ken.vs.ryu wrote:
Any suggestions on a 400 speed negative that will produce more true to life colors?
I guess I've never had any problem with Portra not producing pretty true to life colors. A bit more subdued than say, Velvia or a lot of the digital stuff you see nowadays, but I always found it reasonably accurate.
But... the only 400 speed negatives left are Fuji 400H and the consumer color films from Fuji (Superia) and Kodak (Gold? Max? HD?). The consumer films are usually more saturated and contrasty.
panos.v wrote:
It looks very good. Did you actually push it 3 stops to 3200 or less? I regularly shoot Portra 400 up to 1600 without pushing (on 120) and it turns out fine. I shot it 3200 once but pushed 1 stop and didn't like the shadows much, I'll try pushing it two or 3 stops next time. That film is amazing, especially for medium format where you generally have a choice of 3.5 shutter speeds...
Well when I shot it, I was rating it as 3200 but when I pushed it in LR3, I think I pushed about 2.7 stops. I gotta agree that when you're shooting on medium format, you're pretty much using the same few shutter speeds most of the time. This one is also Portra 400 pushed to 3200 with some burning.
alkanphel wrote:
Well when I shot it, I was rating it as 3200 but when I pushed it in LR3, I think I pushed about 2.7 stops. I gotta agree that when you're shooting on medium format, you're pretty much using the same few shutter speeds most of the time. This one is also Portra 400 pushed to 3200 with some burning.
So you aren't actually pushing it in development, right? Just in post processing?
kidtexas wrote:
I've not printed color in the darkroom, but it should be a somewhat similar experience. The response of the paper is the same, but you set the basic color balance with filters. So you could easily compensate for a color cast with a different filter pack. So yes, you need to make judgement calls just like in scanning. I believe you use a basic filter pack as a starting point, to cancel out the orange mask, but then you usually adjust it for your final print.
One way to help to *not* compensate for actual color casts is to take a shot of a gray card in proper daylight balanced lighting. Scan and correct that photo. Then scan your photo with color casts with the *exact* same settings and use the corrections from the first photo on the second one. When I say use the exact same settings, that's what I mean. If your scanner is adjusting gain/exposure times on the RGB channels or something similar, they need to be the same. If you google 'vuescan lock film base' you should find some tutorials that talk about locking exposures between different scans....Show more →
That makes sense, thanks. I've read about using a gray card or target with negatives and some seem to have success with it. A few people have said that the orange mask is never the same from negative to negative and is dependent on the conditions shot in. So unless you shoot a target along with every negative then it isn't accurate. I obviously don't know as I haven't tried it. I may waste a few 4x5 negatives though and give it a go.
sirimiri wrote:
^The easiest way I found to work in a color darkroom, once you get past the absolute inky blackness required, was to use the Kodak color print viewing kit to judge results and adjust the enlarger's dichroic filters based on the directions given per Kodak's filtration overlay frame that you most pleased you.
I'd never want to wet-print color again, though. It's exacting and laborious.
Thanks for the info! Sounds like fun . I'm not sure I could live without Photoshop though.
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
Nice one Zaitz...Portra is subdued. It needs help with colors.
Any suggestions on a 400 speed negative that will produce more true to life colors?
Just restocked my film bin and prices are going up.
Thanks man. I love the subdued look in certain situations, at least I think I do. Check out this guys portrait work. It is amazing in my opinion. Warning nudes (linked is only his Portra -35mm, MF, LF): http://www.flickr.com/photos/micmojo/tags/portra/
corposant wrote:
Zach - interesting architecture there - I definitely prefer the Portra to the digital shot.
There's nothing wrong with processing film shots digitally. Aside from manipulating color channels in "Curves," you might also want to use a Selective Color Adjustment Layer. These are great for either isolating color casts or adding new ones, especially in shadows, where things can get interesting.
You should also take into account who is giving you this advice - I often know how to edit the imperfections in my work but sometimes just don't bother out of laziness, complacency, or just because I like it wonky (see the train platform discussion on the previous page).
Portra 400 is a lot more muted in terms of saturation - you may want to see if you can get ahold of any of the "VC" sheets that still may be out there. Portra 160 VC is one of my favorite all-time films in 120 format. Great colors, without turning people orange, and very tight grain....Show more →
Well I'm definitely not averse to editing, as you can probably tell from my other photos. I was just interested in extracting the 'true' Portra look if at all possible just to see what it was. I am getting an 8x10 negative back in a couple days so hopefully that was exposed well.
The selective color layer is very interesting. Thanks for mentioning it as, surprisingly, I had never used it before. And this was 400 VC! It was from around when they were switching over. I had bought near the last of what Badger Graphic offered in VC. My 8x10 is the new Portra.
Zaitz wrote:
That makes sense, thanks. I've read about using a gray card or target with negatives and some seem to have success with it. A few people have said that the orange mask is never the same from negative to negative and is dependent on the conditions shot in. So unless you shoot a target along with every negative then it isn't accurate. I obviously don't know as I haven't tried it. I may waste a few 4x5 negatives though and give it a go.
Yeah, the orange mask will be different for different films, and can also vary dependent on development. But don't worry about that. Just remember that if you shoot a gray card and correct THAT shot so the gray card is neutral gray, well then you just compensated any color casts in the actual scene (or at least attempted to).
