p.1 #1 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
Although I usually shoot black & white film (TMax 400) in my full frame bodies (previously a Leica M4, currently an MP), I did try a few different colour negative stocks to use occasionally in the Leica but mainly in my Pen F half frame camera—including Portra 160, Portra 400, Portra 800, Ektar 100, Ultramax 400, Superia Venus 800, Superia Premium 400, and Superia X-Tra 400, The film I liked the best was Superia Venus 800 so naturally Fujifilm discontinued it. Ultramax 400 was my second choice and that’s what I’ve been using. Although Portra 400 is about 50% more expensive in Australia than Ultramax 400, it seems that the Portra films are very popular so I’m wondering what I’m missing.
p.1 #2 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
Honestly, from my experience not much! I shot Porta 160 and 400 - and to be honest, I always found Porta films the least favorite color films of mine. They are good though for portrait shooting - but in such environment, I often decide to either shoot B&W film or digital color anyway. Where color film makes a difference in my opinion is with Ektar 100 or Fuji Velvia 50 slide film - brilliant unique colors.
I agree, I like the much cheaper Porta alternatives like Kodak Gold or Fuji alternatives much better. The results were about the same. Saying this, I tried different kind of color negative film scan and PP methods to make the color gamut look as closely as "original" as possible, but Porta films never really made the big difference to me where I would say "wow" when looking at one file.
p.1 #3 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
Really depends what you want from your images. Many other film stocks have a stronger look "baked in" than Portra.
I'd say it is popular because of the following factors:
- very versatile due to lowish contrast, more muted / subtle color response
- also extreme exposure latitude, almost impossible to overexpose
- beautiful skintones
- very consistent and predictable (something that e.g. Velvia 50 is not)
Not 100% sure but it probably has higher resolution and/or finer grain than Ultramax, too.
I have some rolls of the new Gold 200 in 120, but haven't shot it yet. It could be a very good and more affordable alternative.
p.1 #4 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
Back in the pre-digital day when images were directly printed from negative to paper there was a difference in the look from Portra.
Nowadays when I scan my film with my Z7 and import it into LR, I can make my film look however I want it to look.
With my workflow I literally cannot differentiate Portra from the cheaper films, so I go with the cheaper films.
In the online/IG communities, it's all about stuff like Portra/TriX/Contax T2 because that is what is trendy wiith imagery being a secondary consideration.
p.1 #5 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
Gold is a bit grainier and contrastier and burns highlights quicker. Portra 400 can be shot at 100-1600 without push/pull (ie I can shoot at 100 outside then move inside and shoot at 1600) and the lab still gets the results bang-on (ok maybe 1600 starts to show but 800 you can't tell). Basically you get convenience and a "modern" look (ie the film not affecting the image, ie you get nice skin tones). Gold on the other hand is a bit more 80s, more red...or should I say golden?
Portra 800 is a different thing, it has its own look and personally I don't like it in 35mm (great in 120 though). Too grainy, it is effectively a 200-400 film for shade and gets a bit too red/brown for my liking, plus blows highlights too easily in good light. One exception, it looks very nice in mixed artifical light.
Portra 160 is my favourite, the palette is a bit a softer, the contrast too (compared to 400) and the grain smoother. So when the light works I'd rather use that. Also like it pushed 1 stop indoors.
Ektar I never really got along with.
Still, all the above is because when I send the film to the lab I say "keep it faithful to the film" vs trying to colour correct it. In a blind test I could tell P800 vs P160/400 but P160/400 are very similar. I tried ProImage 100 a few times, that's a good film, you can easily scan it to make it look like Portra if you expose it well and I'm guessing the same is with Gold or anything else. How you expose a film makes a lot more different than what the film is.
If I was scanning myself it would hardly make a difference, I'd pick on price with the only exception that if you really want a high speed colour film P400 pushed a stop (or even 2) is the only one that can get you to ISO 3200 and still look ok...ish.
Basically as said above a lot of this stuff is trends, film wedding photographers, despite all the "craft" and "vision" and whatever, need convenience and consistent results and Portra 400 is the one that gets them there quicker. But just watch them now all go "ahhhh ohhhhh yeahhhh" with Gold in 120 because as much as they love Portra 400 they can now shoot 2 rolls for the price of 1. So Gold will be the new Portra just like Pentax is the new Contax (now that a barely functioning Contax 645 outfit goes for the price of a new car).
I'm going to go against the grain here (ha) and shoot Cinestill 400D when it comes out. If I'm wasting money on film I might as well be uber-hipster.
p.1 #7 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
panos.v wrote.
..
I'm going to go against the grain here (ha) and shoot Cinestill 400D when it comes out. If I'm wasting money on film I might as well be uber-hipster.
No kolor film is more hipster than Metropolis.
Say it with me... me-tro-polis.
Here's how it looks when your lab bogarts the developing :
And here is how it looks when a lab doesn't mess things up - shot on 110 film because there is hipster, and then there is HypStur (the be-all and end-all of hipsterdom):
Runner up would be FPP Blue Ultra ISO 3 (yes it only has three ISOs!) film
p.1 #8 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
I like Portra mostly for the natural skin tones and because it's forgiving in mixed lighting situations (interiors with direct or indirect sunlight and incandescents) where Gold and Ektachrome are not.
p.1 #10 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
genji wrote:
Although I usually shoot black & white film (TMax 400) in my full frame bodies (previously a Leica M4, currently an MP), I did try a few different colour negative stocks to use occasionally in the Leica but mainly in my Pen F half frame camera—including Portra 160, Portra 400, Portra 800, Ektar 100, Ultramax 400, Superia Venus 800, Superia Premium 400, and Superia X-Tra 400, The film I liked the best was Superia Venus 800 so naturally Fujifilm discontinued it. Ultramax 400 was my second choice and that’s what I’ve been using. Although Portra 400 is about 50% more expensive in Australia than Ultramax 400, it seems that the Portra films are very popular so I’m wondering what I’m missing....Show more →
p.1 #11 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
Portra 160 NC (not VC) (shot at 125) was the most elegant of the wedding films, glorious soft palette, a stately regal look. Rich and lustrous, and warm skin tones I never saw the equal of. Very narrow purpose for portraits, and optimised for medium format. Clients and those lucky enough to be photographed with it always liked the results. The best labs got excellent results from it.
