Anyone try the new Kodak Portra films yet?

Has anyone tried the new Kodak Portra films yet? If so, which ones and what are your impressions?

Kevin,

thanks for pointing this out, I will definitely give them a try. However, judging by the posts that I normally see here, I think that the film users are in the minority here (although I am one of them, the dinosaur that I am). Maybe you will have better luck posting in the film & processing forum if you don't have much response here.

 

Good shooting,

Doug

Thanks Doug, I'll check that out. Gotta watch out for the blowing tumbleweeds in here! ;-)

We might be the minority here, but we are the majority in the real world. Weddings are still over 50% film, in fact one of the areas that has held out the best. Of all the wedding photographers I've seen, I'd say it was 70-30 in favor of film. I tried to get the Portra II for my wedding this past Saturday (I shot Portra 400NC with a Mamiya RB 67 & Mam. C220, Portra 160NC 35mm with a Minolta SLR), but as far as I could tell, B&H sent me Portra-I. I think stock is still turning over. Dodd Camera in Cleveland didn't have any in yet, although Cleveland's got sh it for film users anymore. I have a wedding in November, and I'm going to make certain that it is shot on Portra-II. If improvements are anywhere near as good as they were when Kodak introduced the same technology in motion picture film, you are talking about a 10-20% reduction in grain with the same speed. That's a real improvement. It's like shooting a 200 grain film with 400 speed, or like waking up one day and having a 12MP digital camera instead of a 10. So you could crop in one "letter" more with the same grain, in theory, using medium format and the standard Lucht crops.

 

Regards,

 

~Karl Borowski

<i>Weddings are still over 50% film,</i><p>

 

yeah, fun with statistics, a favorite game here in the land of make believe. <p>

 

here's a good one......100% of people who make broad sweeping statements about something as vast as the worldwide wedding market without qualifing that they're talking about their own small market are wrong. <p>

Lucas who?

Now, now lads ... ease up a bit. Different strokes for different folks.

 

A poll taken here awhile ago revealed more film shooter than one would expect. I think

there are a fair amount of dual users out there also.

 

Kevin, if you get your hands on some please share your impressions ... especially if you

scan it. I'm itching to make the leap to an Imacon scanner, and a couple of great film

images will be just the nudge I need to make the plunge : -)

 

I'm up to my eyeballs in digital processing with no end in site, and could use a break.

Maybe I'll shoot this Saturday's wedding with the Hasselblad and M film cameras.

 

It's strange this thread came up. I was updating my p.n portfolio, and a surprising % of

them are from film shots.

Funny, Marc, I'm looking at a scanner upgrade myself, although an Imacon won't be in my

budget. Their older models pop up on the used market from time to time for a reasonable

price, though. I hear good things about Epson's V750 but I have to do some more

research.

 

To my eyes, the only advantage in digital capture over film for wedding work is low-light

noise levels (the resolution advantage, while impressive, doesn't matter to me) so if

Kodak's new 800 is an improvement over NPZ in that regard, then it'll be worth a look, but

B&H isn't stocking it yet, from what I can tell.

I think the current Portra 800 is the improved one, and has been out since spring so most

(B&H) would probably have it. I too have been eagerly awaiting the new Portras and have

communicated recently with Kodak regarding it, and they are still sticking to the '4th Q'

party line. I guess they assume nobody does wedding from Nov to March but here in

Hawaii we're still shooting away. Kodak took away all the reps so there's nobody to pull

strings and score me the 'pro' roll, all there is those repetive P.N. ads and no product,

must be the new 'strategery' where they announce something way before to build 'buzz'.

Yawn.

I understand the strategy. With the lessening of film use, dealer stock moves slower.

Placing the improved product in stock would undermine moving the older versions still out

there.

 

Kevin, isn't that Epson a flat bed? Not the greatest for 35mm from my experience. I know

that model is an improvement, but the dedicated scanners are still quite a bit better as far

as I can tell. They work pretty well for MF stuff though.

 

We were just discussing the use of film on the Leica Users Forum, and I think film is being

judged by screen views rather than viewed as prints. In my experience, film scans don't

look so great on screen compared to digital images, but when printed actually look better

to my eye. This is based on using a high res MF back then swapping out for a film back

with everything else remaining the same. The key is the scanning ... a really good scanner

and the best software you can afford. The dicipline isn't the same as with digital capture, a

new set of skills have to be aquired to maximize film scanning. It's an art unto itself, but

worth the effort once you get it down pat.

Think I'll have to spring for the Nikon 5000 Marc, as that's more in my price range. I do

wonder if Sony has plans to upgrade the Minolta 5400, though.

 

FWIW, Kodak claims that their new Portra 800 has "best in class underexposure lattitude."

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra800/portra800.jhtml?

id=0.2.22.14.7.14.26.7&lc=en

Do you want me to friggin' cite sources Lucas? I read it in a photographic business publication, didn't pull it out of my ass. The only inference I made is that it is MORE film oriented for weddings here in my area than the average is. Sorry that me and everyone that still shoot film and care about getting highest possible quality don't all blindly subscribe to the "Photo.net" style of wedding photography where "Hey, I just got a 20D, How do I shoot a wedding?" seems to be the norm rather than the exception.

if you're going to present statistical information as fact then yes, I wouldn't mind if you cited your sources.

