Interesting short Portra 160 review

[mauro_franic]

<p>http://shutterfinger.typepad.com/shutterfinger/2011/06/kodak-portra-160-user-review.html</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I just got my first 35mm roll back. Time to scan...</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Interesting how the new Portra colors are so different than the D7000's.</p>

<p><b>Image removed. As per the Photo.net TOU, please do not post images that you did not create yourself. If oyu need to reference another photographer's work, a link will work just fine</b></p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I will shoot it as well shortly.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>The D7000 actually has noticeably better dynamic range and color information (yeah, I know, phrases like that shouldn't be written on the film board) than you'd expect from small sensor digital. You could make a closer approximation of Portra's look if you were trying to. OTOH, this Portra also gives you a lot to work with. Here are three treatments of one shot from my first roll, which I shot on my 500cm but didn't post because I made some user errors and it came out only "quite good" and not "good enough for showing off a new film good".</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

<blockquote>

<p>No actually it isn't just because this is the film board but that there is no digital today that has anywhere near the dynamic range of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're preaching to the choir. What I'm saying is, the digital shot is not as close an approximation of the Portra shot as you could make, if that's what you were trying to do - assuming the shot was exposed well, it's got enough information to do a better job on the skin tone. I think this shot was actually either underexposed or not processed with the same amount of care as the good lab gave to the film scan - it's just that it's not a good comparison for saying that the Portra and digital color are very different.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>In some places this conversation can get you banned. :-) I try to tell people it is apples and oranges but they always want fruit salad. Another term I hate is when someone is talking about film and they say noise instead of grain.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>How did he get the first picture to look so good in 800x528 pixels? My posted pictures have so many more artifacts at more pixels. What am I doing wrong?</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>The scanner?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Hmmm. Well I am using an Epson V600 flat bed scanner.</p>

[andylynn]

Those scans were done on a nikon scanner that's higher end and considerably more expensive than your epson. You

wouldn't be able to make 100% crops look like that.

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>This is another review of Portra 160 in 120:</p>

<p>http://figitalrevolution.com/2011/02/21/new-kodak-professional-portra-160-film-new-negative-c41-scan-hybri/</p>

<p>What I'm seeing is that even with sensors with the highest currently available photosite densities, Portra 160 matches those sensors (per sq. mm) in resolution. But this is for FX and DX sensors.</p>

<p>I wonder: how would these results translate when compared to high-end digital backs? Obviously you would have to compare like with like. My best is that even an 80Mpx back won't out-resolve Portra 160 by very much, if at all. And we're just talking in terms of detail, not in terms of latitude or any other criteria.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Must try some this summer. I'm gona have a summer of B&W film but I will try and shoot a few rolls of color too.<br>

Alan you won't get the same quality of scans from your v600 but you should be able to produce scans from 35mm that are fine for web uploads and smaller sized prints. 100% crops from flat beds never look great and the max resolution is around or less than 2000ppi. Here's one from a v500 and 35mm film the film was Agfa Portrait 160.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I notice Alan that you are not talking about the 100% crop just the full frame image. You should be able to get good web sized images from you V600. Here is another flatbed scan from 35mm.</p><div></div>

[OPK]

<p>here is an example of my test shot with new Portra 160 on medium format 6x7. scan was made on miniLab in low resolution.</p><div></div>

[OPK]

<p>....and a crop</p><div></div>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Martin, that is fabulous. </p>

<p>Stuart, I hope to hear how you like the XD11. It is my favorite.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>Portra 160 in 120 looks like nirvana for the studio.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Stephen's article at the Figital Revolution (the second link posted) is excellent and spot-on. Stephen stops by to the store I work at every couple weeks and we have a chat while his film is developing, and I have to say that everything seems to 'stick' better when you're told in person, as opposed to hearing it online. In person, there's never any wonder if someone is paying them to say something.</p>

<p>That said, I agree with almost everything he's said in his reviews. I don't like Ektar nearly as much as he does, but otherwise his results mirror mine. I love the new Portra (400 and 160) as a good all-around film, and the grain sctructure really is tiny. The only reason it isn't my favourite film is because it often looks too clean for me. With the old 400 NC I can overexpose by two stops, make a black and white in Lightroom, and between the tonal range and the grain pattern it looks very much like 400 TMAX, with the advantage that I can automate skin touch-ups (while still in colour), and I don't need to process it myself.</p>

<p>Of course I can't really get the old Portra too easily now, so I need to find a new favourite.</p>

<p>Other than the subjective (not right for me) and a very small objective (slight colour shift when overexposed), I have nothing bad to say about either film. The 400 is slightly sharper so it's probably a better go-to film, but the 160 is perfect for anyone that wishes they could afford a 40 MP Phase One back.</p>

<p>And you can push it past 125 if you like. I use 100 as my 'standard', but you can go to 50 if you're going to make black and whites out of them. I mean you can go to 50 anyway, but then there's that colour shift again.</p>

<p>Lastly, I want to push Stephen's site again. <a href="http://www.figitalrevolution.com">www.figitalrevolution.com</a> . The guy really knows what he's talking about. We have plenty of people that come into the store and talk and talk about tech stuff, and most of them are full of it. Stephen is one of the few guys that actually knows his stuff well, and has good things to tell us. He's been VERY helpful in teaching us about new product, sometimes before the manufacturers are even shipping it to the stores. Thanks to him and his generosity, I was one of the first people (other than reviewers) to ever shoot a roll of the new Portra, months before is started shipping.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Mauro you've been away for a while? I posted a bunch of photos in this thread from my first roll.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Yddp</p>

<p>The XD11 is a great camera. I like the way the shutter dial falls to the finger tip when shooting. Very smooth shutter release big bright viewfinder (unlike D80). Looking forward to shooting some more B&W film during the summer.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>I saw the video, and while Stephen makes some good points, such as the fact that film may help SOME photographers stand out against the digital crowd (probably a marginal number, though, because most clients just don't care), a lot of his conclusions are based on his intuitions and feelings about the industry. </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Scott, I cannot comment on how accurate Stephen's observations on the industry are. As an educator (primarily), most of my knowledge comes from what I read online or in magazines, so I have no first-hand knowledge to confirm or refute what he says.</p>

<p>All I meant was that I have yet to disagee with him on technical things. When he says, "Film X is good for job Y and bad for job Z, and can be exposed at settings A, B, and C with good results," my own experimentation almost always bares that out. Except, again, that I have no idea why he (and other people) are so into Ektar. Yes, I understand that it is saturated and has a fine grain, but colours that aren't red don't look nearly as good, and the tonal range is awful narrow; I feel like it has about the same pros and cons as slide film, except that it's a reversal film.</p>

[mauro_franic]

Those are awesome Stuart. Ive just been incredibly busy without the bandwidth to participate.

 

Nice first roll and great model.

[larrydressler]

<p>Remember when grain and color and saturation were not all used in the same sentence? Wh knew Kodachrome and the early E6 films had grain. But then they had color and than we invented saturation then we came up with fine grain with our color then C22 became c41 and grain and color came into that and was refined... we ended up with Velvia Ektar and all kinds of things but we still never put all 3 in the same sentence.</p>

[clgriffin]

<blockquote>

<p>Another term I hate is when someone is talking about film and they say noise instead of grain.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>And I get disturbed when people mistake color dye clouds for grain.</strong></p>