I had a go at pushing to 3200, and noticed that the shots that were exposed correctly for 3200 came out none too bad, but the ones that were already underexposed at 3200 had a very green tinge.
In that experiment, I developed the film for 1600 (2 stop push rather than 3), so seems like 2 stops off = green tinge ?
It depends a lot on color correction introduced during printing and / or during scanning. See my repost of one of the original photos.
I'm gunna try the next roll at 2 full stops pushed. I also forgot, I was shooting daylight film in a gym at a school, so my colors will definately be off.
Studio tungsten lights are 3200K, practical tungsten lights are much lower, 2800K and down.
A 2 stop push should be 4m 15s, 3m 45s is 1 stop.
Well according to the curves, it appears Portra 400 is faster than Portra 800.
Originally Posted by Sirius Glass
Originally Posted by polyglot
OCAU Melb Photowalk Week 2 #6 by athiril, on Flickr
Portra 400 rated at 1600, correctly treated is great at N+2 development, and still very nice at N development, N+1 development wouldn't be a problem here, the OP has done something wrong to get such poor results.
OP; how did you develop? Stable temp? Re-used tetenal where 3:45 doesn't become a push? The image looks heavily abused, and judging by the histogram that's full of spikes and gaps and exaggerated noise and grain looks like you had a thin ranged image with over-sharpening that's also looks like it's been improperly developed.
Last edited by Athiril; 07-29-2011 at 10:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by Athiril
Nice. I just remember seeing someone post that they set their camera for ISO 1600 AND adjusted the eV of the camera... never understood that, both do the same thing effectively, or worst, could cancel either other out.
Anyways, I'd like to figure this out, I've been asked by a friend to shoot a candle lit wedding and she'd like it in film.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'd like to clarify I was reading the Kodak charts wrong, as there is a typo on the Porta 800 curve, it reads 0, -1, -3, -2. :/
I never noticed that before.
edit: if the curves are to be believed, Portra 800 is 2 and 1/3 stops faster than Portra 400 (in my intepretation of the curves)
Originally Posted by AlbertZeroK
Exposure becomes more critical. Exposure technique should be spot on for pushing Portra to make the most of it, otherwise it's a hit and miss affair and you're wasting your time.
See if you scrounge up an incident meter, otherwise in the same light you can use bleached printer paper (the type for offices etc) to fill the frame in the camera, and increase exposure another 2 and 2/3rds of a stop to get close enough to incident metering.
I personally don't like the metering skin idea and adding a stop, I don't find it consistent, nor do I find +1 stop agreeing with an incident meter or metering off a grey card, great amount of variation over the skin of one person depending where you take it from.
IE; set your camera meter to ISO 250, and take readings from said paper, and it should be around incident metering for the same light at ISO 1600. Although I may increase exposure another 2/3rds of a stop to compensate for tungsten light.
Last edited by Athiril; 07-29-2011 at 11:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.
As for candle light... are you friends with NASA or Stanley Kubrick? If so you're in luck. If not then your tripod is your friend.
Otherwise I'd also 'cheat' with some weak ceiling bounce flash fill. Definitely an incident flash meter.
Also I dont suppose you can get your hands on Vision3 500T 5219 since you're shooting 35mm? For tungsten balanced things, and candle light it may do much nicer.
I've had great luck pushing Portra 400. This was Portra 400 shot at 1600, and push-processed to 800:
Scanned off a Fuji Frontier.
While light temperature has been mentioned here, I think the implications of tungsten or even candle light haven't seen enough emphasis. An 80A filter, which corrects for 3200K tungsten light, takes away two stops of light, and the reason it does this is because the blue spectrum is so weak in this sort of lighting. If you shoot in such light without filter, you think you shoot at ISO1600 according to what your light meter tells you, but as far as the blue sensitive layer is concerned you really shoot at ISO6400 or more.
I did shoot some indoor scenes with Portra 400 @ISO3200 last year, the first roll just straight with no flash and no filter, for the second roll I used very weak flash which only about balanced the ambient light. The difference in result was quite remarkable, the first roll was basically useless, whereas the second roll turned out quite nicely.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
Color neg is not made to push or underexpose. When the 2x3" web display looks grainy, you have failed not withstanding the green skin.
B&W film that is pushed just gets more contrast so it is easier to print. There is little to no more shadow detail.
Get more light or a tripod or a faster lens.