What color negative/transparency would you recommend for night photography?

[manfrominternet]

What color negative or transparency film would you guys recommend for night photography in foggy/cloudy weather?

I can’t decide between Portra 160, Portra 400, Ektar 100, and Provia 100. I’ve used Ektar and Provia, but only in the daytime during cloudy/overcast weather. I don’t know how these perform at night.

I’m particularly interested in trying out one of the Portra films. That said, does Portra 160 perform better than Portra 400 for moody nighttime suburban landscapes a la Todd Hido?

Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

[Corran]

Do you want a high contrast image with deep shadows? Or lower contrast with easier to control / open shadows? Are you shooting under tungsten lights and want that corrected? Or looking for a daylight color balance?

Portra would probably give you the most leeway. Ektar will give more contrast and saturation. The Provia slide film will be harder to control.

Really depends on what you want to do. A lot of folks also like the Cinestill film for color nightscapes. I don't know if they have any 4x5 available...I still haven't shot any of mine that I got from their campaign some years ago.

I also have a stash of old tungsten films - both Fuji T64 slide and some NPL 160 negative film. I like both. It's really fun to see the slides on a light table. But, you'll also want to consider how you'll be printing them - scanning? Traditional?

[Corran]

From a number of years ago, two shots - one on Fuji NPL 160 and the other on Velvia 50:

http://www.esearing.com/Bryan/AV/photosharing/fair-0390scomp.jpg

Just thought I'd post so you can see the difference. The negative film was nice and open but the colors were cold/magenta (you could possibly wrench them around more than I did here). I ended up liking the look of the daylight-balanced film. Seems more true-to-life in the carnival scene, but YMMV.

[manfrominternet]

Thanks for the example, Corran. I really like both of your shots.

For the purposes of my project I was hoping to get a look like these by Todd Hido:
203395 203396 203397 203398

I’d like to make large prints, so I don’t know if Portra 160 or Ektar 100 would be better choices. If anyone can give me any input on this, it would be much appreciated.

Can anyone chime in about the difference between Portra 160 and Portra 400, save for the ISO?

[Mark Sampson]

The lower contrast and (relatively) subdued color rendition of the Portra films will be a big help. Might as well shoot 400, you'll want all the speed you can get. I haven't shot any in ten years, so can't advise on the differences between them- which will likely be obscured by your non-daylight light sources anyway. And you'll want some good scanning skills too. I did a lot of work in the '80s shooting Vericolor type L on the streets, at night and in the daytime too. Of course the practice has changed entirely since then.

[LabRat]

Neg film will give you more latitude and better response in the shadows...

There will be color correction involved, but you can get an idea before you burn too much film by testing the lighting on your sites with a digital camera set to daylight or tungsten and see how the colors come out... Most older streetlighting will come out greenish or blueish or tan, but you can camera filter generally for florescent lighting and see where you end up...

Expect a strong color key like those examples...

Steve K

[agregov]

+1 on using Portra 400. You want the faster film to reduce exposure times. Also, Portra 400 is warmer (more yellow) than Portra 160. A warmer film will be better for the colors you're after. Note, Hido often does not "color correct" his images. When he was printing in the color darkroom, he would do everything from removing most colors to over saturate depending on the image. He is editing digitally more now but can't comment on his workflow there but likely similar. Finally, I believe most of the House Hunting images were shot on 6x6 or 6x7. You can make fine 16x20s with medium format negs. If you head in that direction, you can then try out the Cinestill 800 which comes in 120 and should handle night shooting the best. May want to test both films before you really get going with your project.

If you enjoy Hido's work, he wrote a Aperture workshop book on Landscape shooting that's very good.

https://aperture.org/shop/todd-hido-on-landscapes-interiors-and-the-nude-books

[manfrominternet]

I actually have that very book that you mention - "Todd Hido on Landscape, Interiors, and the Nude" from Aperture. I met him twice and he's signed not only that book for me, but also the new edition of "House Hunting" that came out in late 2019 and the "Intimate Distance" retrospective from Aperture. Very interesting guy. I wish I had more time to chat with him. Anyway, I'll definitely consider Cinestill; looks like a very unique film.

