2400 dpi from 4x5, a 9600x12000 pixel image (roughly, I know it's not quite actually 4x5) at 1:1? The only person who is ever going to do that will be you when you scan it.

    I think it's more correct to say it's designed to scan well, but "designed for scanning" sort of implies, or seems to, that it is not as good as prior films for wet printing and that doesn't seem true to me. The Portras are excellent films (as is Ektar. I know you'd love some of that old Ultra 50 but I can tell you it could be a PITA to color balance in wet printing. Once you nailed it though it was really super saturated. It seemed to fit the Fuji paper my lab used better than the Kodak paper I used; at least I was never able to print it quite as good as they could, while with Kodak and even Fuji films I could always do as well or better.)
    Fair enough, however Fuji transparency film doesn't have this issue, so I sill say it's too grainy for my liking, and have OP was asking about our personal feelings, and I say if 400 is too grainy for me, I would choose Portra160 if I had to use something in studio that was a CN film. So that is my answer to the OP based on my preferences.

    It's also not about what I'm printing now, it's about optimum options now and in the future.

    I may shoot 35mm and would want to have a large print, and I would certainly see these defects in a 20x24 that I would not see shooting at 400 with a d&@&tal camera printed at 20x24 (because I've done this) so to me Portra400 SCANNED is not good enough if given the option in a controlled situation.

    But I WOULD use it in a balanced daylight + studio light situation, because of the benefit of speed which is easier for me to balance the sun and my strobes (for me) and I've done this too.

    It's all a balance.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #43
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    That makes sense. And I would be unlikely to consider printing 35mm that large though I suppose if I just happened to get a really exciting image on the camera I had that day and it was 35mm...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #44
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,825
    Images
    10
    Stone, when it comes to scanning, the difference between reversal film and negative film is their contrast: slide film high and negative film low. As a result, the negative scan must be contrast expanded, which amplifies scanner noise a great deal. What you see there has nothing to do with film grain and everything to do with a lousy scanner (let me guess: Epson V700/750?).

    This being an analog forum and all, I still think that color negative film would have a MUCH better reputation here if there was an affordable film scanner that wasn't noisy as heck.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  5. #45
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226

    Portra 160 vs 400

    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Stone, when it comes to scanning, the difference between reversal film and negative film is their contrast: slide film high and negative film low. As a result, the negative scan must be contrast expanded, which amplifies scanner noise a great deal. What you see there has nothing to do with film grain and everything to do with a lousy scanner (let me guess: Epson V700/750?).

    This being an analog forum and all, I still think that color negative film would have a MUCH better reputation here if there was an affordable film scanner that wasn't noisy as heck.
    I wasn't aware the Epson scanner yes, the V750 was considered crappy...

    But compared to multiple thousand dollars scanners I suppose it could be, either way whatever the reason for the strange issues, I'm not the only one to report them, and again this is my perspective, I don't see you getting a new scanner anytime soon, so from my experience and my use, transparency film just works better and if I forced to use negative film, I would prefer a lower speed film for tighter grain to lessen this effect whatever the cause.

    (Thank you so much for explaining it, now I understand, and thus I am now more informed than I was before so thank you).
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Vienna, AUSTRIA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    67
    Portra 400 in 135. Visible Grain? yes. Grainy? no.


  7. #47
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    That's way more grain than I see in my 35mm Portra 400. Is that a scan of the negative or a print?

  8. #48
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
    Portra 400 in 135. Visible Grain? yes. Grainy? no.

    Yup! That's similar, though yours looks a little over exposed or over developed, the shadows shouldn't shouldn't do that
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    231
    Shadows shouldn't do what? This looks like a great C41 shot, well scanned.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Yup! That's similar, though yours looks a little over exposed or over developed, the shadows shouldn't shouldn't do that

  10. #50
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,988
    Images
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamar View Post
    Shadows shouldn't do what? This looks like a great C41 shot, well scanned.
    The shadows have "grain" it stands out more than E6 blacks because of intermittent colored grains in the blackness (apparently this is a scanner problem described above?) still, my E6 doesn't do that.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 5 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