Is Portra Film "Soft?"

[ken_morano]

<p>I was talking to my local camera store owner - expressing dissapointment that, hard as I try, I couldn't extract a satisfactory amount of fine detail out of my film scans. When I told him I was using Portra 160, he commented, "That's your problem! Portra is a "portrait" film designed to smooth out the image to be more pleasing." He told me Ektar 100 would give more detail.<br>

I bought a role of Ektar from him and will try it out (seeing is believing) but does he have a point about Porta being soft by design?<br>

My test parameters:<br>

Digital camera "control": Panasonic LX5 jpegs<br>

Film Camera: Contax RX with Zeiss 28-85 zoom on tripod<br>

Film:Portra 160<br>

Scanner: Epson 4490 @ 4800 dpi, TIFF output</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>A sub $200 scanner is not going to give you good, much less excellent scans at 4800 from 35mm film, no matter which film you use.</p>

<p>Any current film will record detail down to the "grain level" if the lens can put it on the film. No, Porta 160 is not a soft film, it is just less saturated and contrasty than Ektar 100.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Ken,<br>

I use the same scanner and use a lot of Porta in in 35mm and MF. My results had been pleasing. The 4490's true optical resolution is between 1200-2400. I never scan above 1800 as the rest is achieved thorough software. I find that Porta scans very well. I do use a lot of Velvia, mainly 100 (not the F version) and find Porta to scan better than Velvia. I have no experience of Ektar. It is a saturated film. What with recent Kodak announcements of film division being put up for sale I wonder how long Ektar would be available.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Portra's razor sharp - your problem will be the scanner, you're never going to get reasonable results from a flatbed like this, especially with 35mm. Try scanning it on an Imacon or similar.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Portra is sharp (it has good resolution), but it is also a lower contrast film than Ektar. The lower contrast can give the appearance of "soft" focus.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Brooks x2</p>

[ken_morano]

<p>Thanks, everyone, for straightening out the "soft" issue.<br /> And sure, I know the the inherent limitation of using my flat bed scanner.<br /> Actually, however, the quality of the scans I get from my scanner are much better than the camera store scans!<br /> I do wonder why there is such a universal agreement that the Epson scanners are limited to an optical limitation of 2400 dpi. When I zoom in to compare scans at 2400 vs 4800 dpi I clearly see more detail at 4800. By detail, for example, I mean less stair-stepping along the hard edges. Crops from 4800 always look better than the same from 2400.</p>

<p>Interesting interpretation: Less contrast = soft appearance. I can understand that.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Basic minilab scans are 1000x1500 pixels for 35mm frames. You pay more for a higher rez scan. The basic scan is for printing a 4x6 inch print.</p>

 

[anthony_valvo]

<p>Its quite sharp. Here is a recent photo and a crop. This was scanned on my Nikon 5000 to about 20MP.<br>

Anthony</p><div></div>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>And the crop</p><div></div>

[andylynn]

I have an Epson v500 (almost the same as your scanner) and a Minolta Dual IV that somebody on Craigslist sold me

for $75. I've shot and scanned plenty of Portra film.

 

The Minolta scans are much, much more detailed than the Epson scans, even when the Epson is set to a higher DPI.

The Epson doesn't get anywhere near all the detail in Portra films. That's your weak link. (Unless you're always out of

focus or shooting handheld at slow shutter speeds or something.)

[jeff_livacich]

<p>If the camera store scans are that soft, they might be scanning at low resolution or there's something wrong with their scanner or scanning process.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>That scanner is pathetically inadequate for 35mm. I have the 4870, a step up from yours, and have also had (and returned, as it was no better for 35mm, a V700). It has a fixed focus lens, and essentially takes a blurry image at a high pixel count "resolution". The problem is the blurry imaging it does. You can scan it at 1200, 2400, 4800dpi, it doesnt really matter, as adding pixels just breaks trhat blurry image up into more pieces (pixels), increasing file size, but not useful resolution. <br>