Since Portra 400 has a higher ISO than Portra 160, will that limit the size of the possible high-res prints, or is the difference in grain so small that it's basically negligible?

[Pere Casals]

Since Portra 400 has a higher ISO than Portra 160, will that limit the size of the possible high-res prints, or is the difference in grain so small that it's basically negligible?

Both have very similar resolving power.

Regarding grain, see "image structure section" in page 3 of the datasheets, telling "Print Grain Index".

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/resources/e4050_portra_400.pdf
https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4051_portra_160.pdf

From a 4x5" shot at 16x20" enlargement you won't notice grain from the 160 but you'll start perceiving grain from the 400.

Anyway shot a 35mm roll and enlarge to different ratios scenes having a wide illumination range, to see grain of each film at different enlargement ratios, different under/overexposure, and different colors. Some colors have more grain... Blue has way more (x3 grain size) than red. Best is you check that on your own to see what suits your taste, just use 35mm rolls to explore that.

If you are to do hybrid process then you may use some noise reduction software.


I don't think 400 is warmer or colder than 160, this depends on post-processing. What is true is that 160 has a warm shift in the extreme highlights, this is a nice effect. See the sensitometric curves in the 160 datasheet, the Red channel is shouldered in the extreme highlights, like Vision 3. Anyway this can be hacked in Ps.


Another difference is spectral response, 160 has a larger Green-Red separation, perhaps to deliver better skin tones or textures.

Note that you may have variable color shifts in long exposures, shifts in the highlights may be different than in the shadows, this may contribute to creative aesthetics, again, learn all that with 35mm rolls.

[agregov]

In my experience Portra 400 images are warmer than 160--I've diffed color corrected prints next to one another. There's clearly more color in 400 images. Kodak has made some handy scales to help visualize the difference between the various color films in saturation and grain (see attached below or link).

https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/uat/files/wysiwyg/film/KODAKPROFESSIONAL_Film_Brochure2018.pdf

That said, if you're shooting 4x5, I doubt you'll see significant grain differences between 400 and 160. I've enlarged Portra 400 4x5 images to 20x24 (analog C prints) without grain issues to my eyes at least. Portra 800 (135 or 120) that's a different story. 800 is a very grainy film.

203414

203413

[Pere Casals]

There's clearly more color in 400 images. Kodak has made some handy scales to help visualize the difference between the various color films in saturation and grain (see attached below or link).

While more color or more saturation is not warmer, what it is true is that red channel is a bit different in the 160 vs 400 comparison, the 400 has peak red sentitivity in deeper reds than the 160.

IMO this is mostly negligible in hybrid processing as we have powerful tools to adjust color, but of course in analog printing we see that the 160 is more portraiture oriented than the 400.

[manfrominternet]

Where does Ektar fit into all this? If I'm trying to get a similar image to Hido's aesthetic, would Ektar's colors be too outrageously saturated?

[manfrominternet]

Would an image taken with 4x5 Portra 400 (taken at night in the style of Todd Hido) look worse if printed, say, 4 feet by 5 feet than an image taken by Portra 160 and blown to the same size?

I've narrowed my choices to either Portra 160 or Portra 400. I'm leaning toward Portra 160, only because I want to eventually make large prints, but if you guys think that Portra 400 would be better for my project, then I'll go with Portra 400.

[LabRat]

Test, test, test...

Steve K

[manfrominternet]

I'm asking here because I honestly can't afford blowing away so much money on film to test. My local photography stores are all closed, so I can't get individual film roles to try. I can only buy the 5-pack medium format rolls of Portra 160, Portra 400, Ektar, or Provia from B&H because of Covid-19, unfortunately.

That's why I'm asking you guys who have experience with the films mentioned.

[Corran]

I think, since you're already on a tripod anyway, might as well shoot 160. It's not going to be much of a difference. If it's REALLY low light, maybe it'd be easier to shoot with 400, but those images you've shown probably aren't super long exposures.

Of interest to you:
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?106441-Portra-160-and-400-Reciprocity-Failure

I prefer 160, personally, though I don't shoot a heck of a lot of color.

