Film Fridays: Kodak Portra 800 review

Also note that Mastin's profiles are based on the Fujifilm Frontier scanner. A lot of film shooters and labs use the Noritsu as well. Many also scan themselves on Minolta, Nikon, Imacon or even with a digital camera etc.. All of these factors contribute to a certain look as well. Again, I don't think just applying a profile or preset will get you there, it helps if you have an understanding of how to bring your image to match that of film. Having a reference image is key or at least a solid understanding of the film stock/scanner combo and look you're going for.

Blown. Out. Of. The. Water.

I laugh at childish remarks like this. Humor Friday, thanks.

There are plenty of labs wet printing. And most of them are getting more business than they can handle. And if you scan it (meaning scan it well) it still retains the same characteristics as the prints. And Portra blows current top level digital cameras out of the water for dynamic range and colour. lol @ m43.

The lab mentioned in the article, Ag Photolab, do C-Type prints (i.e. "chemical" printing)

In the UK:
AG Photolab
Metro Imaging
Spectrum Photographic
The Print Space
The Darkroom UK
...and many more. All supply C-Type (wet) printing services.

Cheers

I’d shoot some 35mm ISO 800 Portra to prove my point, but I don’t need to. I’ll leave that up to you. MF is another story...

^ and none of that geeky BS changes the fact that film produces better, more natural color than digital sensors. And there's no sony in existence that can handle overexposure even close to what film does.

Enjoyment may differ, though.

Jus that

All true, PLS. The results do differ though. I like film sometimes, because the grain, colours, highlight detail etc, are subtlety different (not better or worse...).

PostModernBloke: sure the results differ. Film vs. digital are different mediums, just like pastel and watercolor.

It drives me nuts when people bloviate about how film is so wonderful because “it forces one to slow down.” That is nonsense.

I was illustrating how regardless of medium, for a good result one must be deliberate and careful.

‘Bloviate’. Brilliant, learnt a new word today and it’s not even a recent one. Thanks.

You have exactly described the passionate photographer but the new generation do not have the patience, he will click and create the synthetic image in photoshop. Flower is there but without fragrance.

Ravi, here is my response to anyone who says “the new generation doesn’t ...” in a disparaging way: “OK, boomer.”

I am 60, which puts me in that boomer category. However, I have learned that EVERY older generation has mislabeled the younger one as you have, and I have learned that in every generation, some of that have been, but many of them have not.

I get what he is saying, and I agree. Put a different way, for some, it is just as much about the journey, as it is about the destination. Learning, experimenting, can be fun. Once a craft is mastered it becomes mechanical.

Agreed. You can't seperate process from result. And if you do the result is usually not great.

Just because we can, does not guarantee, or imply, that we require to use the latest and greatest technology. Why not? Why so? Endless arguments will never end. Just photograph and be happy.

Digital doesn't beat it in every way, but that's beside the point. If you don't want to shoot film then move on and let the rest of us enjoy photography. I shoot both digital and film. There are situations that digital is my go to choice and other situations where film is my choice. My personal love of photography is slide film 1st then digital then negative films.

@snapa – Sorry, but that is incorrect. 8x10" film is still the King of IQ.

@snapa – Yes, I own and have used an 8x10" camera and lenses. It's hard work but worth it. Click my moniker to locate the link to my website. Check out my Historic Buildings photos, many of which I shot on 8x10" color neg film, then drum scanned. I took most of the other architectural shots with a 4x5" camera on color neg film. The website images are small to deter theft, but you'll get an idea of the tonal quality. These can be blown up to mural size with extraordinary detail and tonal gradation.

@Trevor – Thanks very much. I've shot many assignments on 4x5" transparency film, but never 8x10" transparencies. Color negs are my fav for their wonderful shadow gradation (when properly exposed) and gentle highlight 'roll-off'. I shoot mostly digital now because of clients' demand for quick turnaround, but for the highest performance (and where time & cost are less limiting), large format film is highly desirable.

I’d agree with this, 10 years ago when’s I was shooting weddings, I was on the Contax 645 bandwagon and my experience shooting Portra 160/400/800 is that it LOVES overexposure. I would usually shoot my Porta 400 at ISO 100 using the cameras built in meter and exposing for the shadows.

There was so much highlight latitude that my exposures always came out perfect and my shadows had plenty of clean density to them.

Portra 800 especially LOVES light. p800 is amazing at 200.

When I close the back of my Canon Elan 7n (April, 2004), the camera automatically winds to the first frame. After the 36th shot, the camera automatically rewinds the roll—easy peasy. The camera has ETTL2, just like the latest Canon DSLR, and it shoots a 4 fps. Not too shabby for out-moded technology.

From my POV *retro is the faux retro of the Fujifilm X-Pro 2,* with it's built-in unnecessary quirks.

If you're experienced, film does NOT slow you down. Meter light, compose and press the button, same as any digital camera. On my 7n you can set the camera to P and shoot 36 shots in nine (9) seconds for sports.

Well, as my answer below suggested (in my head anyway) that even if some products have been superseded they have qualities that make them appealing to human beings. Like vinyl. It's not just the handling, it's the "warm" occasionally somewhat crackly sound. Homos sapiens sapiens isn't technically perfect, it's a 100 000 year old meat design.