Compare against a scan from a dedicated film scanner, and you will see a world of difference. Including from a minimlab scanner. If you labs scans are that bad, find a new lab, or send to West Coast Photographic (see Ken Rockwells site for samples) to see what a minilab scan should look like. those are $12,000 -$45,000 scanners, they can do an awesome scan if the right person is running it. Or even a Scan Dual IV, you will see a huge increase in sharpness and resolution.</p>

<p>Good choice of cameras too, BTW. I am also a Contax fan, they are nice cameras with great CZ optics!</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Here are some typical scan samples from dedicated film scanners. Therse are unsharpened, straight from the scanner samples. </p>

<p>First, a minilab film scanner, the most excellent Kodak (Pakon) f235 Plus film scanner.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/sets/72157623617704226/</p>

<p>Second, the Nikon Coolscan 9000. These are 35mm scans of Fuji Provia 400x. No sharpening or Photoshop, straight from the scaner:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/sets/72157624706161656/</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Click on an image, then in the upper right hand under "actions", select "view all sizes"</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Final comment: You will get SIGNIFICANTLY better scans from your Epson with slide film. Sharper, and with far less grain, and better resolution. You will actually be able to easily sharpen the resulting files too, similar to digital, without resorting to blurring filters for grain reduction. Yes, I know, you have read many times on the Web that slide film is harder to scan. Baloney, one of the great myths out there. Try 1 roll, and see what a difference it will make! Just make sure you shooot it with a camera that has a working meter, and dont take images in ultra high contast situations (you shouldnt be shooting then anyways, digital, neg, or slide).</p>

<p>This is a scan slide from my Epson 4870 at 1000x1500 resolution. </p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>

[chrisnielsen]

I agree with the above, I have that 4490 and it is horrible for 35mm. I upgraded to a used Coolscan IV and ever looked

back. The 4490 is so unsharp I couldn't tell that my lenses were not focussing properly, with the Nikon it is obvious,

[john_shriver]

<p>If you scan and print Portra 160 without increasing the contrast, the resulting prints will look dead. You wind up with lower contrast than reality. You need to play with curves a little to put some snap in the prints. It has low contrast to avoid losing highlights and shadows in wedding portraits (white gown, black tux).<br>

This isn't necessary with Portra 400, which has a natural contrast.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Porta is low in contrast and grainier than Ekta but I don't think it's soft.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Scanner: Epson 4490 @ 4800 dpi, TIFF output</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lol.</p>

<p>Ken, I have an Epson v500 which I assume is pretty similar to a 4490. I would NEVER scan at 4800 dpi. The most I would do is scan at 3200 and then downsize for printing. TRUE 4000 dpi scanning is putting you in the realm of $1,000+ pro dedicated film scanners.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html">Read this review of the Epson v600</a> which is similar to the v500 I own...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>In order to achieve the maximum resolution of 1560ppi</strong>, one does not have only to scan the with the highest optical resolution but it is sufficient to <strong>digitalize the original with 3200ppi</strong>. The effectively achieved resolution does not differ, no matter if one scans with 3200ppi or with 6400ppi - in both cases, an effective resolution of 1560ppi will be achieved! By this way, it does not make sense to scan with the Epson Perfection V600 Photowith 6400ppi</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If resolution is what you want I would wait and see what the <a href="http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/introduction.html">Plustek OpticFilm 120</a> does when it is finally released. I have been eying that rig for quite some time. I doubt it will be sub $800 though and could very well be double that.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Never had a sharpness with Portra. You've got a great camera, quality lens, tripod. Unless there some problem with how your taking the pic, or if the lens is somehow having a back-focus or other focus issue, i'm betting its your scanner. When you look at the neg under a loop, what does it look like? </p>

[donbright]

<p>Portra films are perfect!</p>

[ken_morano]

<p>Thank you all again for your suggestions. There is a professional store in my area that charges significantly more for their best negative scans. I'll try them out, though, so I can objectively measure the softness induced by my own scanner. </p>

[rossb]

<p>I noticed that with my V500 Epson scanner I had difficulty with sharpness with my photos and also some other issues. I finally decided to buy the Plutek scanner and I am very pleased with it. It is a slow scanner however but I am ok with that. However Portra film is not soft in my opinion. I guess from my experience it is the best film I have used for color. </p>