Who prefer's a portrait-balanced film for non-portrait uses?

<p>Film manufacturers have long offered lines of professional color film balanced to provide accurate, very fine-grained, yet also especially creamy, low contrast renditions of skin tones, which have been especially valued by wedding and other portrait photographers. But these films don't only get used for portraits.<br>

Another recent posting in this forum praises the color accuracy and resolution of Kodak's Portra, posting as the first example image one of trees. Having inherited some frozen rolls of Vericolor III, Portra's ancestor, and having few intentions of taking portraits, this gets me wondering: What are the advantages and disadvantages of using specific portrait-balanced color films for other kinds of subjects: landscapes, architecture, documentary, abstract patterns, etc.?<br>

Who in this forum, is especially fond of using a particular portrait-balanced film for certain kinds of non-portrait subject matter they like exploring? Please go into detail about how and why you do this. Example images would be very welcome.</p>

<p>Kodak collapsed the NC/VC versions of Portra 160+400 into single versions in 2010-11. I have no experience with the Fuji 160 films but find the current 400H to be a bit more saturated than the old NPH which could be a bit chalky. Sure I've used NPH/400H and outdated Kodak160NC for low contrast landscapes when their dialed down contrast and lower saturation helped with the look I wanted. Kodak Ektar can be great for fall color but sometimes I don't want Algonquin Park in Ontario to look like a '50s postcard.<br /> Now post processing delivers what the NC/VC variants once did, so film makers no longer make materials with the contrast/saturation range of just a few years ago.</p>

<p>Steve, You can find some samples on PN<a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=portra+160+nc&sort_order=1"> here ,</a> <a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=portra+160&search=&start_index=0&sort_order=1&page=Prev">here</a>, or <a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=portra+&sort_order=1">here</a>. I am one of the Portra fans. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Len, thanks for those links. It looks like you and Ben Randall have posted many of the non-portrait "Portra" images in those pages, although several others posted one or two non-portraits. Also, you posted by far the most Black-and-White "Portra" images! Could you explain more about your process for doing that; I couldn't figure our from the image descriptions whether you made B&W prints from the color negatives or converted digital color scans to B&W with software? While many of your landscapes on Portra are quite colorful, I noticed a few quite mono-chromatic color images, leaning toward B&W one might say. What do you like about converting color Portra images to Black and White. The images you are getting are quite good, but I wonder if you now think of Portra as being one essential way of working toward a B&W print? That, like shooting non-portrait subject matter, is another interesting *non-intended* use for this type of film.</p>

After scanning, can boosting contrast and

saturation in post give you the basic results

of Ektar 100 or Velvia 50 or 100?

<p>I enjoyed using the few rolls of Fuji Reala over the years that were given to me.</p>

<p>Wow. Looking at those images was a pleasure. It is such a relief to see non-portrait images that just look real, without all the heavy saturation.</p>

<p>Steve, Some images, as you have correctly pointed out, are rendered, to my eye at least, as superior images in B&W , partly due to the original being monochromatic anyway, though not always. I do this with my scans in Photoshop, mostly using the 'Channel Mixer' feature. I like the lower contrast (can be increased post exposure if desired) and wide range of tones that Portra is capable of recording such as detail in deep shadows and, at the same time, in highlights such as sun on snow or, as Kodak intended, details in both a bride's dress and a grooms dark tux as well as superb skin tones. Makes it easy to get a satisfactory image in B&W from this film. Since I'm not prepared to process my own B&W images this is my preferred workflow. The bonus is that I get to put forth a colour version as well if I want. Not to disrespect those who prefer Ektar 100 or Velvia 50 but they're simply not my preference. I'm not a proponent of overly saturated images so I leave those types of images to the photographers who are. To answer Alan's question, one can indeed increase the contrast and saturation post exposure but it's arguable as to weather Ektar or Velvia can be accurately or satisfactorily rendered from a Portra original. You'd have to ask someone who likes the pallet those films produce. Best to find out what combination you like personally and pursue that workflow. And thanks for the vote of confidence. Best, LM.</p>

