I discovered how far I could miss and still get a photo and that was a big part of me falling in love with film again years ago. It was a lot more latitude than digital at the time, and even now, highlight retention is probably better. Heck, I can miss by a stop or two on slide film and pull it back acceptably with my scanning setup now. It helps me shoot dramatically less on digital, too, which does help the resale value and longevity of gear. Great idea!
Wow! So cool! I just ran a roll of Tri-X 400 in my Yashica MAT shot all at 1/60 f3.5 Lots of it was indoors so I was planning on pushing it two stops. Excited to see how it turns out!
Been taking pics of my toddlers with my Mamiya C33 and this was just fun to watch. The latitude is darn impressive, Portra loves it some light! Thanks!
Having managed a C41 lab I can tell you neg film saved more than few “professionals “. However THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for correct exposure for the very best print quality. I feel this current mania for overexposure is handicapping people from seeing how good film is. Want to get the best - get a quality incident meter
Absolutely. I still meter everything I photograph and try to do it accurately. That being said, too many people don’t try film because they think it has to be perfect.
Good advice, may i also add that learning about colour temperature will improve colour film photography just as much as correct exposure. Most photographers expect the Labs to correct the colour shifts when scanning, but this becomes guess work. Particularly when photographing in various lighting conditions. The film is designed for midday sun (5500 kelvins), as soon as you move into the shade, it can be around 6500-10000 kelvins (depending on conditions). This makes scanning for maximum quality a lot more accurate. I wouldn't be too quick to blame the Labs for poor scanning,.
Wayne RADFORD Indeed. I went to a Frank Criccio seminar in the 1980s and he mentioned using a Skylight filter for shooting in the shade to get perfect skintones on VPSIII. ( showing my age )
agylub Me too. I started my business in 1986 and Frank Criccio was the first major seminar I attended here in Australia. He was teaching 5&7 light setups. Great educator. I learnt the value of colour correction from my Lab owner around 1988 and he suggested investing in a colour temperature meter. So I did, plus a bunch of correction filters, 81 & 85 warming filters plus 82 series cooling filters. The colour meter was very handy for weddings in various lighting conditions. EG: a bride's white dress will have a blue tint in a shaded area on a blue sky day, but a different reading on a overcast day. A colour temperature meter will tell you the Kelvin number and what filter to use for correcting it to balance the film to 5500K. Doing these corrections will enhance enlargements and stop colour casts and muddy prints. Sorry to make this so long, but I felt anyone interested in creating better prints may be interested. Cheers
I tried 6 stops over on a digital. It's madness. I pulled the raw into Lightroom and did everything to adjust it. There is some stuff visible in the image, but very little. Almost no colour and no saturation.
This makes me happy. I haven't shot a ton of film, but I have a bunch of Portra 160 waiting to be scanned. The meter on the K1000 isn't exactly what I'd call precise, so I made sure to always be slightly higher than what the camera recommended and I wasn't sure how it'd turn out. This makes me worry slightly less.
The photos are really beautiful. But I really think its is quite important to tell in each photo, how you have metered. Did you use a spotmeter? In that case, you metered for the highlights or the shadows?
Nice shots and thanks for making the video. Wondering why you chose to not show the images before they were edited? I would love to see the before and after, especially what the 6 stop over image looked like.
Portra 400 is known the be very good overexposed, some people even purposely shoot it over exposed (or so I have read)... I haven't tried to do that (no real reason to), but it's interesting none the less. Portra is really good looking film. Your first two exposures were fantastic!
The reason for overexposing is to distort the color response of the film to give it a "look". Overexposure clips and distorts the red channel especially causing the Portra look often described as "pastel". This effect can't easily be reproduced by digital as the actual shape of the response curve is chemically distorted by exposure and development. Also each film stock has a different response to overexposure, creating different "palettes" to work with. Go film!
The film is great,but still,it depends on the labs,how they scan it how they adjust the scanned files,some labs they do shit!But some like yours,did a great job for scanning.
