Who prefer's a portrait-balanced film for non-portrait uses?

[curtis_bouvier]

<p>I have some albums you can look at that explore many different things aside from skin. I shoot practically every type of film available.<br>

Portra 160 & 400 = http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisarthur/sets/72157626199229883/<br>

Portra 800 = http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisarthur/sets/72157632463167423/<br>

Kodak Gold = http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisarthur/sets/72157628093895218/<br>

I find the kodak gold performs exceptionally well for how much it's worth.</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>Curtis, thanks for posting the links to those galleries.</p>

[john_photos]

<p>To the original poster; If you really want to see what a specific emulsion looks like without viewing the prints might I suggest flickrhivemind.com ???? <br>

flickrhivemind.com and other search engines are great resources. As the saying goes; search engines are your friend. U can search on a specific emulsion and see what it looks likes in regards to the subjects you prefer. If you are interested in how specific filters alter hues in sunsets have you ever thought of purchasing some materials on the basics of photographic filtering and reading them? i.e what is the difference between an 85a vs an 85b filter? </p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I don't have a lot of experience with portrait-specific films, but I've used Portra in 120 and I must admit that I really like it a lot. I've not used it for portraits yet, either. It does a fine job of rendering all the bling and farkles on Harley's, though.</p>

<p>Bronica ETRSi, 75mm f/2.8, Portra 160:<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/strandharleysetrsi4.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="654" /></p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/strandharleysetrsi3.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="668" /></p>

<p>Portra gives me nice, saturated reds, too, which I like:<br>

<img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/seagulls1a.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I sure hope Kodak wises up and keeps Portra in production. I like it better than Ektar.</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>John, thanks for sending me to flickrhivemind. I'll take your advice to try it as a way to see what people have been shooting on certain emulsions. As for filters, I don't use them very often, but I've read many a pamphlet, article, and book about using them over the years. I am probably more likely to use some of my filters for black-and-white in the near term, than the light-source-balancing ones. I think my only mention of filters in this thread was speculating about what might happen with Glen's quite outdated tungsten-balanced film if he didn't use a filter with it in daylight ... since it's color balance might have changed. He said he had the filter it would ordinarily need.</p>

<p>Michael, maybe the Harleys and the seagulls think those are portraits. ;)</p>

[tim parkin]

<p>The new Portra can look grainy depending on how it is scanned. I've had some scanned to 8000 dpi and it looked beautifully smooth. <br>

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/35981-mamiya-7-iq180-colour.html<br>

If you want to see what Portra 160 and 400 can do in landscape take a look at my Portra Flickr set. <br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timparkin/sets/72157633194994119/detail/</p>

[steve_fay]

Tim, I don't quite get how scanning a negative that wasn't grainy could lead to a grainy image, unless the answer to "how" it was scanned was "poorly." Are we sure there wasn't some kind of intentional digital post-scanning processing that introduced graininess? I recall a variety of kinds of textures that were introduced through slide or negative sandwiching in bygone decades.

 

I like those fascinating landscape images.