Well if you want to delve into semantics, my 6x7 slides look pretty great with any light source behind them...

It was semantics - method of output is largely irrelevant to my point. To be more specific in this instance, when scanned with an optimised workflow or wet printed, shooting film gives me better results than digital with a optimised workflow, both on screen and in print. That statement is not in regard to technical image quality metrics, because those things are both largely insignificant and irrelevant. I am talking about what the output looks like. Frankly a 6x7 Velvia transparency is magnificent wether viewed on a 5500k lightbox or through the back of an ice cream truck window on a rainy day in Mongolia. It's magnificent even with suboptimal light source.

It are two totally different methods in creating imagery - both can deliver great/excellent/wonderful results.

False sentiments aside, if you really (have) use(d) film and digital you can understand the differences.

I didn't say you can't deliver great results with both film and digital.
I was talking about the gear heads who think you cannot with film, and who think resolution, DR and shallow DoF are all that matters.
We've seen a good number of articles about global photo competitions where both film and small sensor cameras beat out all the thousands of FF entries. Why? Because what gear heads think matters most really matter least.
And of course there are many who work very hard to get a film look or Kodak-like colors with their digital cameras.
I've never read about anyone shooting film saying, darn I wish I could get my pictures to look more digital like. :)

I really have used both a lot and all my film stuff is now inexpensive ornaments. This article as a whole doesn’t hold water in my view as the washed out colours from the film then have to be scanned in to give you an inferior digital image - crazy - but thankfully it’s a free country 😊

I can always spot the people who don't "get" vinyl either, and who will never understand the joy of driving a stick shift.

@Sarman 2525 ... not to take away from Portra 800, or any other color film, but even before it was possible to acquire programs that emulated various color films it was, and still is, possible to use a digital camera to emulate ANY color film. Besides, "accurate colors" is a matter of opinion (or preference) for the most part.

not to mention the joys of driving a horse drawn wagon on the freeway during rush hour

@Sarman
I think (hope) that you are joking now......how exactly do you ‘spot’ people who don’t ‘get’ vinyl or a stick shift - do they glow in the dark.....🤔

I have a tube amp, but currently I use a vintage Marantz at the moment.

And to Leicalika, I bet you've never ridden a horse in your life (and if you did you didn't know what you were doing). This is obvious because you said you like sitting in traffic during rush hour. I much rather have a horse, an English saddle, and wide open field.

@sarman
Yeah - but how do you spot those people - oh I get it - everybody else 🤣😂🤣😂😂😂🤣😂

I don't really get it either, even though I participate occasionally. One explanation that was given to me that makes sense: It's a simple, repeatable way to get a specific look without spending a lot of time on post-processing.

Yes, you choose a film and part of the result is given. All consentration goes into composing the photo. The moment you have pushed the shutter release, the job is done, at least the creative part of it. No chimping, no second attempt, no post processing except maybe some exposure adjustment after scanning.

Then the suspense when the film comes back from the lab, seeing the results of the effort. With digital, there's no suspense, just instant gratification.

"Inferior result" only if you judge an image by its technical image quality alone, instead of everything else that's in an image.

Personally, I've become too lazy to shoot much film nowadays. But I still enjoy the act more than I enjoy the act of shooting digital, because it's much simpler and more straight-forward, even though the results come with a substantial delay. Self-developing or scanning and post-processing the scans aside, it's also significantly less work.

"I suppose Picasso's art is also inferior to your digital photos."

Picasso was an artist, film is simply the medium. Your comparison makes no sense at all.

cxparc:

"To me, the images have a strong color cast, don't reflect real colors and could be visually outperformed by most digital cameras."

Much of what you're seeing has to do with scanning and post-scan capture processing choices.

You do know that your digital camera, even when shooting raw, makes choices about what data to record?

Indeed, setting aside colour choices, made at the enlarger, film scanner driver, or software level, well developed and exposed film has an inherent realism that digital can only approach when one is using near extraordinary, or extraordinary, lenses.

Now absolutely, in 2020, provided a good file from a digital camera, shot with a just good lens, the digital image will have more detail (largely details that humans don't really see in their day to day experience) and look much better if it were shot in very low light, for example in a dimly lit music club.

Film has this inherent realism since it emulates something digital has a very hard time seeing.

Yes, they do have a color cast, don't 100% reflect real colors and can be easily outperformed by modern digital cameras.

Yet, after years of looking at ultrasharp digital pictures with tons of post-processing, aggressive HDR and such, I come back to those "inferior" film photos.

I enjoy doing it
I like the process
I like the results
I enjoy thinking about it
I enjoy write of about it
Why wouldn’t I do things I like and enjoy?

The "tons" of photographers are just obsessed with taking thousands of photos of everything that moves or not. Shooting on a film is simply a process that requires a piece of art before the photographer ever takes the camera in his hand. Knowledge of film, a type of film that depicts an object in many variations. A process that also requires discipline in many ways. When you shoot a film, you only reveal what is in your visual development long time before you squeeze a camera trigger. I think that those who do not know how to take photos on film are basically robbed of their own beauty of photography.

As I have said many times before, the best-selling art photographs at huge prices, both yesterday and today, are photographs exposed to film.

I can't take people that use the word 'retro' in a serious context seriously at all.