This is exactly what I'm looking for with digital cameras for years! But let's face it, we have to wait more years to finally, one day, reach this incredible and so unique rending. And I hope that at least, Fujifilm gonna makes it possible (fingers crossed). Even the most stupid or ugly photo tell us a story, there is so much life. At 6:16 the light is just incredible, just like the depth of field!
Another great case for shooting film. The first time I shot film was also the first time that I had done any kind of manual photography. I knew nothing about the exposure triangle or how to manipulate it, so I ended up ignorantly shooting an entire 35mm roll of Fuji superia 400 film at f1.8 and 1/60th of a second, so I was in the same boat as you of having probably over a dozen shots be over 6 stops overexposed, but I was still impressed with how the images looked. It was an interesting learning experience into film photography and just basic photography in general. But yes, negative film, especially portra, is very forgiving. Thanks for sharing!
I love Portra 400. I’m wondering what the print looked like on the shot that was more than 6 stops overexposed. Did it look as good as the scan or was it a lot brighter?
Thanks for the video. Knowing that (colour negative) film is really forgiving has been great for me since coming back to using film over the past year or two. I have two film cameras and neither has an internal light meter, but I live somewhere that's generally sunny and just use Sunny 16 and it generally works out just fine. I do have a light meter app that I sometimes use if I'm not sure but most of the time I let my eyes and the latitude of film do the work. I have a roll of Portra in the camera right now so time to get out and over/under/correctly expose it!
How did you correct the exposure? With light room from the negative that was over exposed? Or were the negative as it was shown in the video? Very interesting and inspiring review! Thanks.
This is a game changer video for people new to shooting film. Thanks Benj! One question I had, when getting the film developed, did you have to tell Indie film that some frames were over exposed etc? Or did they just normalize the exposures automatically without prompting from yourself?
Great video! Really appreciate seeing all the capabilities of portra 400! Question: You had to expose numerous shots differently and had to have them pushed or pulled by the lab. Did you use a separate roll for each level of exposure? I'd imagine the lab wasn't cutting out frames to be developed differently, right? Thanks in advance!
Nope, the lab simply adjusted the exposures in the scanning software. No pushing/pulling needed. Every shot was exposed the exact same by me and then scanned to correct by the lab. Hope that makes sense!
Hi Benj, can I ask a newb question - if I'm pushing film (rating porta 400 at 800), and I want to overexpose it should I overexpose 1 or 2 stops for the look of portra 400 overexposed 2 stops?
One thing I don't understand from this video: did the overexposed and underexposed shots came out of straight of camera like this? Or you had to adjust the exposure in Lightroom for it to look like this ? thanks
For new film shooters, it might be helpful to understand what in-camera reflected metering is vs. handheld (preferably incident) meter use. At 3:05 he mentions "the meter told me, that the exposure I had, was dead on". Maybe I missed it, but did he mention his metering technique/equipment? For more, visit www.35mmc.com/26/03/2016/exposure-metering-for-film/
Shot my first roll of film over Christmas break, and yes, I found that the overexposed images held a lot more info than the underexposed shots. Stoked to see how my next roll turns out, and I’m also gonna try that Kodak Portra 400. Mahalo.
To be sure to understand your test. You developped the portrait normally. You scanned it with the same settings and then you corrected the image in lr ? Or you corrected during scanning ?
Whenever I’ve shot 35mm film indoors, the scans come back with this horrible green cast across the whole frame. I’m getting them scanned at one of the most premium labs in nyc. What am I doing wrong??
Super insightful thanks for sharing Benj 🙌🏼 I’ve been playing around with flash and noticed it throws a blue color cast into the image (in the shadows) I’m assuming because the colour temperature of the flash isn’t daylight balanced where the film stock is (portra 400). Any tips to avoid cool colour casts when using flash? Thanks!
If I understand correctly. Your images, if not well esposed, where either too dark or too light and the lab fixed it to the result we see in the video?
