Kodak Portra 400UC for portrait work - scanning/printing/shooting questions

[margaret_s.]

I'm contemplating doing some portrait work using Kodak's Portra 400

UC film. I want good saturated colors and accurate skin tones.

Please keep in mind that I am a complete newbie to indoor portrait

work. I won't have access to a formal photo studio, but will be

working in a large room with regular spotlights from the ceiling.

Here are some concerns and questions:<P>

1. I am assuming that I should use an 80A Tungsten filter for all

shots to prevent the yellow cast? However, will this completely

remove any warmth from the photo? I want to create a warm glow in

the pictures for special effect, but I don't want that awful yellow

cast.<P>

2. How does Portra 400UC scan? I have a Minolta DiMAGE 5400 scanner

and have had good luck with Kodak Royal Gold films.. but that's not

the same.<P>

3. The final photo will be heavily manipulated in PS. I would like

to print my photos eventually on my Epson 2200. Will I need any

special profiles or can I just print this straight from PS with a

few minor adjustments? I know that for the most part, the Epson has

been a real pain for accurate color reproduction and I'm

particularly picky with getting the right skin tones.<P>

Thanks and sorry if some of these questions seem a little novice-

like. I appreciate any insight you can offer!

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

You don't necessarily need the filter. But then again, it'll depend on the light. Is it just regular room lighting? If so, try experimenting with overexposing by 1 stop. If it's regular indoor lighting, then try a few shots with the filter. I've never had to use the 80A filter with Portra UC.<br>

<br>

It scans pretty well. Nicer than Portra VC.

Overall, I found Portra UC a bit too contrasty for my taste, but here's a few links to pictures I took using it.<br><br>

 

** not exactly work safe **<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1329466">http://www.photo.net/photo/1329466</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1329493">http://www.photo.net/photo/1329493</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1475422">http://www.photo.net/photo/1475422</a>

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

Oops, looks like I made a few errors in my typing.

Basically, if the light is very yellow, then yes try the filter. The film seems to be very responsive to yellow.

[andy_piper2]

Portra 400UC is a nice film. It is very fine-grained, but not quite as sharp as slower films. If you're shooting 35mm and best resolution is important there may be better options (but I like 400UC myself).

 

1) I would use the 80A filter - basically it just corrects for the missing blue wavelengths in tungsten light; it won't remove the natural reds and yellows of your subject. Even with color neg film, you want to even out the spectrum as much as possible to match the 'daylight' spectrum the film is designed for. You might also consider (in place of the filter) swapping in daylight-blue studio bulbs in the existing room light fixtures, fi you can find them in 'safe' wattages (100W or so).

 

2) I've had good results scanning 400UC with a Nikon scanner - better (IMHO) than 400 Royal Gold, equal to 100 Royal Gold (IMHO). The straight scans are usually very close to neutral (grays are gray) but also usually need some tweaking for sharpness and to match the image I want.

 

But - general caveat with any color neg film - be GENEROUS with exposure in the camera. All color neg films turn into rats' nests of grain and noise if underexposed. The dye clouds like lots of exposure!

 

3) To get really consistent/predictable results via any inkjet printer, you do need a calibrated monitor (at least tuned with Adobe Gamma - preferably hardware-calibrated with a colorimeter like the Colorvision Spyder) and printing profiles specific to your printer model and the paper you choose. Epson provides profiles for their printers (or at least they did for my 1280) that have been pretty reliable using their papers and close equivalents from other makers (Ilford, e.g.).

 

You might check the digital-darkroom forum here to get more info on that aspect of the process.

[john_p5]

Margaret,

 

I have the 5400 and I regularly scan 400uc. Overexpose your film one to two stops. (I've even had good luck rating this film at 50 in *some* low contrast settings, when I decided to push the limits of this film and the 5400, although at some point the dye clouds will visibly begin to merge.) You will see an appreciable reduction in scanner noise and grain when you overexpose. This is very important if the post work in PS involves digital cosmetic surgery to your subject, as your clone tool will be more forgiving. Also, I find that it is better to convert your scans to wide gamut RGB in DiMage Scan, and then assign wide gamut RGB and then convert to your working color space in PS. Others find that it is better to leave the file in the scanner's native color space and then assign the supplied Minolta profile and then convert to your working color space in PS. You will need to experiment with this. I find that converting to Adobe RGB in Dimage Scan produces poor results (color mismatches) when you open the image in PS. Minolta needs to update this portion of the software. Anyways, it's a beautiful film. Enjoy

[edward_c._nemergut]

I've had really good luck with 400UC. It has become my film of choice not just in the

studio, but I keep a 35 mm roll in my Contax TVS for candid shots. It has incredible

grain--honestly equal to any other film (with the possible exception of Reala). That

being

said, it is not the best all of the time: If it were, then kodak would stop making

everything else. Skin tones are wonderful but, after shooting over 100 rolls, a *little*

yellow - not much, but a very little bit. The contrast is relatively high and as such it

might not be suitable for certain subjects. For example, the film is les kind to the the

teenager trying to his/her acne. As the name would imply, the colors are very

saturated which may (or may not) be to your liking...

 

All that said, it remains my favorite print film...

 

I keep a relatively up-to-date film review at http://photo.nemergut.com/equipment/

film/film.html

[steve_levine]

My experience with people pix and UC was short.(I shoot people,weddings,family portraits commercialy.)My tests with samples of UC sent by Kodak were horrible.The contrast & skin tones were awfull.I stick with NC400 or NPH.I do use UC for scenic shots,but I wouldnt ever use it on people!

[canon_eos_rules]

1) I've rarely gotten yellow casts without a tungsten filter while shooting Portra

400UC.

 

2) From what I've heard, Portra 400UC scans very easily.