 

If you meant to infer or imply that you were only referring to YOUR area or market thats fine, but I didn't get that from your post.

 

where I work there are only 2 serious wedding photographers left shooting primarily film. so I guess in the "real world" 98% of wedding photographers use digital?

 

and karl, absolutely no offense is meant, but from your posts it would seem you own a film only lab and just started shooting weddings in May of this year, so while I get that you're very firmly anti-digital I hope you don't mind if I take your replies with a grain of salt.

 

and the "photo.net style" you refer to is a function of this being a public board with no requirements for posting. There are private forums that cater only to professionals if you find this place too over run with 20Ds.

Strange how the ladies here never seem to get involved in these little bouts of one-upmanship. They must know that REAL photographers only shoot real b&w film in unmetered rangefinder Leicas, never use flash, rarely need to use a meter, know exactly what their lenses cover before ever raising a camera to their eye, and always get tack sharp perfectly exposed, nicely composed, well lit photographs...no pixels for them!

Yes, Al!

I just called my phone Co. hanged up a few times when males answered the call, until a lady came up and helped me right away. With boychiks it's either "unfortunately, that's unavailable" or "a part of a package" or "can you hold please" or "our computer network is down"... They are less flexible and their attention span is something else.. Fun to observe though.

 

The question was about new iteration of Portra btw

This one, however, likes to read posts, hoping to find useful information. On another aspect of film and printing from film or scanning--I have often wondered why optically made prints look different than digitally made prints, whether from scanned film or from digital sources. To me, a well done optically made print has a glow to the skintones which the best digital prints don't have. It's as if the optical prints start from white and digital prints start from gray, or black. I may be flamed, but I've wondered why. Anyone care to agree, disagree or provide answers or speculate?

Nadine, in my experience there are a number of factors contributing to the printed

difference. However, better digital prints can come close if not equal an analog print in

many ways.

 

Here's what I have learned since we last discussed this subject:

 

First is the scan itself. Most scanners produce pretty harsh representations of the film. My

Minolta 5400 and Multi-Pro produce harsh grain effect even from C-41 B&W films ... which

are so grain free in an optical enlarger that they are hard to fine focus even with a

magnifier.

 

That's because a scanner's light source is pretty direct. In comparison, optical enlargers

usually have a diffused light source which produces a more pleasing effect visually when

printed. Some users of the Minolta scanners have taken to modifiying their scanner's light

source or to the use of a diffuser that mounts on the film holder to produce a similar

effect. There is a web-site dedicated to the Multi-Pro that gets into all the tech stuff to

accomplish this, as well as other techniques to improve film scans.

 

The only scanner that I know of that has this "diffusion" factor built in is the later model

Imacon 949 ... which is a commercial level scanner at a mind boggling cost.

 

An interesting side note on the above is how some big name photographers have gotten

around this light source problem. They print the neg optically, and scan the print on a

high end flat bed to get the image into the digital domain. After reading this I tried it, and

it works like a charm ... very faithful to the original, and a lot easier to retouch ... plus you

can then make any number of identical prints from the file.

 

I have scanned 5X5 custom Hasselblad proofs this way, scanned them on my Epson 4870

flatbed, improved them in Photoshop and made 8X8 album inkjets that rival optical

reproductions in quality.

 

Then there is the software. They are not created equal. Some are way better than others.

The really good programs are not used by the labs because they are time consuming and

require real skill and knowledge of photographic printing. But if you are doing your own

scans, they are well worth it.

 

The next factor is the ink jet printer. These are improving. But even existing ones are often

used straight instead of in conjunction with dedicated RIP, which improves performance

and results. I am very interested in the new Epson 22" wide printer because of yet more

advancements and it can be ordered with a dedicated RIP for a few hundred dollars more

rather than the steep cost RIP software used to be.

 

In addition, there are 3rd party inks for most of these inkjets that up the performance for

fine art prints beyond that of the inks provided by the manufacturers. Ones that eliminate

"bronzing" and other effects that plague inkjet prints. Many people won't use these

because they think it voids their warranty ... a myth the manufacturers love because it

keeps you buying their inks ... which is where they really make their profits.

 

The paper used is also an important factor. For important B&W inkjets I have been using

Crane's Museo Silver Rag ... which is double weight and looks like a silver print to such a

degree that photographer friends have difficulty telling my Leica M shots printed in the

darkroom verses the same neg scanned/printed on an inkjet with this paper.

 

In short, it's getting better, but takes some effort ... which we would do in the darkroom

but most won't do with digital reproduction. No pain, no gain.

