How would you describe the colour palette of a film stock like Portra 160/400?....

[Tom Pinchenzo]

I asked a similar question to the post processing forum and had some interesting answers so I though I'd throw the question out to you guys.

It's often described as 'muted', which technically means the same as 'desaturated', but try desaturating an image in post processing and it looks grey and sad. Contrast that with the dreamy qualities of Portra. So what's going on with the colour palette of these film stocks? Is it just about some colour being more desaturated than others? or the colder colours shifting to warmer ones??

Any thoughts??

 

[FujiLove]

I think you need (or at least it’s easier) to compare film stocks, rather than saying that one has certain properties, full stop. You also need to define precisely how the film has been shot, processed, scanned and printed. For instance, is Portra 400 ‘muted’ when shot with a modern lens, on a sunny day, procesed normally, scanned with a Pakon and printed with my Epson inkjet? No. It can be very saturated (just like the day looked to my eyes). Then again, if it’s wet printed under an enlarger on Fuji Crystal archive, it won’t look as saturated...on Kodak paper: in-between the two. Take the exact same shot on Ektar 100 and you will notice a difference, but it may not necessarily be more saturated, depending on how it’s scanned or wet printed. You’ll definitely notice a difference in contrast, with the Portra being medium and the Ektar high contrast. The colour balance is also different. I find Ektar shot in mixed lighting can result in shadows moving towards blue. That means choices have to be made when colour balancing it under an enlarger. You can end up with blue/purplish shadows or warm highlights. Nothing wrong with it. That’s just the character of the film. I think Portra is more forgiving in that respect.

Things get even more complicated when you under and over expose film. For instance, over exposing Portra tends to move highlights towards pastel pink/peach, which can be very flattering for portraiture. Exposing Portra at box speed seems to first saturate the colours slightly, then, like a lot of C41 film, under exposure causes colours to become ‘muddy’ and desaturated.

 

[Peter B]

The original idea behind "wedding" films was that they could be shot on a sunny day and retain detail in both the delicate white wedding dress and the dark suit of the groom, so contrast was tightly controlled. Kodak's own brochure is worth looking at, but it's fair to say that the name Portra gives a strong hint that they are mainly designed for portraits, fashion, weddings and that sort of thing. That doesn't mean they aren't good for your daytime hols photos in strong sunlight or sundrenched white buildings, since they should be better there than higher contrast films. The additional issue is that scans can be ramped up for either contrast or saturation, but you can't put in detail that wasn't there to start with and that's why Portra is popular.

 

[FujiLove]

There are quite a few pro photographers who use Portra a lot or exclusively and have blogged about why they like its palette and characteristics. Johnny Patience springs to mind: http://www.johnnypatience.com/blog/

Bear in mind that most of these photographers are scanning their film, so some of the things they love about the film are actually created by the film/scanner combination that they prefer to use. Portra + Fuji Frontier, for instance.

 

[Tom Pinchenzo]

There are quite a few pro photographers who use Portra a lot or exclusively and have blogged about why they like its palette and characteristics. Johnny Patience springs to mind: http://www.johnnypatience.com/blog/

Bear in mind that most of these photographers are scanning their film, so some of the things they love about the film are actually created by the film/scanner combination that they prefer to use. Portra + Fuji Frontier, for instance.

That’s an interesting blog

 

[ChrisR]

That’s an interesting blog

It is.

IIRC there's an interesting post on there somewhere on how he exposes Tri-X. It's right off the wall; some folk love it and others have panned it. But I digress...

 

[Peter B]

It is.

IIRC there's an interesting post on there somewhere on how he exposes Tri-X. It's right off the wall; some folk love it and others have panned it. But I digress...

There is indeed, and it's headed "The Zone System is Dead" if IIRC. I read it yesterday out of interest, but not the 330 comments after it. The writer says it works for him, after testing hundreds of films, so it turns conventional wisdom on its head. Possibly worth a try if you want, but the more extreme exposure and development parameters certainly don't meet with my experience.