Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,771   Posts: 1,484,315   Online: 1067
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,429
    Images
    10
    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.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Downers Grove Illinois
    Posts
    1,040
    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.

  3. #23
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,429
    Images
    10
    Nobody here advertised pushing as a magic bullet to up the sensitivity of film to arbitrary levels. More light is what every photographer cries for but few lucky ones sometimes get. Tripods are always a good idea but don't hold the moving subject in place for a long exposure. Faster lenses are nice but - again - not always available, especially in larger formats, plus correct DOF should be at least as much a concern as shadow detail.

    There are situations where simply not taking a shot is the correct solution: why waste film if the results are going to be inferior anyway? In other situations bringing the shot home is what it's about, and pushing may well be the way to go.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  4. #24
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,302
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Moravec View Post
    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.
    Kodak disagrees with you. See page 3-5.

    http://www.kodak.com:80/global/plugi...ls/z131_03.pdf
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    156
    What was that scanned with?

  6. #26
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by AlbertZeroK View Post
    Now, I've pushed Portra 400 before, never with push processing though. So I shot a roll at 1600, no ev adjustment, just Aperture priority. Then processed for 3:45 (pushed one stop) and now the results, grainy, very horrible.

    I have another roll ready to process done on the same day. Should I try to push it more or less, kinda of at a loss as to why this is not working for me.
    Hi,

    If you haven't overdeveloped, you have not "pushed." Rating a 400 film at 1600 is just plain-ol' underexposing it.

    I'd try making your own optical prints, or having a professional lab make them. I don't think the scan, the unfiltered gym lighting, or the lack of proper color balancing is doing the film justice. Proper filtration in camera is a great help, even with negative film.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    540
    Quote Originally Posted by stavrosk View Post
    What was that scanned with?
    Nikon Coolscan 4000.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    156
    It is really strange. Did you change any settings or was it auto?

  9. #29
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,468
    Images
    28
    Someone asked me for the Portra 800 sheet, it is found in here - http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4040/e4040.pdf

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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