maxheimann

Interesting Rodeo_Joe, I did not know there could be a negative film without the orange mask. That would make scanning it a lot easier. I am relatively new to analogue film (I have been shooting film non stop for 3 years). But most films went out of production before my love for the medium started. And thank you for your post BillC, I do admit I only shot 2 rolls of Portra 160, but they weren't handling the overexposure I was used to giving Portra 400 well. Perhaps I made a big mistake, perhaps they were stored wrong, perhaps the lab did not change their chemicals. I will buy some fresh rolls this week and give Portra 160 another shot. Ektar100 I have shot a lot and it sure cannot handle overexposure very well. I feel it behaves more like one of Fujis slide films - you either got the exposure right or you are left with disappointing photos. Unfortunately I am not able to print from my negatives as even the colour lab at the local academy of fine arts just closed down. I do scan my work for web on my Epson V700. For exhibitions I get them scanned again by a professional lab and they print it.

Thank you everybody. And thank you for the data sheets. Please excuse my many different questions - next time I will try to keep my question clear. What I am really wondering is this: If Kodak claims their new films Portra 160, Portra 400 and Ektar 100 have gained better quality by incorporating cinema technology (vision 3 etc.), then why does only Portra 400 have that large exposure range? Why can we expose Portra 400 6+, but not Portra 160 or for that matter Ektar 100?

Hi All, I was wondering if somebody knew why there seems to be a great difference in exposure latitude with Portra 160 and Portra 400. When exposing Portra 400 I have found it to be quite resilient to overexposure (up to 6 stops usable results). Portra 160 has always given me very variable results, sometimes overexposed quite easily and sometimes just being very contrasty and "dark". Are they not a very similar emulsion? Why do Portra 160 and Ektar 100 behave so differently? Don't they have the addition of the special "KODAK VISION Film Technology"? Would love to get some scientific explanations on this from somebody in the industry.