Kodak Portra 400 Review, Photos, and Tips | All About Film
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июл 2024
- Any Kodak film is a great film to have as your favorite. Kodak Portra 400, however, is a stand-out choice in that lineup as it delivers stunning images in every format and across subjects. At 400 ISO, this film can be used in most any setting, provided you have the right camera for it. As a film that spans four different film sizes, Portra 400 is a film that multi-format shooters can use to achieve uniform results with any camera. A checklist of desirable features in a color negative film would almost point-for-point match what Portra 400 offers. And, honestly, I can’t really think of anything else that needs to be said.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @davidhancock
David Hancock's Amazon Author Page with Links to Select Camera Manual eBooks:
www.amazon.com/David-Hancock/...
Video Index:
0:00 - Intro
0:26 - Kodak Portra 400 Best Tips, Tricks, and Practices
2:55 - Kodak Portra 400 Lab vs. Home Scans
4:26 - Kodak Portra 400 Image Characteristics
7:37 - Kodak Portra 400 Spectral Sensitivity
9:03 - Kodak Portra 400 Reciprocity Failure
9:27 - Kodak Portra 400 Dye Density Curve
10:54 - Kodak Portra 400 Review
My Instagram:
/ davidhancock 
Хобби
![Eminem - The Death of Slim Shady [Album Trailer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/X0HIrS6kUYI/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for another great video David! always love hearing your opinions on different film stocks. I never actually used Portra 400 before. I bought a 5 pack once and just sold it immediately. I personally don't like the low contrast look and the warmth of the film. Portra 160 is one of my favorite stocks and performs, to my eye, much better than Portra 400. Finer grain and higher sharpness are things I really cherish in my photos. Additionally, 400 iso seems a bit overkill for me. I shoot nighttime city shots on 100 iso films handheld and don't feel the need for a higher iso alternative. If I have to shoot in total darkness I go for Portra 800 which I adore.
been messing with a lot of lab scans lately, so I completely get your frustration with how much "interpretation" can wiggle in during the scanning process. That's why I moved mostly to slide film which makes scanning a lot easier and saves me from dealing with Theseus's Paradox. After setting uo a darkroom and learning how to print, I'll shoot color negative more often.
Thank you!
What a technological achievement, this film! Kudos to the teams who developed and improved on Vericolor, then Portra VC/NC, to today's emulsion. I've never shot the current 400 formulation though, I do mostly B&W, and never felt the need to shelf out for a top color product. I've used some old Porty 160NC which incredibly still shoots well at 160.
Many labs make scans when they get a roll of Porta 400, what the 20-yeae-olds call "the Portra look". It looks like seriously underexposed prints would, from a seriously overexposed negative (when printing manually in a darkroom). You know, the pastel shades. These are not produced by the film, but is made by the lab, because this is popular with the crowds. Your lab scans look like that, whilen your own scans do not,, but are closer to that the film looks when exposed correctly and printed with a correct exposure and colo correction to a good quality paper in a darkroom.
Thank you! It had not occurred to me that labs were scanning this in a certain way for a certain look. I did notice that my, especially 4X5 home scans, looked much more like I would want film images to look.
My favorite is Ektar. I love punchy film. But I don't use film for this subject or that subject. I use many types of film for many of the same subjects. Whatever film I have in the camera I use it. I schott portra 160 at an autograph convention with a flash indoors.
Very nice and thank you!
How do labs scans of 4x5 represent anything? Workflows and equipment will vary much more from lab to lab than 120 and 35mm which are basically using the same two scanners for most things nowadays.
That's a big part of why I included 35mm scans as well. The equipment used in that process is significantly more uniform across labs.
"Always test your shots" man I hate that. How about you always test your PRODUCTS, Kodak?
Unrelated... Neutral Density filters: "Are we a joke to you, David?" (re: 1/45th of second leaf lenses)
Anyway, in general, Portra does indeed tick all the boxes... except one big one called "price". To my eye (not having done rigorous testing), Vision3 motion picture film is almost the same exact film. They probably share like 95% of their formulation and technology together, and almost all of this review would probably apply to it as well, aside from lack of sheet film. But in bulk and if you are okay with dealing with remjet, vision3 can be had for roughly a FOURTH of the price of Portra.
LOL on the filters, yeah, none of my 8X10 lenses have standard filter threads (if they have them at all.) :(
I think you owe us an explanation about timestamp 3:20. 🤨
Yeah, very washed out. The lab scans from that batch were not to the usual quality. Plus the new troll is dummy thicc.
Portra 400 isn’t a terribly sharp film. It’s certainly not sharper than Portra 800 or Ultramax. It is very fine grain but has lower acuteness than other stock. Probably to not render skin blemishes too starkly. While being finer grain than Fuji Superia 400, Superia 400 was visibly sharper than Portra 400.
Well, that's why I refer to the Kodak PGI ratings on their films to evaluate how sharp their films are. Kodak tests film sharpness using an MTF chart, but their PGI ratings are something that I find to be more digestible for a larger audience. To that end, Portra 400 does rank higher than either UltraMax or Portra 800. It is definitely soft compared to most black and white films, however, and if every unique stock on the market today were compared equally in this regard, I would not expect Portra 400 to be in the top half. But taking available Kodak PGI data on their stocks, it's a good performer in that regard.