35mm camera + Kodak Portra 400 for Magazine

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by danielscheel, Aug 10, 2018.

  1. Hi everyone!

    I am shooting a print editorial next month and just got myself a Canon F1N.

    I am planning on shooting it with Kodak Portra 400 and was wondering if the resolution and everything would be good enough when printed magazine size (would get really good scans done).

    Thank you and have a beautiful day!

    Daniel xx
     
  2. Why are you even considering shooting an assignment on a film you've never used before?

    Especially with a camera that's new to you.
     
  3. One of the few times I agree with rodeo. :) What have you used for previous shoots? What will you be shooting this time?
     
  4. AJG

    AJG

    You're potentially using a professional caliber camera and film, but I would echo the above two comments about doing a professional job with unknown tools--I certainly would never do it for a paying customer.
     
  5. Hi Daniel, to answer your question, Portra 400 should be good for magazine prints if you get high quality scans from a good lab. If I was you I would get the highest scan resolution possible (4492×6774) Works very well for advertising, giant prints and large posters.
    I shot the image below on my Canon Elan7 with expired (2003) Fujichrome Sensia. BUT you have to understand the concerns from other's replies. Have you tested the new camera? You have to ensure there are no light leaks, shutter works etc etc.
    Sensia100-Elan7-Jenna-Victoria-080418 (33).jpg
     
  6. The short answer is yes. You do need a proper scanner, like a Flextight X5. Most other scanners exaggerate grain. If you can, try and use a cinema scanner (4K minimum). I've seen 16mm scans from pushed 500T that look better than 135 scans from an Epson, Pakon, Plustek, Noritsu, etc. If you have the light, overexpose by maybe 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop.

    I am not aware of your level of expertise, but I should mention that you need to use physical filters for white balance if the colour cast is pronounced enough. You don't need to get 100% of the correction done with filters, but if you get it mostly right during exposure, fixing the WB properly on the computer will be easy. If you don't use filters, some colours might or will be wrong, and post processing can't fix that. In any case, take a reference shot or two with a white balance card - a gray card will do if you don't have one.

    There's no shame in taking along a digital camera to preview your exposures, or to take WB readings. I would!
     
    msantanaphoto likes this.
  7. If you're going to take along a digital camera, then why shoot film at all? Apart from some perceived but nonsensical 'bragging rights'.

    Any reasonably recent digital camera with 12 megapixels or more will totally outperform 400 ISO 35mm print film.

    That aside: Do you have any decent Canon FD or FL lenses to fit that old F1n. It won't take Eos lenses.
     
  8. Gee, maybe the OP really likes film? I don't know, I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark.
     
    Moving On and ben_hutcherson like this.
  9. It's certainly good enough but did you test your camera to make sure that it works correctly?
     
  10. why not shoot film?
     
  11. I carry both digital and film all the time.
    And waddayaknow, a phone camera as well most of the time.

    I also frequent both subjects on this site.......
    ......... as do many others.

    ;) ;)

    I’ve often wondered why folks carry camping gear in an automobile.
     
  12. I still wear shoes made from animal hide, pants made from cotton, and my watch has no battery.
    My house has electric lights and candles,
    a porcelain cast iron wood burning stove and electric heat,
    a ceiling fan and central air,
    cast iron cookware and a microwave,
    a Bose Wave radio,cds, an IPod, and a turntable wired to a computer and a huge stack of vinyl,
    framed are art prints, color and black and white photos, and one portrait of a Civil War General in charcoal on my walls,
    a Colt HBAR Elite and a Single action Army Long Colt .45.

    But I’m sure that’s just me......
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2018
  13. Still an open question, how much practice with the camera and film before one is ready for publishable results.

    Personally, I always liked Portra 160 over Portra 400, but that wasn't asked.

    The dye clouds on color film are much less visible than the sharp silver grain edges of black and white film.

    Still, I suspect I would go for Portra 160 to be sure.
     

Share This Page

1111