<p>I use all types of film for everything and anything. I don't go by what it is supposed to be used for. I am attracted to difference and things that look artsy. So I try and be different. I do not own photoshop nor do i want to. I cross process my slide films as well, use expired stuff and buy alternative films from Freestyle..</p>

When I was doing industrial photography back around 88-98 I used all the different portrait films in 120 and 220 all the

time. They had better control of the contrast in bad light. Kodak VPS 160, Fuji NPS 160, then later the Kodak Portra 160

and 400 in NC and VC. I liked the Konica portrait films too.

When I was doing industrial photography back around 88-98 I used all the different portrait films in 120 and 220 all the

time. They had better control of the contrast in bad light. Kodak VPS 160, Fuji NPS 160, then later the Kodak Portra 160

and 400 in NC and VC. I liked the Konica portrait films too.

<p>I'm really glad I asked this question. There are certainly a lot of interesting responses, and I hope there will be more. This idea of being able control contrast, as Dave mentions, where it might get out of hand with a more contrasty and saturated film in certain lighting conditions is very interesting. Then, too, for some, these portrait films just seem more natural.<br>

Then there is the idea that a film like Portra might also especially lend itself to making interesting B&W prints in digital post-processing, as if it were the unrecognized 3rd chromogenic black & white film, after Ilford's and Kodak's C-41 B&W offerings.<br>

Although, I started the question referring to color portrait-balanced films, I wonder now which B&W films might also have more of this great range of subtle contrast we associate with a color film like Portra? Are there B&W portrait films (whether anyone calls them that or not), and if there are, what other subjects do they do well with?</p>

<p>I used to use Vericolor II and then III for everything. And then I use Portra 160 for everything too until they introduced EKtar 100 then I use it for a number of non portrait use. I still like the color of Portra and contrast better but Ektar is much finer grain than Portra.</p>

<p>Portra Professional films are just amazing.</p>

<p>For many years, I used mostly Ektachrome. After my son was born, I had one camera with Ektachrome mostly for scenery pictures and one with VPS for most people pictures. Not that I didn't like Kodacolor, but I would rather not have exaggerated colors. When VPS went away, I used Portra NC 160 until I got a DSLR. I have used some E6 films since, and in more recent years, along with the DSLR, B&W film.<br>

I started B&W darkroom work when I was nine years old, partly because it was more affordable, and also more fun. In college I did some E6 darkroom work, even some Ektachrome 1993 prints from slides. <br>

It is in the last few years that I got back to B&W darkroom work.</p>

<p>Maybe not the exact condition of the question, but I have some rolls of Vericolor-3 left that expired mid 1990s. They're fairly low-contrast, almost pastel by now (frozen of course). I found the right conditions to shoot some a few weeks ago...<br>

<br /> I also started to use all the different Portras that were out half a decade or so ago... Landscape and nature photography, mostly. I was then - and continue to - shoot/ing all the different films possible (not so difficult any more) since they're going away so fast.</p>

<p>Now that I think of it, I also shot some of the Fuju brand that competed with Portra - but can't remember what it was called!<br>

<br /> I dread the future when everybody will have to shoot digicams and the only differences in palette is from photoshop zapping.</p>

<p>Robert, I would like to hear more about what conditions/subjects might be exploited with frozen Vericolor III that's been frozen since the mid '90s. Expired portrait film seems to me a subset of this group that is worth mentioning more than a little.</p>

<p>On expired vericolor-3: there was a photo I saw a few years ago on the web somewhere that I thought showed it well; maybe photonet, that I can't relocate (though I saved the thread somewhere - one advantage of having an internyet-free home is that I download the articles after work to read on the weekend and refer to later, so it's saved in the 'vericolor' folder in my komputer photo archives). The photo was of a weathered old building (roadhouse maybe?) in the desert. Soft colors. I'll try'n remember to look that up at home and reference it here later.<br>