The over and under exposure latitude you get with digital really depends on what ISO you shoot at. If you shoot raw at a low ISO, you get more underexposure latitude. If you shoot raw at high ISO (and with chroma NR in post for the image to be more usable), you get more overexposure latitude. This is only the case if you do not over or under expose so much that the camera still would not get that detail, so pushing the ISO by 2 stops does not mean you get to overexpose by 4 more stops. You would also still need to adjust your exposure as you push your ISO by using a narrower aperture, faster shutter speed and/or using an ND filter so that your highlights would still be recoverable. Filmmaker IQ did a video on dynamic range and you should go check it out to learn more. That is how I know about the ISO thing. So it is a misconception that digital is inherently lacking in highlight detail. You just need to push your ISO more when shooting raw and adjust your exposure accordingly. BTW, what digital cameras did you shoot where it had less underexposure latitude than Portra 400? Did you shoot the digital at high ISO at the time?
Hello Benj! Thanks for the video, very helpfull! I wonder if it is possible to scan an overexposed film at home (with a DSLR or a scanner) and get good results. I ask that because in the video you took a 6+ stops overexposed picture and it is very usable, but you've sent it to a professional lab I think, right? Can I get the same results at home? Thanks again!
I just shot a few rolls of Kodak Gold 200 but set the iso to 100. My question is it's not the same as pulling film right? I'm about to send them to the lab but got a little confuse.
Mate, P400/P800 12 stops dynamic range!!!! I love that film, still to this day I try to convert every digital file into that look. If you could try Kodakchrome it would be the total opposite you needed to be spot on no room for error what so ever. Good think after years with that I never used a light meter again. You needed to be so precise you would learn light. I use Digital Blad big sensor but still prefer Porta 400 over everything out there
😂 that the rolliflex and not the film , it has one lens to see and another to take so they got into so much flexibility game with each other there 😝. Love this one .
@@benjhaisch Okay, I do that, too in the scanner, but not in PS for various reasons. It gets really hard to learn things about particular films or cameras when most of the youtubers talk about things like, colour or sharpness and don't mention that they retouch and edit all those things. Can be very misleading. Yours is a nice video though, I, personally feel more comfortable using cheaper film or Fuji Pro H 400 if there's a proper budget, but I'll get couple of Portras and give it another chance after this video.
Did you push / pull process at development? Film is awesome, and super forgiving. I'm not sure how it's not intimidating though, because you need to make additional decisions after shooting the picture, like development process choice, how to scan, how to postprocess the scans to restore the color. On another note, been shooting some slide film recently and trying some kitchen sink development soon. I understand you expose more like a DLSR with color positive film, so this isn't true of all film.
Hi Tristan. I have a comment on, "you need to make additional decisions after shooting the picture, like development process choice, how to scan, how to postprocess the scans to restore the color." ^^ My take on that concern is that you "learn a film" and then use it for an intended purpose. For example when you watch YT reviews of film you'll see which films are best for certain types of photography, right? The fact that a roll of film only has a few images on it "saves" you from finding yourself in a situation where you have wildly different scenes and lighting circumstances to contend with, on film stock not suited for a particular scene. Over time you learn which films you prefer to under or underexpose (if any), which ones you want developed as-is, or pushed or pulled. That's why every roll you install is like "swapping out the camera sensor" ... you can use that flexibility to your advantage but it takes time and experience.
Think about it: everybody used film all the time, and most pictures were fine! Look at your family photo albums, it couldn't have been rocket science...
His definition of a usable image seems to be a 2-3x enlarged image on a computer screen. What would be far more interesting is to accept the 1/60 speed and shoot at proper aperture as available. At most, you would have to handle a 3 stop over-exposure, which the film can handle easily. On Boy, another one of the "shoot at half box speed" fanboys, even if you don't run around with a broken camera. Rule to live by for people who do not know how to use their meter. The Rule: Since you don't know how to use a meter, shoot off rated film speed to make sure that all of your exposures are "off". That way when you get crap results, you can cover by claiming to be "experimental".
