Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,337   Posts: 1,537,598   Online: 1123
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    In my tests, the new Portra has great latitude, but not that much different from the previous Portras. The underexposed shots most definitely have less detail in the shadows and grain goes up. Remember, anything that is scanned can always have it's contrast affected.

    In the right scenario, you might get away with 1-2 stops of underexposure, but it will probably look better with proper exposure. It will probably also look better if you get underexposed shots push developed.

    It's a wonderful film, but there's a lot of hype about it in my opinion. I really do like it a lot, and it does have great grain, but in terms of this 'magic ISO' crap that you read about it, I'm convinced that it's about the same as the previous Portra 400NC. And I never heard one person say this stuff about that film.

    Here's the link to my personal test. The test goes from 4 stops underexposed to 6 stops overexposed. Not the most scientific, but the charts were lit by window light, the dark room was several stops down according to an incident meter. So keep in mind that the scenes don't have the largest brightness range you'll ever encounter. On the other hand, the charts do cover a lot of what's in a normally lit scene. Unfortunately, the Kodak chart had some glare on it, but the Color Checker should be a reliable reference. I also ran some tests in tungsten light set to 3200K, with and without a partial corrective filter on the lens.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgray1/...7625883846979/

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    86
    Incredible!! You could have miss exposure by so many shots and the image is still usable. Thank you so much for your shots, sure helps. Hopefully this will not make me go slack in terms of exposure.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    86
    Sorry. My answer was in response to the post made by Tim Parkin.

    Tim Gray thanks for the tests that you made. To me its obvious you could miss by two stops and still pretty good.

  4. #14
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    The wild cards we haven't touched on are the quality/competence and tools the lab uses and your relationship with the lab.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    86
    Mark, how much do the labs differ? I come from a digital background and pretty innocent in this. I expect them all to follow certain chemicals and time. Even in a good lab can a personnel actually make specific changes as he sees my film being developed?

  6. #16
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    At most any lab normal film processing will be fine, there are bad apples but the process is standard so quality is pretty good across the board.

    After the film is developed it is a whole different world and results can vary wildly.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    86
    Thanks Mark and thank you all for your contribution. My question has been answered and now at least things are much clearer. Still amaze somewhat at the exposure lattitude of film.

  8. #18
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,705
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    The background, door and the like, in Tim Gray's example is very revealing of the shadow losses.

    Now just go burn through 10 rolls and see what works for you.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Gray View Post
    It's a wonderful film, but there's a lot of hype about it in my opinion. I really do like it a lot, and it does have great grain, but in terms of this 'magic ISO' crap that you read about it, I'm convinced that it's about the same as the previous Portra 400NC. And I never heard one person say this stuff about that film.
    Agreed - it's the grain that's different from what I can see so you probably get an extra stop or two usable because of this..

    Tim

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    327
    I disagree. I have used 400NC and it would get quite blocky once it went -1 stop. On the other hand, I have a nice set of prints that were shot at 1600 stops and I also have a roll at 3200 (but pushed one stop) and the detail is very good. In fact, I have prints from a roll that I started at 400 and ended up at 1600 as the light went in the evening and I can't say there is any issue in the quality of the image. However I will say that perhaps in real life situations as you end up using it at 1600 you have to because the light is too low and the scene, contrastier lighting (which is generally what happens at night) and shutter speeds will compromise the image more than any loss of detail due to the underexposure.

    Also, I am speaking about my experience with 120 film. I would expect the grain and blockiness of shadows to show more with 135. So I'd say that the hype is real, at least for 120.
    Hasselblad, Mamiya RB, Nikonos, Canon EOS

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