 

3) I can't help you with that.

 

Have a great time shooting this awesome film!

[mark houtzager]

Great for landscapes. skintones are IMHO not realistic, depends obviously on your

taste. Below is a scenic shot at 250 ISO.<div></div>

[margaret_s.]

Thank you everyone for your helpful answers!<P>

Les, the 5400 is my first scanner so I can't compare with anything else.. I like it overall, it does particularly well with Kodak negative film and Kodak E100VS slide film. Generally, it's horrible with Velvia 50 and Fuji Reala negative film!! I always underexpose Velvia, so it's especially hard to scan the slides! They scan VERY dark and if the slide has some very dark and very light sections, forget it. I end up having to scan 2 versions and combining them in PS otherwise either the details are lost in the dark sections or the lights are blown out. Maybe there's a way around this, I wish I knew! Overall, it's not bad.. but I can't say I'm 100% satisfied with it - about 70%.<P>

Andy & John: Thanks so much for the helpful tips! I'm going to experiment with/without filter and with/without overexposing and then scanning all versions before I actually do the real shoot. I actually want heavy shadows and warm light on only portions of my model's face and body - so we'll have to see if the overexposure helps or hinders the results. In any event, I'm thrilled to hear this film scans well with the 5400. The photos will be heavily manipulated in PS - a lot of overlapping layers to create specific artistic effects. So I guess maybe the tungsten filter may not be necessary since I can probably fix any yellow cast in PS.<P>Edward, thank you for your response and the link!<P>

Again, thank you all! Much appreciated.

[bill_tuthill]

Several things to add that weren't said yet. 1) If your goal is art,

why not bring color gels and/or your own lights? Otherwise maybe

use fill flash. 2) It seems that Vuescan's Royal Gold 100 Gen2 profile

matches best. If you're not using Vuescan, nevermind.

3) Are you using sRGB color space? I'm surprised you say the 2200

is a pain because, although I don't have that model, Epson inkjets

have very good color accuracy by default. 4) Steve Levine has a point

about 400UC contrast. Sometimes I see too much red rolloff (sudden

tonal transitions) in skin tone shadows. If you can scan it, NPH

might be preferable, and if you're willing to lose 1.33 stops,

Portra 160NC will produce lower-contrast results.

[sue_deva]

Just to put in my two cents... I have shot, scanned, and printed in conditions similar to those you describe.

1. Removing that yellow cast completely (or leaving a little bit for 'warmth') takes about a minute in Photoshop, longer depending on how exacting you want to be.

2. You should be able to print straight from PS. But with injket printing, watch for weird neutral shifts to slight green or slight magenta. In my experience, this has to do more with the ink level in the printer at any given time than with the profile. Try, try again.

4. If you're working with fairly pale caucasian subjects, you might notice a weird red flush in the cheeks. I've noticed this much more with UC than with NC or VC. In my experience, it's about the only drawback of UC. It too can corrected in Photoshop, but is a little more complicated than de-yellowing.

5. Here's a link to some portraits I shot with 400UC for a video project. Some were scanned with a Nikon CoolScan 8000, and others with an Epson Perfection. I left the yellow tint in because these stills required that sort of look. But when I made inkjet prints it was very easy to re-balance. Didn't use a filter...

[sue_deva]

Bill has brought to my attention the fact that I failed to post the link properly. I'll also try to post a link to a corrected version of one of these images soon.

 

Here are the ones from that DV project:

http://www.princeton.edu/~rkroll/nudes_VIS_311.html

[scott_eaton]

UC is among the best print films in terms of scanning potential, sharpness, and delivering the strongest color saturation while keeping smooth skin tones. Otherwise, the quality of your final images will be determined by your lighting and scanning technique. Any of the mainstream portrait films will suit the role with UC being about the best in the 400 speed category.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1712420&size=lg

[margaret_s.]

Bill, thanks for the input. I'm using AdobeRGB as my space. This project is very low budget, I don't have my own lights or any kind of studio equipment. This is literally making do with available lighting - so thank God for PS. Plus the ultimate result will be a composite of several photos and textures, which is why it's not that crucial that the original be "perfect", since it's going to be manipulated anyway. BUT I wanted to make sure that I would have an easy time scanning this film so that I can actually use the frames unlike many of my Velvia 50 slides that I can't scan because of too high contrast. I got some VC film too and I'll experiment with that as well. Some day I'll try the 160, but really would prefer to stick to 400 for speed right now, although I did think about taking a few shots with a flash. I can always darken it later if it's too bright. As for the Epson2200, it has a strong magenta cast and boosting the green doesn't always solve the problem. Blues come out purple and I'm always having to boost saturation because it prints with a lot less punch than the original. Every photo needs a different setting, so I haven't been successful with profiles. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, not sure. Anyway, thanks again for the helpful comments!<P>

Scott, thanks for the link. That's a great example for skin tones! <P>

Rafil, I think I'll want a lot less yellow but you're right, easy to fix in PS. I'm not so concerned with reddish tones since most of the final images will be quite dark. Thanks again!

[igsman]

I thought you might be interested in seeing a real example. Here it is. I might add that for this shot I used a wireless E-TTL setup with FEC -1.5 stops. No filters of any kind were used. Same goes for digital manipulation.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1954795&size=lg

[bill_tuthill]

Margaret, maybe you should try converting colorspace to sRGB before

printing, and possibly use an ICM profile. The magenta cast seems

typical of not doing so, or a double profile. I don't have a 2200,

but found <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006XjU&unified_p=1">this related thread</A>.

[margaret_s.]

Bill, thanks for the heads up. I appreciate it. I'll check out the thread.<P>

Strange Man, thanks for the link. This gives me an idea now of what to expect and what I might want to do differently.