Yeah, “usable” is definitely determined by what the final delivery needs to be. Like I was saying though, for just personal memories and stuff, it’s more than useable. I’d love to see you make a video on metering though, it would probably be more helpful. :)
Haha, yes a little more scary for sure ;) In 10 rolls though, I didn’t get a single blown exposure even when I was testing specifically for that, so take that for what it’s worth.
What has been your experience with Portra 400? Has it been this flexible for you too?
I'm a bnw lover so I rarely shoot color films. You might have just tickled me to try more color film bro
I just accidentally shot a roll of Portra 400 metered at 100iso so fingers crossed it is this flexible 🤞
@@fionahodkinson8346 report back, I’d be shocked if it wasn’t great!
Correct exposure=amazing....wrong exposure=amazing in a different way. They all looked great man.
Such a good, practical test! Love this, dude. Also digging that hoodie. 👌🏻
Literally recorded this video the night that I got it!
hey matt, what day is it today?
* @1:20 ‘caveat: with color negative and most black and white film’ (not slide film) corrected @1:50 👍👏🎞
@bwvids haha yep! I knew someone would say something if I didn’t say something 😂
Dude! Thank you for making this. I can now share this with all the people I speak to about film and are scared. This is so helpful.
All of those photos have such a great colour! Portra is sooo damn cool! Thanks for this video!
I discovered how far I could miss and still get a photo and that was a big part of me falling in love with film again years ago. It was a lot more latitude than digital at the time, and even now, highlight retention is probably better. Heck, I can miss by a stop or two on slide film and pull it back acceptably with my scanning setup now. It helps me shoot dramatically less on digital, too, which does help the resale value and longevity of gear. Great idea!
Matt Day sent me in this direction.... wasn’t disappointed. Great video, loved how you tested a classic in Portra 400. Love the content 👍🏼
Matt Day is the man. Thanks, dude!
Same here, this is an amazing discovery!
Wow! So cool! I just ran a roll of Tri-X 400 in my Yashica MAT shot all at 1/60 f3.5 Lots of it was indoors so I was planning on pushing it two stops. Excited to see how it turns out!
Been taking pics of my toddlers with my Mamiya C33 and this was just fun to watch. The latitude is darn impressive, Portra loves it some light! Thanks!
This is very encouraging as I have a Canonet 28 with no light meter so it only shoots at 1/60th of a second
Keep it up the videos Benj - love it!
Having managed a C41 lab I can tell you neg film saved more than few “professionals “. However THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE for correct exposure for the very best print quality. I feel this current mania for overexposure is handicapping people from seeing how good film is. Want to get the best - get a quality incident meter
Absolutely. I still meter everything I photograph and try to do it accurately. That being said, too many people don’t try film because they think it has to be perfect.
Benj Haisch it does have to be perfect. Must be that two weeks I spent in Japan last year. 😂
Good advice, may i also add that learning about colour temperature will improve colour film photography just as much as correct exposure. Most photographers expect the Labs to correct the colour shifts when scanning, but this becomes guess work. Particularly when photographing in various lighting conditions. The film is designed for midday sun (5500 kelvins), as soon as you move into the shade, it can be around 6500-10000 kelvins (depending on conditions). This makes scanning for maximum quality a lot more accurate. I wouldn't be too quick to blame the Labs for poor scanning,.
Wayne RADFORD Indeed. I went to a Frank Criccio seminar in the 1980s and he mentioned using a Skylight filter for shooting in the shade to get perfect skintones on VPSIII. ( showing my age )
agylub Me too. I started my business in 1986 and Frank Criccio was the first major seminar I attended here in Australia. He was teaching 5&7 light setups. Great educator. I learnt the value of colour correction from my Lab owner around 1988 and he suggested investing in a colour temperature meter. So I did, plus a bunch of correction filters, 81 & 85 warming filters plus 82 series cooling filters. The colour meter was very handy for weddings in various lighting conditions. EG: a bride's white dress will have a blue tint in a shaded area on a blue sky day, but a different reading on a overcast day. A colour temperature meter will tell you the Kelvin number and what filter to use for correcting it to balance the film to 5500K. Doing these corrections will enhance enlargements and stop colour casts and muddy prints. Sorry to make this so long, but I felt anyone interested in creating better prints may be interested. Cheers
Awesome! Thanks for sharing this information! I’m jumping into 120 film & I’m excited to give this a shot! 🙌🏾💯
Saw this last year Kyle McDougall did the same thing.