Here are the spec's on this paper I mentioned. The hype that it's another reason to sell off the

darkroom gear isn't to far off the mark : -)

 

One other aspect to good printing of digital prints from film scans is understanding the

difference on screen between a digital camera file and a scan file. The scan file doesn't look

as good on screen as a digital file ... but the film scan often looks better when actually

printed.<div></div>

Thanks for explaining, Marc. I understand about the diffusion light source from my days printing in a darkroom, and I understand how this is different from a scanner's light source. However, I guess I don't really know how a digital print is made--not using an inkjet printer--on photo paper. In other words, what is the process going from a file to a print on photo paper at your typical lab and why that would not be as nice as optical prints... I can kind of understand that it would be similar, if not the same, in concept re the rasterizing process, but I get stuck visualizing the part where normally, a piece of photo paper is exposed by light. In this part of the process for digital prints, is no light involved? Sorry to sound uneducated.

Also, on flatbed scanning of custom optically printed prints, don't you have to use a glossy paper to avoid the texture coming through on the scan? And don't the shadows and highlights block up or are flatbeds that much better now?

Hi Nadine. I'm not sure about lab printers that you've experienced. But I know how

machines like the Fuji Frontier work. Film is scanned and translated into digital data, that

data is then fed to a solid state RGB laser that precisely exposes traditional type light

sensitive photo paper to light ... most likely in a scan like movement across the paper. I do

not know how the paper used compares to traditional silver print papers.

 

I suspect that if you do not get the same quality as a traditional analog print, that one

culprit may be the scans themselves for the reasons I've mentioned above. These digital

printers, RGB Laser, Dye Thermal or Ink-Jet, are ruthlessly accurate when tuned correctly,

because the data is incredibly detailed and regimented to non random pixels. So, the data

going in is incredibly important.

 

An interesting experiment would be to have a really good scan printed by the lab on a Fuji

Frontier, then also print it on a high-end ink-jet, and then have a traditional silver print

made ... all from the same neg.

 

I'm getting better and better results from my home ink-jet printer, and just today made a

huge commitment to continuing the use of film by purchasing a Imacon 949 scanner ...

which does have the more diffused light source, a true D-Max of 4.9 and scans a 35mm @

up to 8000 dpi in under 2 minutes. So with-in a month I'll report back the results.

 

When I get it, I'd be happy to scan one of your Hasselblad negs and pull an Ink-jet for you

to look at ... as well as give you the scan file on a CD to have printed at your lab.

Just saw your other post Nadine.

 

The custom prints I've scanned on a flat bed were done by me in my darkroom years ago

on Zone VI Brilliant papers which have a fairly smooth finish. Same with the color Proofs

that I've scanned from my lab. Glossy or mat makes no difference.

 

What is surprising is that I've actually been able to improve on the original prints from the

darkroom because PhotoShop has so many controls that are easy to impliment compared

to doing it in the darkroom.

 

My scanner is a Epson 4870 Photo which works very well, doesn't block up the darks ... but

it has been superceeded by even better flatbeds. These are NOT the flatbeds of just a

couple of years ago, take my word for it.

 

I use mine to do contact sheets. The scanner comes with holder to do that. What's cool is

that you can somewhat correct individual frames if you wish in PS after scanning.

Thanks again for the info, Marc. I guess I understand the laser printing since I used to have a small business graphics outfit that used slide recorders (in those days), and the principle is the same. Three passes (RGB) on a small tube that exposed slide film.

 

Now, I still think that digital prints made from files from digital cameras are still not as nice as optical prints. What is up with that process, if I may ask for more of your thoughts? The source info isn't from a scan, so the diffusion lighting or scan quality aren't issues there. Maybe it has something to do with the analog process itself, but what?

 

I'm printing out your responses for further thought and reference, since I have to make some decisions about scanning both my medium format and 35mm film at some decent quality level. I can't afford an Imacon.

as doug said, wrong forum, sorry kev.

Nadine, I think you have the same impression that I do. Not everyone shares the POV that

digital capture lacks something that using film provides. But it IS in the eye of the

beholder and that cannot be ignored on a personal basis if there is some sort of personal

satisfaction to be gleaned from this work we do.

 

So, while pragmatically we can say the client probably won't notice, the fact is WE do ...

and it's disappointing to lose something by so called "advancing forward".

 

I sure the heck wouldn't be investing such a huge part of my company's profit margin in

such an expensive option as the Imacon 949 if I truly didn't believe that. However, I know

from experience that while exercising this option will bring more ease, speed and some

incremental improvement in quality, it isn't necessary to the use of film. The Minolta

Multi-Pro is a fabulous scanner, as most likely is the dedicated Nikon MF scanner. Frankly,

if MF is the primary objective the latest Epson photo Flatbed is getting rave reviews. I have

used my lesser model to scan Hasselblad shots with excellent results.

 

IMO, film shots, scanned or analog, look better when printed in any manner (optically,

Laser or Ink-jet) to my eye ... and I don't necessarily need to know why, they just do. Until

that changes dramatically, I will continue to use film as part of my wedding mix ... and for

most, if not all, my personal work.

 

Now for the uninitiated reading this and thinking I must not have the digital experience, or

good enough gear, rest assured I do ... including the best digital machines available.

These are absolutely necessary to survive in the commercial sector ... where for the most

part everything is digital, or you're dead meat : -)