At the other end of the scale lay Velvia 50 ('Classic'), an emulsion so restricted in DR that it sold thousands of Pentax spotmeters - as landscapers strove desperately to fit their scenery into the appalling dynamic range of inky blacks and 'you lost it' blown highlights. Anyone remember those grad ND filters and the dark hilltops they induced, as they worked overtime to bring back the sky? And all the greens were the same hue! Galen Rowell loved it after his years of penance using Kodachrome's ugly red/browns.
p.1 #12 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
d.s. wrote:
Nope. Highlights shift to yellow after a bit. You’ll need to mask and color correct the rest of the scene separately if scanning.
And by a bit you mean „more than 4 stops over“ right? I‘m having a hard time imagining the scenario where you would accidentally overexpose by that much
p.1 #14 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
As already mentioned and from what I recall from 20 years ago, Portra back then was marketed as the modern replacement for Kodak’s VPS III film that was very popular with wedding and portrait studios because of its great skin tones and moderate contrast. It being a pro film, you were supposedly getting better batch to batch consistency than the ‘green’ amateur films, and priced accordingly as a premium product. I’ve also read very positive things about how Portra scans. IIRC it was one of the first more commonly used color negative films for editorial (magazine) shoots instead of E6 emulsions. In part for the look and how it scanned. It was released at the end of the film era when a lot of film images were being scanned for publication before digital cameras were of good enough quality, so it would make sense that a slightly flatter, muted film would handle this well and allow for more leeway in post to bring back colors, contrast, saturation, if desired.
As for its current popularity, I wouldn’t know exactly because I don’t follow film trends, IG, etc. I say use whatever works for you. If it’s ‘cheap’ amateur film, all the better for your bank account balance.
FWIW, back in the days, I preferred Fuji 400 and 800 films, and also Reala. At the time I freelanced for a paper and had ready access to press-packs (50 roll boxes) of Fuji Press 400 & 800. Loved the colors and tonality. Good times! For a short period they switched to Agfa as a cost savings measure, but oh how grainy and lifeless those color emulsions were! That said I really liked APX 100. But it scratched so easily.
p.1 #15 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
rattymouse wrote:
Portra 160 and 400 scan beautifully.
So far the Porta films were the most difficult to scan for me with SilverFast 8 and its Porta films calibration independent on the scanner used (V850 or 8200Ai).
p.1 #16 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
d.s. wrote:
Nope. Highlights shift to yellow after a bit. You’ll need to mask and color correct the rest of the scene separately if scanning.
I have observed the same but assumed until now it was from my C-41 development! Thanks for confirming the yellow cast issue in the highlights! It solves a mystery for me!
p.1 #17 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
philip_pj wrote:
At the other end of the scale lay Velvia 50 ('Classic'), an emulsion so restricted in DR that it sold thousands of Pentax spotmeters - as landscapers strove desperately to fit their scenery into the appalling dynamic range of inky blacks and 'you lost it' blown highlights. Anyone remember those grad ND filters and the dark hilltops they induced, as they worked overtime to bring back the sky? And all the greens were the same hue! Galen Rowell loved it after his years of penance using Kodachrome's ugly red/browns.
I have shot a good number of Velvia 50 medium format (120) films in the past few years and love the film for its colors. But yes, main culprit of Velvia 50 is its very limited dynamic range. Highlights can get easily overexposed and shadows can turn out pitch black if not exposed very carefully. I avoid high contrast scenes with this film with exemption of sunrises and sunsets where the foreground element can be black as silhouette. No other film provides me the same beautiful vibrant colors. I developed it myself with the E-6 slide film process. Easy to scan, too.
p.1 #18 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
So much useful information—sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed. In particular, the wide latitude of Portra 400 is something I wasn’t aware of. I’m not sure that for my use it would be worth paying an additional 50% over the cost of Ultramax but I’ll add a couple of rolls of Portra 400 to my next film order and give it another try.
p.1 #19 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
fjablo wrote:
And by a bit you mean „more than 4 stops over“ right? I‘m having a hard time imagining the scenario where you would accidentally overexpose by that much
From my experience it occurs very quickly in the highlights to observe the yellow cast effect on Porta films. It is mostly close to the border of the frame where the highlight is present. I never observed this cast issue with any other kind of color films. In my case it is never more than one stop at max overexposed.
p.1 #20 · Film Question: What’s so special about Portra?
retrofocus wrote:
From my experience it occurs very quickly in the highlights to observe the yellow cast effect on Porta films. It is mostly close to the border of the frame where the highlight is present. I never observed this cast issue with any other kind of color films. In my case it is never more than one stop at max overexposed.
Must be something in your scanning workflow. There are a few exposure latitude tests with Portra online that show no meaningful change 1-2 stops over. Relatively small shifts 3-4 stops over and still salvageable (but not great) images at 5-6 stops over.