Thanks for the test.
Can you try a different film.
I tried 6 stops over on a digital. It's madness. I pulled the raw into Lightroom and did everything to adjust it. There is some stuff visible in the image, but very little. Almost no colour and no saturation.
This makes me happy. I haven't shot a ton of film, but I have a bunch of Portra 160 waiting to be scanned. The meter on the K1000 isn't exactly what I'd call precise, so I made sure to always be slightly higher than what the camera recommended and I wasn't sure how it'd turn out. This makes me worry slightly less.
The photos are really beautiful. But I really think its is quite important to tell in each photo, how you have metered. Did you use a spotmeter? In that case, you metered for the highlights or the shadows?
Great video! About to be a dad In a few weeks and I love seeing how much heart you put into photos of your boy. Nice work!
Ahhh congrats! Most surreal moments of my entire life were those few weeks. Savor every crazy moment.
love this film... makes me want to pick my camera back up. It's been awhile since I've shot and I'm nervous to pick it up again.
Well I hope you picked it up, as a southern guy running the risk of being made fun of, ive ordered everything I need to learn and im very excited
Nice shots and thanks for making the video. Wondering why you chose to not show the images before they were edited? I would love to see the before and after, especially what the 6 stop over image looked like.
These are the images straight from the lab
Portra 400 and Portra 800 were my favorite films for weddings.
Portra 400 is known the be very good overexposed, some people even purposely shoot it over exposed (or so I have read)... I haven't tried to do that (no real reason to), but it's interesting none the less. Portra is really good looking film. Your first two exposures were fantastic!
The reason for overexposing is to distort the color response of the film to give it a "look". Overexposure clips and distorts the red channel especially causing the Portra look often described as "pastel". This effect can't easily be reproduced by digital as the actual shape of the response curve is chemically distorted by exposure and development. Also each film stock has a different response to overexposure, creating different "palettes" to work with. Go film!
The film is great,but still,it depends on the labs,how they scan it how they adjust the scanned files,some labs they do shit!But some like yours,did a great job for scanning.
yes. just get a scanner and learn how to develop your own rolls (BW, C41, E6) you will save money to buy more film in the long run.
This is exactly what I'm looking for with digital cameras for years! But let's face it, we have to wait more years to finally, one day, reach this incredible and so unique rending. And I hope that at least, Fujifilm gonna makes it possible (fingers crossed). Even the most stupid or ugly photo tell us a story, there is so much life. At 6:16 the light is just incredible, just like the depth of field!
great content, great explanation, keep it going, thanks for teaching
Another great case for shooting film. The first time I shot film was also the first time that I had done any kind of manual photography. I knew nothing about the exposure triangle or how to manipulate it, so I ended up ignorantly shooting an entire 35mm roll of Fuji superia 400 film at f1.8 and 1/60th of a second, so I was in the same boat as you of having probably over a dozen shots be over 6 stops overexposed, but I was still impressed with how the images looked. It was an interesting learning experience into film photography and just basic photography in general. But yes, negative film, especially portra, is very forgiving. Thanks for sharing!
whoa mind-blowing! film is king!
Subscribed because of this video. This is the kind of content I want to see.
Great interesting video! Do you know if the lab adjusted the exposure of the images when they scanned them?
Yes, the lab will adjust how the scanner sees the exposure to give the best density of the negative possible
Cracking video, really useful info, thanks.
I love Portra 400. I’m wondering what the print looked like on the shot that was more than 6 stops overexposed. Did it look as good as the scan or was it a lot brighter?