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you are doing a shoot in semi controlled lighting, tungsten or daylight, it might be worth firing off a frame with a color checker/gray card in it. Correct that shot and you should have a good baseline for the rest. If you are shooting in light with a heavy cast that you want to preserve, shooting a 'note' with your DSLR might be the easiest way to go. I don't really bother with most of this - I just correct my shots until they look pleasing. Then again, I'm not shooting 8x10.
The selective color adjustment is one of the reasons that, even after LR4 is reasons, CS5 will be indispensable. The nice thing is once you find a CMYK shift that you like and that works, you can just automate it.
The true Portra look. Like the link to that dude's portraits? If only I could shoot off the Trocadero every day with models and great light. Well, just judging by a few of the shots, he's using NC. Not my favorite, but you might want to just trade up to "new" Portra, as that film's color balance is heavily weighted towards the NC vs. the VC. I think the logic was that Kodak figured most people would be scanning anyway, so they'd give you the flexibility to punch it in post if you wanted. The skin tones on the "new" 160 are really really good.
kidtexas wrote:
Yeah, the orange mask will be different for different films, and can also vary dependent on development. But don't worry about that. Just remember that if you shoot a gray card and correct THAT shot so the gray card is neutral gray, well then you just compensated any color casts in the actual scene (or at least attempted to).
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you are doing a shoot in semi controlled lighting, tungsten or daylight, it might be worth firing off a frame with a color checker/gray card in it. Correct that shot and you should have a good baseline for the rest. If you are shooting in light with a heavy cast that you want to preserve, shooting a 'note' with your DSLR might be the easiest way to go. I don't really bother with most of this - I just correct my shots until they look pleasing. Then again, I'm not shooting 8x10....Show more →
Yeah I am making a fuss over nothing really. Velvia definitely is easier to scan though!
corposant wrote:
The selective color adjustment is one of the reasons that, even after LR4 is reasons, CS5 will be indispensable. The nice thing is once you find a CMYK shift that you like and that works, you can just automate it.
The true Portra look. Like the link to that dude's portraits? If only I could shoot off the Trocadero every day with models and great light. Well, just judging by a few of the shots, he's using NC. Not my favorite, but you might want to just trade up to "new" Portra, as that film's color balance is heavily weighted towards the NC vs. the VC. I think the logic was that Kodak figured most people would be scanning anyway, so they'd give you the flexibility to punch it in post if you wanted. The skin tones on the "new" 160 are really really good. ...Show more → What, no good? I just love the natural look to his photos. And anytime I search for a film on flickriver or flickrhivemind his stuff comes up first. He seems to do work all over the place. That's a dream job for sure....
I am mainly interested in Portra for the dynamic range over Velvia. I will always process it until I am satisfied. If I were rich I'd probably only shoot those two films and convert to b&w when I felt like it. I'd just like to simplify my load-out. The price for 8x10 color is ludicrous. I want to trade my Crown Graphic for some 8x10 film and I'd only get about 30-40 sheets out of it O_O!
That blue sky is pretty intense. Is that with a polarizer?
My first and only attempt at the Northern Lights. By the time I got the camera set up, you could barely see it, so I kind of guessed at where to point the camera.
I also noticed some broken bones on his Flickr page - let's hope for a speedy recovery!
Hi, thanks for the kind words. I had really be struggling with my photographic direction after almost being killed in Mongolia, twice, then attending a terribly-run Magnum workshop in Korea. I was taking some time off.
In the mean time my family and I traveled to Hokkaido for Christmas and New Years to have some fun in the snow and ice; we live on a tropical island, so it's fun for us to go somewhere cold in the winter. Anyway, on 12/29 I was walking back to my hotel and not even a few meters from being safely inside my hotel I slipped on a patch of ice in a crosswalk. Some sort of freak accident. I immediately felt and heard my leg snap. I had to be dragged out of the street to the sidewalk. The next 23 hours were a complete and utter nightmare. Japan has a medical system that doesn't belong in the modern world. I sat in an ambulance for 45+ minutes waiting to find an ER willing to take me. Finally one decided to take me, but only with the understanding I'd immediately be discharged after basic triage. Sure enough 30 minutes after getting there I was out on my ass in a taxi with no pain medication. I then had to buy a ticket, fly 6 hours back home, change flights once and go to my local ER at our American hospital. I finally got some pain relief and a surgery date.
Now, it's 3 weeks later, I'm in a cast for another 4 weeks and dying to shoot. I think I have my mojo back, but I'm basically bedridden. It's terrible.
kidtexas wrote:
Yeah, Provia 400X is pretty amazing.
I think Provia was great before the new Portra 400, but now it's just a waste of money unless you just HAVE to shoot slide film. I still have a brick or two if it in the fridge and I won't be buying more. Fuji hasn't put any new R&D into their film since 400X came out what 7 years ago?
Glad to hear you are recovering, both physically and mojo wise.
About 400X, yeah you are probably right. That's more or less why I don't shoot it. There is something about seeing slides though compared to negatives. I can only imagine how good some big juicy 6x9 400X slides look on a light table.
kidtexas wrote:
Glad to hear you are recovering, both physically and mojo wise.
About 400X, yeah you are probably right. That's more or less why I don't shoot it. There is something about seeing slides though compared to negatives. I can only imagine how good some big juicy 6x9 400X slides look on a light table.
I am still mad that I missed out on 54 rolls of short-dated 400X for something like $30 BIN a few months back.
And yup the lab developed it normally at 400 and I pushed it in post. 
