New Portra 400
This is also interesting and confirms the results of jonathan canlas. talking about pusing this film to iso 6400!
Not sure what this Canlas guy is saying, if anything, about this film. I decode it as saying he's underexposing it, which makes no sense. His shots look quite odd as displayed and nothing like anything un-postprocessed I've ever taken with the new Portra 400VC. Perhaps I'm missing something but he seems a bit disassociative on handling C-41 materials. Finding a lab capable of handling those pushes can be a royal PITA now. Besides, this isn't exactly a new film.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Just to be clear. Is this about push processing the film 3-4 stops* rather than just underexposing and then using software to make it look nice?
Originally Posted by jglass
* Are there many labs that will push C41 four stops?
That's the catch, isn't it! If this was 2000, I'd say yes, but with quality pro labs on the endangered list most places, I'm still dubious about the feasibility of this huge latitude that's totally reliant on labs with chronometer-like C-41 lines.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
I agree that the lab business is becoming less "local" but even back in the 70's and 80's I was doing mail-order. It still works well.
Originally Posted by CGW
Also, having now built a bit of experience doing C-41 (and E-6 and B&W) developing at home, I have to say getting consistent results from C-41 is truly easy. The toughest part for me was simply honing the processing skills that apply to all my developing "lines". Beyond that basic learning curve it's just time and temp, agitate normally, dump and fill, next.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
the films were processed at university who offer an in house developing service for colour films (ú1/film)
Originally Posted by benjiboy
The negs are a bit on the thin side. Originally i scanned them using a Nikon Coolscan9000 but since looking at them, would probably be better printing them traditionally so that i can regain more control over the finished article.
I intend to use A3+ paper, but the actual image in going to be approx 6x6"
New Portra 400
Okay, the main issue here is not developing (push processing or otherwise), it is exposure. Jonathan Canlas' shots on the new Portra400 pushed 3 stops are most likely not rated at 3200. When he meters he will overexpose the shadows 1 stop on top of metering with the incident meter pointed at the ground. More likely, he is actually exposing his mid-tones at ISO 400-800 (due to metering the shadows) then pushing. He is not rating properly. Canlas is an honest guy, and does know what he is talking about when it comes to film, but he is notorious for being cryptic and blaming confusion on idiocy. For instance, he says "And if anyone has worked on a movie set you know when they meter they have the bulb out and meter straight up and expose exactly what the meter says. I have found this is the way to meter for portra 400. No overexposing unless you like yellow photos." He probably has never shot motion picture film, and never metered for it, but makes a great assumption. The only reason a DP or Gaffer may meter that way is to get a highlight reading, and would detract the "bulb" to get readings from a specific light source. He told me once that if you point the incident meter at the ground you will cut off a stop of light, and if you detract the "bulb" you will lose one more stop. That is neither technical, nor accurate. Jon is a great photographer, and a decent guy, but pretends to know-it-all. IMHO... If you don't know his work, check it out!
We do shoot motion picture film quite regularly, and just compared it to the New Portra 400:
The issue with grain is most definitely underexposure. Underexposure will always produce grain irregularity due to greater separation between tones. Overexposure produces less grain, when the the tones squish together as the dies settle in the high end of the exposure. B&W grain can be different when the film density is maxed out (more and more grain is stacked on top of each other), but still will have more visible grain in the underexposed negative. Take a look at the underexposed Portra in the aforementioned article. The grain is most definitely visible, even in the web sized images when the shadows are printed higher. That's why it is a good practice to put your mid-tones in a zone higher than they are intended to be printed, ie - metering shadows or rating mid-tones at ISO 200 for a 400 film. But with Kodak's Vision Technology, the new Portra along size the 500T both capture much more shadow detail, with less separation. And looking at both films overexposed 3 stops there is no "yellow" cast or added grain to the image. But I would venture to say, if you did rate it at ISO 3200 (placing your mid-tones into the lower zones of the film) then push 3 stops, the results would have more contrast and greater separation of tones, making the grain more visible. Without underrating the film you would just push your tones into the higher density end of the neg, thus no more grain when printed normal. I hope that makes sense.
I've gone on long enough now, time to let someone else speak. Happy exposing!
I have used Fuji Pro 400 H very often and compared it to other films.
Originally Posted by razocaine_07
One ISO 400 color film that has significantly finer grain, and especially much better resolution (about 20% more) and better contour sharpness is Fuji Provia 400X. Very good in low light situations, excellent even pushed one stop to 800, and still very good at ISO 1600.
Portra 400 NC is not finer grained than Pro 400H, resolution and sharpness are comparable.
Who is processing it ?, and what size are enlarging it to ?, because I've been using Fuji 400H 120 film for as long as it's been out and having it processed at a good local pro lab up to 20"X16", occasionally larger and haven't had any such problems.
Originally Posted by razocaine_07
Last edited by benjiboy; 12-16-2010 at 08:47 AM. Click to view previous post history.