Thanks for the video. Knowing that (colour negative) film is really forgiving has been great for me since coming back to using film over the past year or two. I have two film cameras and neither has an internal light meter, but I live somewhere that's generally sunny and just use Sunny 16 and it generally works out just fine. I do have a light meter app that I sometimes use if I'm not sure but most of the time I let my eyes and the latitude of film do the work. I have a roll of Portra in the camera right now so time to get out and over/under/correctly expose it!
than a for the walk through and the insight, been kinda jumping around bodies lately and my exposures have been pretty inconsistent. this helps.
Great, informative videos Benj! Thanks! Just subscribed 👌🏻
How did you correct the exposure? With light room from the negative that was over exposed? Or were the negative as it was shown in the video? Very interesting and inspiring review! Thanks.
I believe the exposure was corrected in scanning and not lightroom
Wonderful vid. Thanks for the sharing and the effort. I need to give Porta 400 a spin. Do you get scans, prints or both? BIG thumbs up.
Hey thanks! I get scans but then I do make prints of select images
Very cool man. Makes me want to go back to film or at least add it back into the kit. Cheers from Canada 🇨🇦
Could you please test Fuji Pro 400h too? Thanks
This is a game changer video for people new to shooting film. Thanks Benj! One question I had, when getting the film developed, did you have to tell Indie film that some frames were over exposed etc? Or did they just normalize the exposures automatically without prompting from yourself?
Nope, they just corrected it for me in scanning
Outstanding video and test! Thank you for this!
Portra is so good really. The grain as well is amazing I think. Thanks for ur vid 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
Awesome. I've wondered about this myself. So were these scans edited? Or were these the straight scans?
Great video! Really appreciate seeing all the capabilities of portra 400!
Question: You had to expose numerous shots differently and had to have them pushed or pulled by the lab. Did you use a separate roll for each level of exposure? I'd imagine the lab wasn't cutting out frames to be developed differently, right? Thanks in advance!
Nope, the lab simply adjusted the exposures in the scanning software. No pushing/pulling needed. Every shot was exposed the exact same by me and then scanned to correct by the lab. Hope that makes sense!
@@benjhaisch I was hoping to find exactly this piece of information in the comments and lo and behold, you answered it already! Awesome 🙌
Hi Benj, can I ask a newb question - if I'm pushing film (rating porta 400 at 800), and I want to overexpose it should I overexpose 1 or 2 stops for the look of portra 400 overexposed 2 stops?
One thing I don't understand from this video: did the overexposed and underexposed shots came out of straight of camera like this? Or you had to adjust the exposure in Lightroom for it to look like this ? thanks
For new film shooters, it might be helpful to understand what in-camera reflected metering is vs. handheld (preferably incident) meter use. At 3:05 he mentions "the meter told me, that the exposure I had, was dead on". Maybe I missed it, but did he mention his metering technique/equipment? For more, visit www.35mmc.com/26/03/2016/exposure-metering-for-film/
Great video thanks for sharing!👍
Shot my first roll of film over Christmas break, and yes, I found that the overexposed images held a lot more info than the underexposed shots. Stoked to see how my next roll turns out, and I’m also gonna try that Kodak Portra 400. Mahalo.
When exactly do you recover the details when over/underexposed? Is it when you develope the negative or is it when you directly work on the scan?
Great video btw
You can do it while scanning.
Sambit Biswas alright! I never understood that thanks a lot!
Wow, thank-you for making this video. Very inspirational. Cheers from Canada.
To be sure to understand your test. You developped the portrait normally. You scanned it with the same settings and then you corrected the image in lr ? Or you corrected during scanning ?
The lab probably corrected in scanning
@@benjhaisch thanks.
Very true, the Raw digitals would be useless, happens even in the slighest light change to me all the time.
Whenever I’ve shot 35mm film indoors, the scans come back with this horrible green cast across the whole frame. I’m getting them scanned at one of the most premium labs in nyc. What am I doing wrong??
