No need to apologize. This thread has given me a lot of things to try. I'm going to be shooting several rolls of film this weekend and try some of the techniques I've learned here. After looking at the results I'll see what works for me and what doesn't.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
The roll of Portra 400 I shot I experienced blue cast in the shadows. I didn't know what it was. The 81A filter showed up today.
By "softer" do you mean color or IQ? I was thinking 160 would be better at IQ, for shooting macros and close up photography. I was looking for a film that would give more naturalistic colors, at least not garish vibrancy. Is there a better film out there in the 100 ISO range for my purposes? I haven't even shot a roll of Portra 160, so there's no problem with me trying something different at this point.
You can get away with murder on Portra. Take a polariser and enjoy.
The blue in the shadows is probably because that's what's there! Remember how the impressionist
painters scandalized the norm by actually putting blue in the shadows? Films can sometimes overreact. That's why corrective filters are needed. Portra 160, like I insinuated, is engineered to produce pleasing skintones under a variety of conditions, even if it is at the expense of correct reproduction of certain other hues. Portra 400 will probably be more realistic terms of landscape color, Ektar even moreso. Portra 160 is also much lower contrast to accomodate a wider range of illuminance and not accentuate things like skin blemishes, but therefore might come out looking
washed out and bland with respect to colors in nature. Just depends how you shoot. Might be good
insurance to practice with both and take both on the trip, though 160 would be more tolerant of
multiple airport X-rays.