Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,328   Posts: 1,537,138   Online: 866
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: Portra 400

  1. #31
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    738
    Images
    19
    the first 5 are all shot at 1600 and processed normally. the last 2 were 3200 pushed 1 stop I think. The only editing was bringing the blacks up a bit. not much though.








  2. #32
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Let me get this right.

    From frame-to-frame you're changing ISO, but not the other exposure values?

    Then you send to lab for C-41 no push/pull developing at ISO 400.

    Thx.

    Quote Originally Posted by rphenning View Post
    same ^. I don't tell my lab anything and just let them develop normally usually. I've done this for a roll where I experimented and shot all over, ISO wise, and gotten the results I want. I think of the new portra this way: overexpose and you get the creaminess that was inherent with NC, underexpose and you get a little more punch in contrast and color like VC had.

    My initial experiments with it were somewhat less than scientific however I think I determined well enough for myself that this film can handle anything I want to shoot color negative for.

    There was a strange phenomenon though, something I haven't seen before: On only one of my rolls that I shot at 800-1600 there were huge color shifts. Things that were lit with fluorescent were magenta. It was odd because I have shot portra 400 at 800 and 1600 before without problems.

  3. #33
    rphenning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    341
    No, I will definitely change the exposure values. If I am changing the ISO then I am probably looking at either a very bright or very dark scene compared to what I was shooting 400 with, and will have to adjust accordingly. Changing the ISO just gives me a good jumping off point.

  4. #34
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    So, in a nutshell, what's the biggest difference between 400NC and the New 400 ?
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  5. #35
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,910
    From what I can tell, and I say this as someone new to this particular film, is only how it scans. The pallette and contrast don't seem any different, despite Kodak's little chart that said contrast and saturation would be a little higher. It seems, by looking at other people's images, that it handles mixed lighting better. I myself and going to test it in different lighting conditions without filters and with the filters recommended by my color meter. This will give me an idea of whether the filter recommendations are correct or too strong with the new emulsion.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by cjbecker View Post
    the first 5 are all shot at 1600 and processed normally. the last 2 were 3200 pushed 1 stop I think. The only editing was bringing the blacks up a bit. not much though.
    Were these all available light only? No flash or filter?

    Also, does anyone find differences between the 160 and 400 versions in terms of color appearance? (I haven't used either of the new versions yet).

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by rphenning View Post
    No, I will definitely change the exposure values. If I am changing the ISO then I am probably looking at either a very bright or very dark scene compared to what I was shooting 400 with, and will have to adjust accordingly. Changing the ISO just gives me a good jumping off point.
    So... when you are adjusting the iso on your camera, you are also adjusting you exposure? Does that do the same thing? Like if I set iso to 800 and ev to -1 it is the same as iso 400 ev 0? I think I am missing something...

  8. #38
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    I think what he is saying is that he's treating ISO as a variable like AutoISO on a DSLR.

    So in Av mode you stick with say f/5.6 for composition but the meter says 1/15 and that's too slow for handheld, so bang the ISO up for that shot to 800 and EV-1 to get to 1/60. The process at ISO 400 regardless, no push specification on the lab order.

    Right? Just as a nominal sample.

    Q1: So, to echo the last response, why not just adjust EV to max rather than fiddle with ISO frame-by-frame?

    Q2: Why not push at the lab?

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertZeroK View Post
    So... when you are adjusting the iso on your camera, you are also adjusting you exposure? Does that do the same thing? Like if I set iso to 800 and ev to -1 it is the same as iso 400 ev 0? I think I am missing something...

  9. #39
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    For me, the pay-off of the new Portra 400's latitude is obvious: no more crossed fingers after asking for a 1-2 stop push at the lab. This used to be easy when pro labs with tight C-41 lines were common but now? Thanks, Kodak!

  10. #40
    cjbecker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    IN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    738
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    Were these all available light only? No flash or filter?

    Also, does anyone find differences between the 160 and 400 versions in terms of color appearance? (I haven't used either of the new versions yet).
    yes they were all available light. and no filter.

    and also there was a lot of mixed lighting.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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