Super insightful thanks for sharing Benj 🙌🏼 I’ve been playing around with flash and noticed it throws a blue color cast into the image (in the shadows) I’m assuming because the colour temperature of the flash isn’t daylight balanced where the film stock is (portra 400). Any tips to avoid cool colour casts when using flash? Thanks!
What a great idea!! Subscribed 👍👍
Thanks!
If I understand correctly. Your images, if not well esposed, where either too dark or too light and the lab fixed it to the result we see in the video?
Correct
Do you have in suggestions on where to send a camera to get fixed or refurbished if that’s a good word to use lol 😂
so encouraging! thank you for this
Does this information correlate to 135 films as well? Or 135s have a smaller dynamic range? Nice photos btw, and thank you for the video :)
The over and under exposure latitude you get with digital really depends on what ISO you shoot at.
If you shoot raw at a low ISO, you get more underexposure latitude. If you shoot raw at high ISO (and with chroma NR in post for the image to be more usable), you get more overexposure latitude.
This is only the case if you do not over or under expose so much that the camera still would not get that detail, so pushing the ISO by 2 stops does not mean you get to overexpose by 4 more stops. You would also still need to adjust your exposure as you push your ISO by using a narrower aperture, faster shutter speed and/or using an ND filter so that your highlights would still be recoverable.
Filmmaker IQ did a video on dynamic range and you should go check it out to learn more. That is how I know about the ISO thing.
So it is a misconception that digital is inherently lacking in highlight detail. You just need to push your ISO more when shooting raw and adjust your exposure accordingly.
BTW, what digital cameras did you shoot where it had less underexposure latitude than Portra 400? Did you shoot the digital at high ISO at the time?
@Benjhaisch - Did you meter all of these at box speed 400 ISO? Curious!
Yes, I metered at box speed, but they’re all taken at the same exposure regardless haha
Thank you!!@@benjhaisch
I just shot a roll of portra 400 in my hassy and thought it was ektar , rating it at 100. looking forward to see the results
I just did the exact same thing
How was it??
@@benjhaisch it worked out, a tad overexposed but i can work with it. in general though, i prefer rating portra at box speed
Hello Benj! Thanks for the video, very helpfull! I wonder if it is possible to scan an overexposed film at home (with a DSLR or a scanner) and get good results. I ask that because in the video you took a 6+ stops overexposed picture and it is very usable, but you've sent it to a professional lab I think, right? Can I get the same results at home? Thanks again!
Hi, great video! Subbed :) Do you know if Portra 160 can be as under and over exposed as much as the Portra 400?
I just shot a few rolls of Kodak Gold 200 but set the iso to 100. My question is it's not the same as pulling film right? I'm about to send them to the lab but got a little confuse.
Totally normal, no need to communicate anything to the lab.
@@benjhaisch Thank you so much!!
When I was a pro back in the day I always shot on colour negative film even if colour reversal was required.
The lab could do colour reversal copies.
Impressive testing results! Do you develop and scan the roll by yourself, or do you send it to a lab?
Love the Matt Day gear!🙌🏻
If I use iso400 film and tell my camera it’s iso200, do I get the lab to develop at 400 or 200? Thanks
And just to be clear, these photos were processed without pushing or pulling the film right? Just developing as straight 400 speed?
Correct
@@benjhaisch Awesome video. Would love more of these on other films. Very eye opening! Thanks :)
great pics!!
I honestly find it funny that you can call film intimidating, it was just so much of my everyday life.
If you pull the film by 1 stop, do you need to let the developer know? Or do you just let them develop it as usual at box speed??
I’ve never pulled color negative film. It has plenty of highlight latitude :)
Excellent video.
Mate, P400/P800 12 stops dynamic range!!!!
I love that film, still to this day I try to convert every digital file into that look.
