Kodak Portra 400 Print Size

Hi everyone!

I am shooting a print editorial next month with a Canon F1N which is a 35mm and was wondering if Kodak Portra 400 would be good enough (obviously with good scans) for the printing size of a magazine.

Thank you all so much and have a beautiful day,

Daniel xx

What's changed in the 2 weeks since you last posted the same question?

Apart from that you've had time to try out the film and camera for yourself.

Personally, I wouldn't be using a 400 ISO print film in 35mm size for A4 reproduction. YMMV

What's changed in the 2 weeks since you last posted the same question?

 

Apart from that you've had time to try out the film and camera for yourself.

 

Personally, I wouldn't be using a 400 ISO print film in 35mm size for A4 reproduction. YMMV

that's exactly what I was going to ask.

Daniel, you've got several advise on this subject 2 weeks ago, here's the thread: 35mm camera + Kodak Portra 400 for Magazine

Hi everyone!

 

I am shooting a print editorial next month with a Canon F1N which is a 35mm and was wondering if Kodak Portra 400 would be good enough (obviously with good scans) for the printing size of a magazine.

 

Thank you all so much and have a beautiful day,

 

Daniel xx

See our responses from 2 weeks ago here: 35mm camera + Kodak Portra 400 for Magazine

I might have said this on the other thread, but okay.

Color film has dye clouds instead of grain. They have softer edges and so are not so visible.

Next, you get to the halftone screen, presumably used by the magazine.

That will mostly be the resolution limit.

Find out what screen will be used, report here, and we will find something to say about it.

Hi everyone yes! I posted that but after mentioning I would use Kodak Portra 400 nobody answered back so I was wondering.

Thanks!

Here's my take on this:

It's a paid assignment right?

If so, then you owe it to your client and to your own reputation to deliver the best quality images possible - within the budget, timescale and profitability margin.

A paid assignment is not the time to be experimenting with an unknown (to you) film or camera. The results others get from a given film may not be what you acheive. Experiment on your own time, and at your own expense; not your client's.

Talk to the client/printer and ask specifically what's needed. I'm pretty sure the printer won't like handling 35mm colour negatives directly, and that would put the responsibility and cost back onto you to get scans done - expensive and time consuming! That's on top of the turnaround time and expense of finding a good, fast and reliable C41 processor.

Does the fee cover those additional costs and leave you a decent profit?

It sounds to me like you've suddenly decided, for whatever reason, to use 35mm film. Maybe after shooting digital. All well and good, but your responsibility to your client comes first. Your own preferences and whims should come a very poor second.

So if your client wants press-ready digital files with an embedded profile, then that's what you should deliver to them. With the best image and colour quality and at the lowest cost possible - and if that means shooting digital, then so be it.

Here's my take on this:

It's a paid assignment right?

If so, then you owe it to your client and to your own reputation to deliver the best quality images possible - within the budget, timescale and profitability margin.

 

A paid assignment is not the time to be experimenting with an unknown (to you) film or camera. The results others get from a given film may not be what you acheive. Experiment on your own time, and at your own expense; not your client's.

 

Talk to the client/printer and ask specifically what's needed. I'm pretty sure the printer won't like handling 35mm colour negatives directly, and that would put the responsibility and cost back onto you to get scans done - expensive and time consuming! That's on top of the turnaround time and expense of finding a good, fast and reliable C41 processor.

 

Does the fee cover those additional costs and leave you a decent profit?

 

It sounds to me like you've suddenly decided, for whatever reason, to use 35mm film. Maybe after shooting digital. All well and good, but your responsibility to your client comes first. Your own preferences and whims should come a very poor second.

 

So if your client wants press-ready digital files with an embedded profile, then that's what you should deliver to them. With the best image and colour quality and at the lowest cost possible - and if that means shooting digital, then so be it.

Thanks so much for the reply! I was thinking of shooting both film and digital as back up.

I was gonna be experimenting beforehand with some film as it is in 2 weeks and have some time before hand.

Thanks!

If the article is about film photography, then they should be done with film.

For both:

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4051_Portra_160.pdf

http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4050_Portra_400.pdf

the MTF curves go out to 80 cycles/mm, or in digital terms for

a 24x36mm frame, 3840x5760 pixels.

(In the digital case, there is normally an optical low pass filter, and

in the film case, the response decreases toward the end. That makes

them, as well as I can tell, close enough.)

I suspect both films should work fine.

As noted, you should practice some, get used to the camera, verify that the

meter is somewhat close. (Portra has the large exposure latitude usual

for C41 films.)

If you don't have auto-focus, you will want some practice to get good

at manual focus. All that resolution doesn't help if you are not

in focus in the first place.