Anyway, the little of this film I've shot had a similar low-contrast, muted color look (probably some fogging also which adds a little to this effect I think), but I haven't scanned any of that. At first I was disappointed that the contrast was low (looking at the negative exposures of the Kodak color chart and some other tests), then I thought about where I could use it...<br>

What I saw a couple weeks ago that I thought might work well: late winter here in Fairbanks Alaska; the sun still low but up until after 6pm now; a hazy sky thus soft light; sky a very pale light blue; late in day scene with a big metal industrial building (that tan color they often are) in a large work-yard, snow everywhere including roof of building; many tracks of forklifts, cranes, transports, etc, in snow of foreground - well-defined because of low sun; several yellow and black cranes casting shadows on the building; one or two gray flatbed transport trailers; in foreground all these silver ~1m diameter curvy conduit pipes of some sort resting on their wooden plinths. So low-contrast, softly-lit pastel scene, no bright colors, few dark areas (thus the snow cover helps), wide spaces and lenses (50mm and 65mm on RB67). Don't know if it'll look as fun when developed as I had describing it, but we hope! I shot a roll or two and will do one or two more of this and similar industrial areas. <br /> <br />As for expired film, I love it. It's become a big fad on the web nowadays (unfortunately driving prices on eb in last few years to insane levels), but I've been shooting expired for 20+ years, mostly because it (was) cheaper. Wow, I remember getting recently-expired 100' rolls of Fujichrome (more rarely, Ektachrome) from freestyle for $20... Dang. To me using expired - and thus usually 'mellowed' - emulsions adds another dimension to the 'diversity' of palettes that film already gives (compared to digi, where it will always look the same until circuit death). I usually don't go for film that's too 'wrecked', but stuff with some color 'mellowing. Such expired but not destroyed films are usually more 'different' from their in-date versions than one in-date film is from another. So it's like getting rare 'limited edition' emulsions. I miss Kodachrome, but I maybe miss my 1985 EPR-64 with its particular storage history and conditions more.<br>

Somewhere else here I might've mentioned my favorite expired (or any) film ever: mid-80s-expired EPR64... best browns and purples ever, with overall good palette and no color shift. Perfect for spring forest scenes (or fall) - all those brown leaves! All this looks a lot more realistic and compares favorably to the color I 'see' in nature as opposed to the hyper-colors of modern digi and even Fujichrome - not to mention the godawful HDR craze...<br>

As I looked on the web trying to find that first photo I mentioned (the desert scene) without success, I did see a lot of expired Vericolor shots. Though most were of the 'extreme damage' type that, while interesting and surely fun and surprising, isn't what I'm hoping for (unless this film has gone sour since last shot a few years back). I have about 9 rolls of 120 left!</p>

<p>For anything other than optimum conditions, I love portra 400. It's the best all round film I've ever used and allows me to handhold my mamiya 7 95% of the time. It's low contrast and saturation can be mostly dealt with in post processing. Those lovely people at Kodak even produce it in 220 rolls..</p>

<p>Robert, THANKS for all the detail about your use of expired portrait (and other film). This idea of it being valuable is new to me, and a bit unbelievable when I see prices people are expecting for ancient film on 'bay. Not so long ago I destroyed a stash of old film, mainly color print 35 mm, I hadn't gotten around to using, which had baked in a barely insulated attic room the last few years. I guess I could have auctioned it off online, but I just knew I wouldn't pay to have any of it processed, with what processing costs now. But I did get these ten rolls of frozen-since-new 1990s Vericolor III with my Koni-Omega, and I am wondering what they still have in them, as well as (reason for this thread) wondering what usefulness related portrait-balanced films have beyond portraiture...when I might occasionally buy a few fresher rolls of them in either 120 or 35mm.</p>

