Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,960   Posts: 1,523,107   Online: 986
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I have used old and new Portra 400 as well as NC400, VC400 and UC400. All shot at box speed and all came out very well under all conditions at the rate of 50+ rolls per year.
    Thanks for saying that. I don't shoot that quantity but I've had great success with using box speed and accurate light meters and accurate shutters. I always feel awkward when the topic of shooting color neg film at non-box speeds because box speed has always worked fine for me. A lot of what I shoot is on Gold 200... which, O by the way, I rate at 200.

  2. #22
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,086
    Images
    60
    I had to smile (ruefully) when I saw the title to this thread - Kodak gets blamed for everything!

    It is quite possible that the OP's lab is either:
    1) not using custom colour profiles suited to the new film; or
    2) using a generic colour profile for all films; or
    3) using Fuji colour profiles for Kodak film; or
    4) using the 400 NC colour profile for the new 400 film; or
    5) intentionally using settings that "enhance" the contrast and colour saturation, because lots of their customers like that; or
    6) some combination of all of the above.

    If it were me, I would ask the lab if they have and use the new colour profiles supplied by Kodak, and if they are able to provide prints with lower contrast and saturation upon request.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #23
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,010
    Good reasons have been stated for varying from the box speed by Ansel Adams et al for black & white film. Those reasons do not necessarily apply well to color film. As Ansel Adams pointed out many times, he preferred black & white because it gave him more latitude to vary the use of the film and the print, while color was more limited since color tolerates a much narrower range of variation before the colors are blown out.

    My experience has shown that the best results with color film, C-41 or slides, is to stick to box speed and vary the saturation by film choice pr polarizing filter.

    My experience has shown that the best results with black & white film is to shoot box speed unless one needs to change speed to cover the subject brightness range, have the subject as middle gray, or create a certain effect all based on well thought out principles rather than what one had for breakfast that day.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  4. #24
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    736
    Images
    32
    I've printed a ton of negatives from the various Portra films in the past 4 months. I've found that the old NC is slightly more tame in the saturation department than the new plain-jane 400, but it's a difference that is pretty much negligible. I mean, inconsequential to the point where the advantages of shooting the new film are orders of magnitude more important than scrounging around for more of the old 400NC. I do have a fairly large stock of NC lying around, and I shoot it when I'm out of the new 400 and am not quite ready to order more film just yet.

    PS. the new 160 is probably exactly what you're looking for. It's my favorite Kodak color negative film.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    It is quite possible that the OP's lab is either:
    1) not using custom colour profiles suited to the new film; or
    If it were me, I would ask the lab if they have and use the new colour profiles supplied by Kodak, and if they are able to provide prints with lower contrast and saturation upon request.
    According to the OP, they were scanned and printed. This of course means no profiles were used as there are none for scanners according to Kodak. Oddly enough Kodak does state on their new film releases that they are optimal for scanning which begs the question of what they themselves use.

  6. #26
    Stuggi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    91
    I've noticed that prints from mini-labs are usually a lot more saturated and have more contrast than the scans I get from the same negatives when I use my own scanner (hybrid workflow, so I have no use for proof prints). Their scanners seem to be setup any which way they happen to be and only adjusted when they start to get weird prints, I usually get sepia toned scans when they try to scan BW400C that's been B&W-developed.
    Canon F1n / FTb / AE-1P | Yashica Mat-124G | Hasselblad 500C/M | Leica IIIf

  7. #27
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,010
    Stuggi got it right. The operators probably bust the saturation to unbelieveable because that is that is digi-snappers ask for. One the machine is adjusted, they do not how to set the saturation correctly. There is nothing wrong with the Portra 400 film.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Midlands, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    918
    I've had a few rolls lab scanned and my lab tends to really overdo the contrast and saturation, which I then remedy. I actually thought many of the 'raw' scans were surprisingly muted - shot on typical British overcast days however. Ektar is my colour film of choice and the palette couldn't be more different than Portra 400.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,103
    Images
    98
    New 400 is designed for neg scans, doesn't print as well.

    Thus said, I still prefer 160nc.
    5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B+M 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
    RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    FED-2 / 50 2.8 Industar 26m / 85 f2 Jupiter-9
    Canon 300v / A2

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I thank everyone for the replies--they are very helpful.

    I just got back my second batch, this one with Portra 400NC, Portra 400, and Fuji Pro 400H. What an interesting comparison these three rolls have made. I note that there must have been something amiss in my first batch of Portra 400 (the new version), as this roll looks much, much better. I gather it was either in processing, or with the photographer (me).

    I think some of what I saw may have been a result of the lighting conditions. In ther first batch, I noticed that my notes indicated that I shot many of the photos around noontime. While I avoid this during summer month, I suppose this may present something of an issue even in fall or winter. In any case, I like what I see in both the new Portra 400 and in Pro 400H. Both are nice films, and I will continue to shoot both until I can declare a "winner."

    Thus, I take back my remark about Kodak "ruining" Portra 400.

    I welcome any further comments or suggestions.

Page 3 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