[agregov]

You can buy single rolls of Portra from Freestyle. https://www.freestylephoto.biz

I would start your project with a few rolls of each and see how you like the color characteristics of the two. I'd recommend shooting Portra 400 at 200 asa and 160 at 100asa. Check over the reciprocity info from @corran above. Note, I probably wouldn't be shooting medium format film and printing 40x50 or larger if you're concerned about grain. But roll film would be cheaper to start out with and you can bracket as you get your exposure times dialed in.

[interneg]

Where does Ektar fit into all this? If I'm trying to get a similar image to Hido's aesthetic, would Ektar's colors be too outrageously saturated?

The issue with Ektar and Provia is that you don't want to risk overexposure of the highlights - you'll get crossover quite easily on Ektar & can potentially blow them out on Provia. This impacts on how deep you can reproduce the shadows. Portra is less troublesome by a long way, essentially 400 has higher colour contrast & a warmer native colour balance, 160 has a more neutral balance & less colour contrast - which makes it seem colder. Pick them on the basis of the aesthetic you want, and you can safely ignore the 'fix it in post' commentary about saturation - it's usually indicative of someone with minimal experience of either film.

[Pere Casals]

The issue with Ektar and Provia is that you don't want to risk overexposure of the highlights

I don't undertand much why it is often said that Ektar has little highlight latitude. In my experience it can be abused a lot in the highlights with no problems.

If you see the curves in the datasheet it's still linear at +6 stops overexposure, and also in my experience it handles well a +4 abuse. Instead, Provia is well toasted at +4...

[interneg]

I don't undertand much why it is often said that Ektar has little highlight latitude. In my experience it can be abused a lot in the highlights with no problems.

If you see the curves in the datasheet it's still linear at +6 stops overexposure, and also in my experience it handles well a +4 abuse. Instead, Provia is well toasted at +4...

Ektar will take some overexposure, but at the expense of colour crossovers. It should look Ektachrome-ish, not cyanotic and wildly saturated. This crossover is very obvious if you optically print or do colour inversions modelled on darkroom printing. You are reading the curves very creatively - the straight line is the important bit in the negative, which is then aimed to sit between the toe and shoulder of the paper. As it can deliver 7 stops of straight line, Ektar will look different to many transparencies that can only deliver 5 stops of straight line (within a greater total range, but it's the straight line that matters here), but unlike many professional negative films which have quite lengthy straight lines, enabling decisions to be made about exposure at the time & giving space for further interpretation at the scanning/ darkroom printing stage, Ektar is intended for you to place the highlights at the time of exposure and printed as such - letting the shadows fall where they will. In those principles, it's much closer to cinema negative stock design choices, where highlight reproduction is important as it cannot traditionally be altered in printing, while shadows can always be lit at the taking stage.

[Drew Wiley]

We have a word for that Ektar overexposure statement, Pere, that you might want to look up ... "malarky". Interneg interjected another pertinent term, "crossover", which he has explained specifically.

[agregov]

I've printed Ektar in the darkroom and I find it a difficult film to color correct. It tends towards the magenta side and I found the need for making under 1 point corrections in magenta/green which is difficult. Portra is far more predicable for color correcting and not sensitive to overexposure in my experience. The previous notes on overexposure dangers for Ektar are news to me. Perhaps I will try shooting Ektar at box speed next time and see if that may help with color correcting sensitivity.

Probably getting off topic for the OP at this point. Suffice it to say, it seems like the consensus is for one of the Portra films for this particular case.

[Bernice Loui]

Remember decades ago when Kodak Ektar film was introduced. Did not take long to figure out it MUST be treated and exposed similar to a color transparency film, overexpose you're in trouble. During that first year of Kodak Ektar it caused the color printer folks a LOT of grief as many photographers were treating it like a wide exposure latitude color negative film. The color printer folks struggled with trying to get a semi-acceptable print from over exposed Ektar negatives. The results were Un-happy color printer, un-happy print customer.

But if you got exposure and all correct, Ektar works pretty good.


Bernice

[Pere Casals]

It tends towards the magenta side and I found the need for making under 1 point corrections in magenta/green which is difficult. Portra is far more predicable for color correcting and not sensitive to overexposure in my experience. The previous notes on overexposure dangers for Ektar are news to me. Perhaps I will try shooting Ektar at box speed next time and see if that may help with color correcting sensitivity.