<p>Ben, thanks for the feedback on Portra 400. How would you compare its contrast, etc, to the slower Portra?</p>

<p>More on expired: I would guess that the expired Vericolor that Steve mentions (mine too) would have changed palette enough that using it as standard portrait film might not be good (unless a weird 'look' is needed), but for still life, architecture, landscape or whatever where we're more used to seeing a diversity of color it's great. One bit of advice, which I follow usually only partially (because it takes me so long to develop my film and then scan), is to shoot a couple-few early frames on different lighting conditions of a Kodak or other color chart, that way you can compare how far off different colors are, and decide what looks best for whatever use.<br>

I think most of the people (at least on the web) shooting expired film these days are into the 'damaged' or really weird' look, which is OK and exciting too, but I really like film that's not that far gone, just 'mellowed'. Maybe the difference in liking wine or cheese that's aged nicely compared to that which has turned into vinegar or a fuzzy glob of glop... (though far-out expired film with really weird colors I think are far more enjoyable than mouldy cheese - see [ http://photoroobit.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/film-test-orwochrom-ut-18-at-the-ruins-of-falkenstein-castle-burgruine-falkenstein/ ] for just one instance).</p>

<p>Robert, I like your notion of the mellowed or matured film palate. Getting those rolls of Verichrome III and starting to read about it and related films that I hadn't thought about buying or shooting before got me wondering about what else they could be applied to (hence this thread). I mainly imagined shooting B&W on this K-O rangefinder, but I had all this color film, what is it good for besides portraiture. Then, too, if its been frozen between 15 and 20 years what is it at that point? <br>

Do I understand you correctly that you suspect my Verichrome if it is like yours will give me more pastel hues and less contrast, but still resemble natural colors and grain sharpness??? ...as opposed to having a much more shifted false-color palette, like the images in that interesting linked webpage? Those images area quite interesting, but to me they look like black and white pictures that have been hand-colored with somewhat surreal colors. I would say that there is some loss of sharpness in places, but I don't know what sort of sharpness fresh Orwochrom UT would have. If my verichromeIII looks like THAT, I can imagine some landscapes, perhaps images of rural decay that might look very interesting with it. However, I am hoping that it retains a bit more of its original ability than that, which would make it more versatile in non-portrait work.</p>

<p>I have some rolls of VPL120 that I bought on eBay, I believe frozen since new, and now in my refrigerator. Now all I need is something to use them for. I would rather have VPS, though. I have a filter for tungsten balanced films to use with it.</p>

 

<p>Glen, on the other hand, shooting a tungsten-balanced film in daylight would be kind of like shooting daylight film with a strong warming filter, no? It might intensify sunsets, or brighten deeply overcast settings, give pale faces tans, hide rust on white cars by making them more golden.... Then again, if it has lost some of the original intensity or shifted hues at all while long frozen, perhaps the light-source balancing will become less or more apparent? It might be interesting if you shoot some shots with that filter for tungsten film and some without.</p>

<p>Shot a Mamiya 7 for many years with 400 speed film to supplement my tripod SLR work. Interestingly I found the new portra 400 quite grainy. The old 400nc-3 under a rodenstock loupe and in a 16x20 print appears quite a bit less grainy to my eyes than the new reformulated version. I realize Kodak's website says they lowered the grain but my eyes tell me something different. Thanks Kodak for increasing the grain and turning a beautiful film (400nc-3) into a candy colored oversaturated grainy consumer film not appropriate for Industrial work whatsoever. Long ago switched to Digital for handheld shooting at higher iso's which blows away the results of the M7 with its irregular framing and 80 percent coverage.<br>

Portra 160 is much more manageable and has retained the low grain and natural colors of its predecessor 160nc-2. Tripod required but I am always happy when I print that I had the wherewithal to use lower speed film. No 400 speed film other than Fuji 400X chrome has ever withstood much enlargement if one wants professional results. </p>