Portra
As I go through my films (roughly about 1/3rd of the way through them so far), I’m finding that I’m very much in love with Portra 160NC, but I really can’t use 400NC in future. It simply lacks the tonal scale I want from a 6×4.5 negative.
For those of you shooting digital (roughly 99.9% if my workshops are anything to go by), then this is all meaningless to you. Unless you like the colours and tones I’ve got in my India and Nepal Portfolios and also evident in this shot of an Ethiopian Orthodox Deacon.
It’s very hard for me sometimes to go back to scanning film. I feel I’m getting so used to seeing smooth clean images on my workshops and by contrast, film simply looks far too noisy at first…. but it just takes an adjustment to get back into it.
Besides, by contrast, I feel digital has too much of a smooth-plastic-look to it and the colours just don’t ’sing’ the way Kodak’s Portra 160NC does. Which reminds me, I get a lot of correspondence from people wanting to know how to get the same look with their 5D. You can’t.
If you want the look of film, then shoot film.
Anyway I love this shot and wanted to share it with you today.
I intend to put some material together over the coming months about how to prepare for a photo trip abroad, how to work with film (for those who are interested) and all the other gubbins that goes along with a remote photo shoot.
Nice article as always, Bruce.
A couple things worth mentioning…
1) Kodak has discontinued 400NC and its replacement, Portra 400, has been getting glowing reviews by the handful of photographers testing the new emulsion.
2) In response to your statement, “film simply looks far too noisy at first….”, it’s called GRAIN, not NOISE, and it’s supposed to be there.
3) In response to your statement, “If you want the look of film, then shoot film.”, couldn’t have said it better myself. Despite the plethora of plugins available which promise to “replicate the look of film”, nothing holds a candle to the real thing.
Oh, and I love, love, LOVE the image you included in this post. Very nice portrait work.
Take care.
Tim
Comment by Timothy Gray — 1 November, 2010 @ 3:15 pm
Hi Tim,
Thanks for your crit. I had no idea that NOISE is called GRAIN in film….!
I’ve only been shooting and supporting film for the past 20 years.
By the way, Portra 400 (the new stuff) is not available by the looks of it to buy here in the UK. I used the old ‘New 400 NC’ stuff, which seems to be no better than the previous 400.
I’ll buy some of the new 400 when it becomes available and try it out. I just find that my eye is getting more and more used to seeing clean images, which is a sign of the times I think, rather than any bias towards digital or film.
Happy snapping.
;-)
Comment by Bruce Percy — 1 November, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
Really nice portraits Bruce. Do you find yourself using the 80mm lens or 140mm more often? Do you use a small amount of fill-flash to get those highlights in the eyes in otherwise soft light?
Comment by A Brown — 1 November, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
I would love to see some work put together about going abroad with film. I have been trying to plan a trip to Mongolia next year and it is pretty daunting.
Comment by RyanBagley — 1 November, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
Hi A Brown,
I tend to prefer the 80 and I never use flash. It’s all in my Portraiture e-Book.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 1 November, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
I wanted to ask what film you were using for portraits. Are there any others you have used and liked down the years? Do you ever pack black and white film? For the record, which speed and version of velvia do you use?
Comment by duggy2 — 1 November, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
Hi Dudley,
I’ve only ever tried velvia 50. If it aint broke, don’t fix it is mainly my motto. I’ve never had the need to try the other velvia’s as I liked what I got from RVP50 and I know it well.
In terms of portrait films, I just felt I stumbled across Portra 160NC and liked it very much. I haven’t really tried other portrait films as such but I did try things like Provia (hated it – it’s bland), Kodachrome 25 and 64 (both were unbelievably grainy and too unusable for me as they were only available in 35mm format and some other films. I’ve never been tempted by black and white films, although I did use them a lot when I was in my 20’s as it was a cheap way to make photos and develop them.
Certainly, if someone has any recommendations for good portraiture films that they think are worth trying, I’d be up for some suggestions.
I tend to be a bit of an imovable object about things. If I find something that works for me, I stay with it, and I think that helps me get to know what works and what doesn’t. I’ve never been much of a faddish person. But I’m well aware that there may be something better around the corner and learning about a new film and giving it a try is certainly something I’m up for.
But yes, I’ve experimented a lot with different films years ago, but I feel I just found the ones that worked for me and from that point onwards, it’s about making images, not studying film grain charts !
Comment by Bruce Percy — 1 November, 2010 @ 9:22 pm
Bruce,
Noise wasn’t a part of the language of photography before digital. As someone with 20+ years shooting and supporting film, you should know that.
Your Nikon scanner focuses down to the grain and a result of the A/D conversion is amplification of the grain at higher resolutions (you scan your negs at 4000ppi, right?). You can use the Kodak GEM plugin to reduce this to a degree, but it is the tradeoff of having that kind of resolving power.
You are seeing grain. There is no noise. Any perceived noise you may think you see is, in fact, the scanner’s CCD sensor, in conjunction with the cold cathode ray light source, not being able to penetrate the deepest shadows.
The new Kodak Portra 400 should be showing up in the UK before the end of the year. It replaces both the NC and VC varaiants of the previous generation of Portra films. Give it a try, you might like it.
Happy Shooting!
Tim
Comment by Timothy Gray — 1 November, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
Timothy,
I’m not sure I like the tone of your posts to be honest, but I’ll re-iterate my thoughts on the matter under the assumption that my choice of wording was perhaps a little too loose.
I find that if I’ve been looking at digital images for long periods, then I tend to find that film images look very different and it takes me a while to get used to looking at film grain again.
I also think we’re going through a period of adjustment in terms of how we interpret noiseless digital images and grainy film images.
My choice of words was just a manner of expression. I wasn’t really discussing digital noise or film grain. Merely mentioning that I find it takes me a while to adjust from looking at one medium to looking at another.
By the way Tim, I think I should let you know that using upper case letters is bad etiquette. It’s considered a form of shouting and is considered offensive. Just thought you should know that as I did find your original posting to be a little on the aggressive side.
Comment by Bruce Percy — 2 November, 2010 @ 4:53 am