If you could try Kodakchrome it would be the total opposite you needed to be spot on no room for error what so ever. Good think after years with that I never used a light meter again. You needed to be so precise you would learn light. I use Digital Blad big sensor but still prefer Porta 400 over everything out there
Great video and test😍🙏 thanks for using a roll of film for this🙈
Ben, which lab do you use to develop your images?
Indie film lab!
@@benjhaisch Much appreciated. And thank you for your great videos and beautiful pictures you share :)
I'm gonna grab and load my portra 400 in my 500cm. If I shoot at 200asa, do I need to tell the lab anything?
No!
Totally disagree with you there mate. That photo of your son at 6.22 is just beautiful. Its perfect in every way.
It works for me too....
Great video! Love the Look !
😂 that the rolliflex and not the film , it has one lens to see and another to take so they got into so much flexibility game with each other there 😝. Love this one .
I messed up with a project last year. It was way too underexposed and very grainy
Coool video! Kodak portra 400 is great
I’m shooting at 1/60 wide open from now on 👍🏽
Thanks for sharing
Did you use any photoshop?
I didn’t, but the scans were corrected by the lab
@@benjhaisch Okay, I do that, too in the scanner, but not in PS for various reasons. It gets really hard to learn things about particular films or cameras when most of the youtubers talk about things like, colour or sharpness and don't mention that they retouch and edit all those things. Can be very misleading. Yours is a nice video though, I, personally feel more comfortable using cheaper film or Fuji Pro H 400 if there's a proper budget, but I'll get couple of Portras and give it another chance after this video.
Did you push / pull process at development? Film is awesome, and super forgiving. I'm not sure how it's not intimidating though, because you need to make additional decisions after shooting the picture, like development process choice, how to scan, how to postprocess the scans to restore the color. On another note, been shooting some slide film recently and trying some kitchen sink development soon. I understand you expose more like a DLSR with color positive film, so this isn't true of all film.
I didn’t push or pull, just sent in as is. Slide film is definitely less forgiving. You can watch my video on Ektachrome for more info.
Hi Tristan. I have a comment on, "you need to make additional decisions after shooting the picture, like development process choice, how to scan, how to postprocess the scans to restore the color."
^^ My take on that concern is that you "learn a film" and then use it for an intended purpose. For example when you watch YT reviews of film you'll see which films are best for certain types of photography, right? The fact that a roll of film only has a few images on it "saves" you from finding yourself in a situation where you have wildly different scenes and lighting circumstances to contend with, on film stock not suited for a particular scene.
Over time you learn which films you prefer to under or underexpose (if any), which ones you want developed as-is, or pushed or pulled. That's why every roll you install is like "swapping out the camera sensor" ... you can use that flexibility to your advantage but it takes time and experience.
Think about it: everybody used film all the time, and most pictures were fine! Look at your family photo albums, it couldn't have been rocket science...
Sounds like you haven't used a digital camera in a long time. Digital latitude far exceeds film these days.
In dynamic range? Not unless you’re talking about slide film.
His definition of a usable image seems to be a 2-3x enlarged image on a computer screen. What would be far more interesting is to accept the 1/60 speed and shoot at proper aperture as available. At most, you would have to handle a 3 stop over-exposure, which the film can handle easily. On Boy, another one of the "shoot at half box speed" fanboys, even if you don't run around with a broken camera. Rule to live by for people who do not know how to use their meter. The Rule: Since you don't know how to use a meter, shoot off rated film speed to make sure that all of your exposures are "off". That way when you get crap results, you can cover by claiming to be "experimental".
Yeah, “usable” is definitely determined by what the final delivery needs to be. Like I was saying though, for just personal memories and stuff, it’s more than useable. I’d love to see you make a video on metering though, it would probably be more helpful. :)
ektachrome is scary
Haha, yes a little more scary for sure ;)
In 10 rolls though, I didn’t get a single blown exposure even when I was testing specifically for that, so take that for what it’s worth.
I'm about half way through, this videos dope man. You've got a new subscriber coming your way, check mine out if you get a minute!
its super scary, don't listen to him! stick to digital!!