Is it just me? (a Portra 400 question)

[Ten301]

I know I may get slammed for posing this question, and I do realize that everything is subjective, but does anyone else find Portra 400 boring as a general purpose film? I know it’s popular and has loads of latitude. For its original intended purpose/market (wedding/portrait photography) its characteristics make it hard to beat. But as a general purpose film it’s always looked somewhat ‘blah’ and middle of the road to me, lacking personality. Am I missing something?

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s not just you. I much prefer Portra 160 to 400. Portra 400 has no soul.

 

[BradS]

It is a fine film for its intended purpose (weddings) but if it is not being used professionally to photograph a wedding (or similar) the I don't see how one can justify the cost.
I strongly prefer Fuji Superia Xtra 400 for all my color work.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Porta in soft lighting when I want to maintain soft low contrast, or sometimes here in the desert southwest in bright sunlight to lower contrast. Otherwise for most of my general propose color work I use Ektar or Kodak Color.

 

[MattKing]

To each their own:

I tend to favour subtle colour. But notice how good that blue dress looks despite the indirect, partially diffused by fog open sky lighting.

 

[Ten301]

To each their own:

View attachment 288679

I tend to favour subtle colour. But notice how good that blue dress looks despite the indirect, partially diffused by fog open sky lighting.

A beautiful photo and a beautiful subject. I believe Portra 400 excels here because it’s the type of subject and photography for which the film was designed and intended. Where it lacks for me is in its ubiquitous use as a general purpose film.

 

[BrianShaw]

For general purposes I much prefer Gold 200.

 

[MattKing]

Sorry, Matt. But the scan above is significantly off on red/cyan axis to my eye. Especially the highlights. I bet the red & green channels look weird in PS.

She looks cooked.

The joys of working on heavily resized images uploaded from uncalibrated laptop monitors - I do so little work with colour digital printing as to make it rarely worthwhile to get everything precisely behaving on every screen.
This is from my desktop, so probably closer, but it just highlights how if there is a digital component in the chain, all bets are up in the air.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It's not just you. I don't get along with it at all - neither iterations of Portra, for that matter -, even though I understand why people like it.

 

[destroya]

too bad that in med format the 400 color choices are very limited now.

john

 

[MattKing]

Apologies for the scanning tangent,

Actually, it wasn't a problem with the scan. It was a problem with the necessary conversion of a relatively large TIFF to a much smaller jpeg (to permit Photrio upload) while using a laptop that I don't bother with colour calibration.
Here is another, very different example of Portra 160 shot this spring. Hope it too survives the conversion:

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak Portra 400 is my go to color film. On occasion I still use my stash of Kodak UltraColor 400 film.

 

[Ten301]

I think Portra 400 is probably good for a go to general purpose film if one does their own scanning and tweaking in whatever software they prefer. I’m sure Ektar 100 can be tamed into a fairly nice portraiture film with enough manipulation.

I guess what I see so many examples of online is that Portra 400 has somehow morphed into a general purpose film with much of the public, which it was never designed to be. That being said, of course photographers can use it for whatever they like. But scanned straight out of a commercial lab, now that so many are using it as an everyday film and just leaving it at that, to me it lacks life and personality; it just looks ‘meh’.

 

[macfred]

The joys of working on heavily resized images uploaded from uncalibrated laptop monitors - I do so little work with colour digital printing as to make it rarely worthwhile to get everything precisely behaving on every screen.
This is from my desktop, so probably closer, but it just highlights how if there is a digital component in the chain, all bets are up in the air.

View attachment 288691

Very nice Matt ! Your spouse ?
---

I prefer Portra 160 over Portra 400 - even for portrait photographs. For general purpose I use Ektar. Two portraits of my daughter Mia (a couple of years ago):

both with FUJI GA545 - EBC Fujinon 60mm - Portra 160

 

[MattKing]

Very nice Matt ! Your spouse ?

No.
A part time model at a photo shoot that our Darkroom Group arranged a couple of years ago. We also arranged for a makeup artist.
Besides the modelling work, she also had a day job - a mathematician specializing in statistical projections for industry!

 

[GLS]

Didn't we have this exact thread before?

Anyway, no I don't find Portra 400 boring. It records colours quite faithfully if not severely overexposed, but with a bit more saturation than the 160 version. If you want more saturation but still need greater latitude than slide film offers you can use Ektar.

Here's a recent example of mine using Portra 400:

--- by atomstitcher, on Flickr

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I prefer Portra if shooting people, but otherwise, for every day general purpose pictures, gold 200 or colorplus 200 is a good starting point with either Ektar or pro image 100 if you have the light, or ultramax if you have less light, though I’m personally not much of a fan of ultramax. It’ll do in a pinch, but if I can get lomo 800 I’d rather use that instead.

 

[Wallendo]

I find that Portra 400 has too much of a pastel look for my taste. I don't really do portrait photography and prefer the punch of Superia Xtra 400. I occasionally shoot Ektar, but it is a little finicky for my use. Now, when I shoot color, I shoot ColorPlus or Fujicolor 200 (or E6).

 

[mtjade2007]

I have been wondering if shooting landscape/scenery with my cold stored long expired 160NC is a good idea. I know I could boost the contrast and color saturation by Photoshop easily but this is not really what I like to do. I could use higher contrast/saturation films but I have a lot of 160NC, thousands of feet, and I do not shoot portrait much.

 

[MattKing]

This is Portra 160 NC (IIRC)

 

[mtjade2007]

Didn't we have this exact thread before?

Anyway, no I don't find Portra 400 boring. It records colours quite faithfully if not severely overexposed, but with a bit more saturation than the 160 version. If you want more saturation but still need greater latitude than slide film offers you can use Ektar.

Here's a recent example of mine using Portra 400:

--- by atomstitcher, on Flickr

Wow, I like this low but not too low saturation look. Its saturation can be boosted much more but then it would have a digital look. Thanks for sharing your photo.

 

[mtjade2007]

This is Portra 160 NC (IIRC)

Thanks, this gives me a lot of hope in using my 160NC.

 

[mtjade2007]

View attachment 288812 This is Portra 160 NC (IIRC)

Fabulous shot! One can instantly tell it's film, not digital shot.

 

[macfred]

For my opinion the FUJI 160NS is a little more contrasting and saturated than the Portra 160 - sometimes I like it - sometimes not. It's good there are different films -though there aren't so many- on the market.

Two portraits with the FUJI 160NS - @ about EI120 I guess - both with FUJI GA645 series cameras :

Using FUJI film I prefer(ed) FUJI Pro 400H :

Portrait with GA645 and FUJI Pro 400H :

 

[Dismayed]

It all depends on what you're after. Portra colors always seemed pretty natural to me. But there are times when increased saturation is desired.