Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,979   Posts: 1,523,776   Online: 1193
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    48
    Images
    1
    Thanks for the compliments!

    I can't wait to see if Kodak reformulates Portra 800 with this new technology! Then it would only be a two-stop push.

    Would it be too optimistic to say that this film could drive a resurgence of film use? In the d/i/g/i/t/a/l camera world, all people ever talk about is how "clean" their cameras are at ISO 3200! And 6400 and 12,500. (And devoid of detail due to overzealous noise reduction) I think what is driving this race for ever-higher high-ISO performance is to avoid the horrific consequences of d/i/g/i/t/a/l noise! Some of my underexposed shots were severely grainy, but I thought they still looked good! The noise is organic and truly random in nature, instead of arranged in a grid.

  2. #12
    rphenning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    341
    I just shot a load of this film all over the map, changing between ISO 200 and 1600 on the same 120 roll. Had normal processing done and was happy with the results for the most part and I'm really picky. These shots are great for 135 at 3200!

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Great results!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hops View Post
    I can't wait to see if Kodak reformulates Portra 800 with this new technology! Then it would only be a two-stop push.
    Have you tried doing this with the current Portra 800? Or the previous 400NC/VC? Seems like all the rage on the internet is to talk about Portra 400 pushed, but I've yet to see how this stacks up with the previous versions of the film or 800.

  4. #14
    Markster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Denver area
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    307
    Anybody pushed Ektar 100 2 stops to 400, or 3 stops to 800?

    Finest grain should yield less grain than other films at 400/800 the more you push it, right?

    EDIT: Never mind on the 400, I remember now some folks have done that already. I wonder about 800 though?
    -Markster

    Canon AE-1P 35mm | 50mm/f1.8 FDn | 28mm/2.8 FD | 70-200mm/f4-5 FD | 35-70mm/F2.8-3.5 Sigma FD

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    48
    Images
    1
    No, I have not tried pushing the old Portra 800. But my guess is that it won't be as good as the new 400, due to the new technology in the 400.

  6. #16
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    This is all great news. The only possible glitch, at least in my area, is finding a pro lab with a tight enough C-41 line to pull off a consistent 1-2 stop push. Looking forward to trying Portra 400 as soon as it surfaces here.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Hops View Post
    No, I have not tried pushing the old Portra 800. But my guess is that it won't be as good as the new 400, due to the new technology in the 400.
    Unfortunately, I can't agree with that reasoning. Granted, the new 400 has finer grain; what other 'new technology' makes it better for pushing? If fine grain is the only criterion when it comes to pushing, then Ektar should be the best film for pushing ever. If you need real speed, I'm still thinking 800 would be better. I've also not seen anything that tells me 400 is better for pushing than 400NC/400VC except for the finer grain bit - I think the tonality should be roughly the same... Though obviously, finer grain will help the final appearance.

    Not attacking you, but there's just a lot of hype (and good results) about pushing the new 400 on the net, with absolutely NO reference points to the previous versions. Maybe all Portra films are great with pushing, and not just 400?

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    48
    Images
    1
    Fine grain certainly isn't the only factor that makes for good pushing.

    Kodak claims to have integrated Kodak Vision technology from their movie films into this new Portra. Also "Antenna Dye Sensitization in Cyan and Magenta emulsion layers" though I'm not sure this is a new thing.

    Perhaps of even more importance than grain, is the improvement in how far shadow tones come up when pushed. From what I have read, a big problem in pushing film is that the shadows don't brighten up at the same rate as the highlights, so you end up with blocked up shadows. This new emulsion is supposed to be better at that.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Hops View Post
    Kodak claims to have integrated Kodak Vision technology from their movie films into this new Portra.
    Which means what? It could be just finer grained technology. It could just be marketing speak too.

    Also "Antenna Dye Sensitization in Cyan and Magenta emulsion layers" though I'm not sure this is a new thing.
    I think Portra 800 already had this. The previous 400's might have too. Kodak's spec sheet on 400NC/400NC/800 say, "Antenna Dye Sensitization (High speed films)".

    Perhaps of even more importance than grain, is the improvement in how far shadow tones come up when pushed. From what I have read, a big problem in pushing film is that the shadows don't brighten up at the same rate as the highlights, so you end up with blocked up shadows. This new emulsion is supposed to be better at that.
    Agreed. I think this is my main point. And I'm not sure if "This new emulsion is supposed to be better at that" is true. I think it's more accurate to state "This new emulsion is good at that." And it is. But every test I've seen of it has no reference points, so saying "is better at that" doesn't make sense to me. Is it better at it? Better than 400NC? Better than 800? Or is it just the same?

    Giving Portra 800 the shaft over pushed Portra 400 seems silly to me if it's not based on tests. I know I seem like I'm being pedantic, but I've seen this on several forums, and this is how what is probably a low volume film like Portra 800 dies. On the other hand, if Portra 800 pushes just as well, and you could get similar results at EI 6400, and a similar word of mouth ground swell about Portra 800, that might be a good thing...

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    48
    Images
    1
    Yeah, I would love to see some side-by-side tests done! I suppose I could do it myself, but I don't develop my own yet, so I could not guarantee the processing is consistent. Anyone want to volunteer?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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