Portra 400

soupdragon

soupdragon

Messages
2,307
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone used Kodak Portra 400 lately?
If so? I'd love some opinions or samples of what this stock is like.
Just browsing the web turns up a mixed bag of feelings and some very low resolution examples.

I value the thoughts of the film users here and don't want to buy stock if the film is pants.
 
You could look at some examples on the Analogue Wonderland web site, in the review section.
 
Plain Nev said:
You could look at some examples on the Analogue Wonderland web site, in the review section.
Click to expand...
I did that but the pictures are low res and not very well exposed.
I guess it's possible that is what the film turns out like. If that's the case i won't be bothering with it.
 
The images I've seen look sort of pastelly, for want of a better word
 
This is my Portra 400 album on Flickr, if it's any help.

It's a mix of 35mm and medium format images, some scanned by FilmDev, some scanned at home by me.

www.flickr.com

Kodak Portra 400

Explore this photo album by fishyfish_arcade on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com

It's a nice film with a very wide exposure latitude (you can overexpose it by several stops and still get useable images). At the current prices, I'd think about why I wanted to use it, and probably go for Kodak Gold or Colorplus (or even Ektar of Portra 160, which are a bit cheaper) unless I really felt I had a need for the more expensive stock.
 
Last edited:
FishyFish said:
This is my Portra 400 album on Flickr, if it's any help.

It's a mix of 35mm and medium format images, some scanned by FilmDev, some scanned at home by me.

www.flickr.com

Kodak Portra 400

Explore this photo album by fishyfish_arcade on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com

It's a nice film with a very wide exposure latitude (you can overexpose it by several stops and still get useable images). At the current prices, I'd think about why I wanted to use it, and probably go for Kodak Gold or Colorplus (or even Ektar of Portra 160, which are a bit cheaper) unless I really felt I had a need for the more expensive stock.
Click to expand...
Your pictures look much sharper and more saturated than the odds and sods I've seen on review sites.
I have, and have used, Portra 160 with some degree of success but I wanted something faster so I can reliably hand hold a 150mm lens.
Yes, I'm old and shakey so I need to get my shutter speeds higher than the rule-of-thumb. Plus the 150 Sonnar is at it's best when stopped down.
 
Last edited:
soupdragon said:
Your pictures look much sharper and more saturated than the odds and sods I've seen on review sites.
I have, and have used, Portra 160 with some degree of success but I wanted something faster so I can reliably hand hold a 150mm lens.
Yes, I'm old and shakey so I need to get my shutter speeds higher than the rule-of-thumb. Plus the 150 Sonnar is at it's best when stopped down.
Click to expand...

I think that there was a trend of describing Portra as having soft, pastel tones, and a fad for always overexposing it, and a lot of photographers seem to have embraced that. There's nothing wrong with that if it's the look that is desired, but you can get plenty of saturation and contrast from Portra 400 too. It all depends on how it you shoot it, and how you (or the lab) choose to process it.
 
FishyFish said:
I think that there was a trend of describing Portra as having soft, pastel tones, and a fad for always overexposing it, and a lot of photographers seem to have embraced that. There's nothing wrong with that if it's the look that is desired, but you can get plenty of saturation and contrast from Portra 400 too. It all depends on how it you shoot it, and how you (or the lab) choose to process it.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed.
I have of late been trying to get the "Velvia look" from Kodak Ektar by push processing by one stop.
The saturation is great but the cost is increased grain.
 
I have used Portra 400 in medium format, large format, and occasionally, 35mm. I’ve always been happy with it. You can make it have a wide range of appearances in post processing.

Just recently I’ve tried Kodak Gold 200 in medium format (specifically 6x12) and in the lighting I had in this limited trial, I couldn’t tell the difference between Gold and Portra 400. Analogue Wonderland are currently selling Gold in 120 at 5 rolls for £40. It says something about the rise in film prices that I saw that as a bargain and snapped it up immediately. Portra 400 is £85 for 5 from the same source.
 
Portra 400 has been my go-to colour film for "special occasions" (holidays etc) for years. It can often be a bit pastel, which is fine by me; meter it at a lower EI and you get a bit more saturated, IIRC.

Try it, you will not be disappointed, unless your wallet complains too much!
 
I would definitely look at the Fuji 400 Xtra, if I were you. Lovely colours and fine detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top