I read that Portra (I’m using 160) is low saturation. But I just developed my first ever roll of film, and I was shocked that my Nokton Classic 35mm 1.4 II MC actually looks more saturated than real life in some cases.
I don’t mind saturation, but I was somewhat surprised, expecting more of a vintage film look, and getting something surprisingly modern in sharpness, rendering, and color.
Yes, low compared to Ektar100, Velvia and even the new Harmon color film(s). Apparent saturation is also influenced by what settings you used to scan or copy the negative. It’s pretty easy to go over to Flickr and use the search facility to view various film stocks interpreted through a myriad of scanning and copying equipment, settings and work flows. Of course, the downside is that many of the images posted or after editing and to the photographers preferences.
I second what @bwcolor said, and would add: if you're looking for a "vintage" look then Portra is not the best choice - it's always been a pro film, especially suited for skin tones, and as you noticed it's got a rather "modern" look to it.
Suppose one commonly does associate a bit bolder / "heavier" colors, more contrast, and more grainyness with "vintage" - the classic, less expensive emulsions like Kodak Gold, or ColorPlus (now sold as "Kodakolor 200") would deliver on this front 👍
Interesting, so you mentioned the scanner could be a factor. I reached out to the camera store to find out what type of scanner they use.
Do film labs / film developing and scanning companies do post processing or editing? The reason I ask is because I pulled the scans into lightroom and found the auto edit button was doing very little, almost as if they had been edited already.
Interesting, so you mentioned the scanner could be a factor. I reached out to the camera store to find out what type of scanner they use.
Do film labs / film developing and scanning companies do post processing or editing? The reason I ask is because I pulled the scans into lightroom and found the auto edit button was doing very little, almost as if they had been edited already.
There's an operator in front of the machine that quickly goes through the scanned images, and maybe nudges them a bit (make the image a tad warmer / colder, brighter / darker, more contrasty / less contrasty), and / or have the software auto-correct them - which is likely why you don't see much of an effect in LR later on.
Yes, remember to use a lab that offers high resolution TIFF files. Many will do this with a slight bump-up in price. You can ask them to scan flat, or neutral and then adjust in your software. TIFF files are likely offered in various resolutions.
pontoon wrote:
They are using a Fujifilm SP 3000 film scanner. Should I try to find a lab that uses a Noritsu or Frontier instead?
The SP 3000 is a "Frontier". The full name is "FUJI FRONTIER SP-3000".
You can try telling them not to use any adjustments for one roll, and just let them do their thing with another (so you can compare).
It always depends a bit on the guy operating the machine, but chances are the scans will look really good if you let them do the adjustments instead of fiddling around in Lightroom yourself.
I'd get the highest resolution scans you can afford, TIFF being the premium option.
pontoon wrote:
I read that Portra (I’m using 160) is low saturation. But I just developed my first ever roll of film, and I was shocked that my Nokton Classic 35mm 1.4 II MC actually looks more saturated than real life in some cases.
I don’t mind saturation, but I was somewhat surprised, expecting more of a vintage film look, and getting something surprisingly modern in sharpness, rendering, and color.
Exposure also effects how saturated an image looks. Under will make it look more saturated.
That being said, the Portra films are very neutral given they are pro stock, and pros like to be able to control how their images look.
Post some examples that you took so we can have a better idea re the saturation you are seeing. It could also be something the lab tech is doing as others have pointed out.
Post some examples that you took so we can have a better idea re the saturation you are seeing. It could also be something the lab tech is doing as others have pointed out.
Here the greens and the reds are more saturated than I expected:
There is no universally „true“ conversion of a film negative, it is up to the interpretation of whoever is scanning / printing the image. Negatives are really more like a less flexible RAW file: some look baked-in (color response, latitude, baseline saturation), but lots of flexibility where to take that.
As only you know the intention you had when taking the picture, you should be the person doing the conversion.
Judging by the length of the shadows this looks like this image it was made early morning or late afternoon. The color of the sun changes during the day and most films are described to be balanced for high noon between 5,000 and. 6,000 degrees kelvin. So the time of day becomes another factor in creating an image.
Norm Shapiro wrote:
Judging by the length of the shadows this looks like this image it was made early morning or late afternoon. The color of the sun changes during the day and most films are described to be balanced for high noon between 5,000 and. 6,000 degrees kelvin. So the time of day becomes another factor in creating an image.
Thank you. I didn't notice that, but the time of day and the nature of film being balanced for a specific color temp must be playing a factor. Looking back at the roll, I can see another shot is completely unsaturated.
I'll just have to shoot more film and learn how it works.
In the late 1980's, Kodak discontinued the Vericolor II line, Vericolor Short Exposure: VPS, Vericolor Commercial Studio: VCS. VPS was formulated for short exposures and flash, VCS was wor use in studios with constant lighting. The new formula became Portra. Originally there was a choice of Portra Natual Color for portraits and Vivid Color for senics. It also boosted the ISO to 160 and added an addional speed of 400.
As film sales began to decline in the early 2000's, the NC and VC lines were combined into the Portra we have today.
