Portra 6.0.1 Apk

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Chanelle Glugla

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 12:31:56 PM8/3/24

to stacevsenni

The measurement that worked was out the back door of my house midday, slightly back-lit, partly cloudy with a lot of green in the scene. Interestingly enough, once I got it right I then tried to get the same custom white balance on my X-Pro2, but it measured slightly different. My suggestion is to use auto-white-balance, and once you capture an image that looks right, use custom white balance to make a measurement of the scene and set it. I think that should work, anyway. Otherwise, just keep trying to get the custom white balance right by taking different measurements until you find one that looks good.

Nobody pays me to write the content found on fujixweekly.com. There's a real cost to operating and maintaining this site, not to mention all the time that I pour into it. If you appreciated this article, please consider making a one-time gift contribution. Thank you!

Hi there! thanks for the recipe! i will try it on my xt20! Do you have any aproximate recipe for non classic chrome models? i really enjoy shooting with xpro1 so i would really benefit from one! thanks again! great job! keep them coming!

When I emulate these setting my shadows almost always clip and leave me with a very contrasty image. To combat this I follow your advice and use exposure comp but then my high lights clip or leave me with unflattering skin tones. Any advice? Thank you regardless for getting me a step closer to a perfect all situation color preset! ?

This is excellent work! This is probably an off the mark question, but have you ever tried to replicate the look of these settings on a RAW file? How would you suggest applying the principals to editing RAW? Just curious as I tend to like to shoot RAW because my tastes can be fickle and I like to be able to change things up.

Thank you very much for sharing your precious recipes. It really changed my way of looking to the CC Simulation. I really like the Portra recipe for portrait as an alternative to pro-neg. Kindest Regards.

I would say you just significantly added to the research data for Portra films. I don't anticipate needing to go beyond 8-10 seconds with this film, but you never know! Thanks for posting.
ages ago(permalink)

Hello! Im new to shooting long exposure and was wondering if this table is also valid for the new Portra 160 or if its only for the old VC and NC versions? Also, I was looking at the chart for long exposures on another neg, the Kodak TX400, and it says one should develop from -10% to -30% depending on the exposure time, would this be also true for the Portra 160? Thanks so much!
80 months ago(permalink)

Chart is the same for 160 and 400 - sure I saw that somewhere. For me personally, If I perform a long film exposure, I never bother adjusting process time. Each film reacts differently anyway. For example, Velvia 50 will also have a colour shift if long-exposed, whereas Provia 100 will be fine. You can get into all sorts of testing such as densitometry but as I scan my film, adjustments in Camera Raw and post-process suits my needs. The above assumes that you expose the film with the required amount of light, including reciprocity,. Under or over exposing is a whole different ball game where all sorts of changes can take place (latitude, contrast, colour, grain, and so on) See carmencitafilmlab.com/introduction-portra-family/
80 months ago(permalink)

alexandre elaiuy: I don't have any data for VC and NC - as far as I know this only applies to the latest emulsions, 160 and 400. In my limited experience with 400NC at night immediately before the introduction of new Portra 400 it definitely required more reciprocity failure compensation.

I would much rather change exposure time than development times for color film.
Originally posted 80 months ago. (permalink)
Isaac Sachs edited this topic 80 months ago.

Four years later, I've got a pinhole camera and some Portra 400 in 120 format, so I'm happy to have some compensation times to work with now. It pays to stay on Flickr.
80 months ago(permalink)

The cheapest solution to these dilemmas is to borrow a 35mm camera and run test exposures against a colour chart. Simply perform this during the falling light of the evening. Can also be done with ND filters but be careful as some have colour casts. You could also do this indoors and shut curtains. Anything that gives you a chance or getting it right first time is welcome with long exposures
80 months ago(permalink)

Hi. I shot a roll of portra 400 with the light meter on my Rolleiflex 2.8F accidentally set at 100. I am wondering if I should have the lab pull the development a stop or two in order to compensate for over exposure. Or is Portra 400 so tolerant that it might come out fine with a 2 stop overexposure? I was thinking of pulling 1 stop just to be safe? Any suggestions? Thanks.

Since the layers are stacked, the processing chemistry starts working on each layer with a progressive time delay, because it takes a non-zero amount of time for the developer to percolate through the layers one after the other, from the top down. That is why color film development times/temps are so ultra-critical in the first place (0.25F).

The factory chemical balance of the dye layers is "calibrated" for the known delay with the standard developing time. If you use a shorter time to "pull" the film, the cyan and magenta dye layers will be disproportionally underdeveloped, since the developer will not have been in them long enough. Result will likely be color shifts and crossovers (red shadows and green highlights, or something similar).

Overexposing color negative film, up to 2 stops, with normal development, actually has a couple of advantages. 1) Less grain, as the dye clouds (rather than specks of silver) get bigger and blend together at the edges. And 2), punchier color saturation.

Another factor - how old is your Rollei lens? If it's from the 50s-60s, it probably is a fairly low-contrast, low-saturation lens to begin with (older coatings). If you pull the development, your pix will be even more flat and desaturated.

This will probably look really nice developed normally as long as you didn't purposely over expose it too much further when metering . Plenty of people shoot 400 @ 100. I found 200 to be more to my taste (developed normally), but I also generally over-expose further when shooting so won't be too far off what you will get here

200 is my standard speed for Portra 400. If you shot 100, some negatives might come out a bit dense, but will be fine anyway. Andy explained it in depth-pulling CN films is no good idea. Different from @adan s experience, i have the feeling that Portra looses contrast if "overexposed"; you'll get "pastel" mood.

Thank you for all the replies. I will ask the lab but lean towards just having it developed normally. My Rolleiflex is a 2.8F White Face version which I believe are among the later models manufactured. It's a great camera that I have been using since 2016.

Here are scans from the two negs - the first is shot normally, and the second shot at 2 stops over. Both on the same roll, so both developed identically for normal time - the EI 50 shot naturally had to be darkened to match the ISO 200 shot.

About the only difference I see is that the EI 50 overexposure shows a tad more shadow detail in the shop interior, and actually slightly better greens in the sign over the doorway and slightly smoother gradation in the sidewalk tones.

Here is my favorite photo from the reel. I didn't adjust anything on this just exported as a Jpeg from lightroom. The exposure on the other photos looked good too, I just blew focus on most of them cause I was shooting at 2.8 and my model was moving around.

I'm pretty new to film photography and photography in general. I've been taking my cameras (Canon A-1 or Pentax ME super, portra 400 film) with me to most places and trying to gain as much experience as possible.

Low contrast, muddy images are exactly what to expect from underexposed Portra 400. So, I suspect that your images are actually significantly underexposed (for whatever reason), and that the lab is pushing them up to compensate as best they can. (Probably their scanning machine just does that.)

These scans appear, to my eye, to suffer from poor color correction to remove the color cast of the negative. Specifically, they look overcorrected towards green in the negative which adds an orange cast back into the positive. The green cast is most noticeable in the darkest areas of the images and least noticeable in the brightest areas.

This also might be the result of overzealous correction to remove a green cast that is often evident when boosting the exposure of an underexposed or underdeveloped negative. But to know for sure we need to look at the negatives directly, rather than rely on what might have happened during the scanning stage.

Your images might be somewhat underexposed, but the real problem is bad (or complete lack of?) post processing. Even starting with the pictures you show as opposed to raw scans or tweaking the scanning parameters, they can be made to look much better:

Mastin Labs Portra Pushed Presets for Lightroom are the best foundation for dark and moody portraits. With warm tones and high contrast, the Portra Pushed pack is ideal for boudoir, indoor lifestyle, and adventure elopements.

This is where the real abuse begins. Once 2011 hit, I was in full swing shooting Portra 400 whenever I got the chance. I found myself regularly shooting it at 1600 with no push, just to gain faster shutter speeds and sharper portraits. Heading out east a few more times for FPP recordings and the NYC meetup mid-March, I shot half a dozen rolls of the stuff, in 35mm, 64.5, and 66, with crazy ranges all mixed together! On one roll of 35mm Portra 400 in the trusty Olympus Trip 35, I took snaps of the FPP Meetup adjusting the ISO on the camera from 200-1600 to match the changing light, and ALL the shots came out great! When visiting Times Square with Lauren late one Friday evening, I captured this splendid portrait you see below.