Yes... with optical RA-4 correcting color shifts from Ektar overexposure is difficult, because you would need a different color correction depending on local density.

What's for Hybrid, there is no problem, those shifts are easily corrected by bending the red/blue/green curves selectively, still easier (for kids) if using an advanced color management like 3D LUT Creator. Optic RA-4 printers have been abandoned a lot by the industry since digital minilab dawn: many of the color papers are made to suit the hybrid requirements optimally, color films got optimized for the hybrid. Today RA-4 printing is an epic endeavour that still yields impressive works, but the printer man has to fight aganist many things.


Anyway for the hybrid, that is 99.99% of the RA-4 printing, Ektar can be abused because those shifts are easily corrected in Ps, at least this is my experience. Also sensitometry tells that, amazingly Ektar film is not shouldering much by +6 stops:

203476


What we see in the curves is the warming effect of overexposure, I guess emulsion design was tailored for that (Kodak clearly has technology to do this or the counter thing!), if you look at the blue curve you find that (beyond +3 overexposure) Blue density increases relatively more than the green or red, allowing to pass less blue it delivers a yellowing/warming of the extreme highlights. This is a very nice effect !!!!! Wonderful !

Problem happens when we place our mids in the Ektar highlight region because it takes that color shift. In my experience this is never a problem in the hybrid (if having basic color management skills) because we adjust color at a glance, but the very, very scarce optical printers remaining around may suffer... yes...

[interneg]

Yes... with optical RA-4 correcting color shifts from Ektar overexposure is difficult, because you would need a different color correction depending on local density.

What's for Hybrid, there is no problem, those shifts are easily corrected by bending the red/blue/green curves selectively, still easier (for kids) if using an advanced color management like 3D LUT Creator. Optic RA-4 printers have been abandoned a lot by the industry since digital minilab dawn: many of the color papers are made to suit the hybrid requirements optimally, color films got optimized for the hybrid. Today RA-4 printing is an epic endeavour that still yields impressive works, but the printer man has to fight aganist many things.


Anyway for the hybrid, that is 99.99% of the RA-4 printing, Ektar can be abused because those shifts are easily corrected in Ps, at least this is my experience. Also sensitometry tells that, amazingly Ektar film is not shouldering much by +6 stops:

203476


What we see in the curves is the warming effect of overexposure, I guess emulsion design was tailored for that (Kodak clearly has technology to do this or the counter thing!), if you look at the blue curve you find that (beyond +3 overexposure) Blue density increases relatively more than the green or red, allowing to pass less blue it delivers a yellowing/warming of the extreme highlights. This is a very nice effect !!!!! Wonderful !

Problem happens when we place our mids in the Ektar highlight region because it takes that color shift. In my experience this is never a problem in the hybrid (if having basic color management skills) because we adjust color at a glance, but the very, very scarce optical printers remaining around may suffer... yes...

This sounds like you have never seen what Ektar should look like and that your usual guessing is based off that. Kodak designed the film to be used correctly exposed, without the larger latitude of Portra etc. What it does outside of the intended exposure latitude isn't relevant to the intended characteristics - unless you really enjoy teal and orange effects. Some of Ektar's unusual characteristics are related to it being a faster emulsion set dyed back to 100 with a neutral dye.

Sure, you can design a LUT to sort out the colour crossover etc, but what you end up with won't look like Ektar. If you spent a great deal less time producing infinite logorrhea that you 'can fix it in post' and just metered intelligently with the right equipment, you'd learn what Ektar really looks like a lot faster.


Remember decades ago when Kodak Ektar film was introduced.

...

But if you got exposure and all correct, Ektar works pretty good.

Original Ektar is only very tangentially related to current Ektar, apart from the narrower latitude and higher saturation.

[Bernice Loui]

Not used Kodak Ektar since it's introduction in the 1990's. Think Kodak discontinued the original Ektar, then introduced "Royal Gold?" before the current version of Ektar.

There is much value in getting the exposure and all spot on at the film exposure moment. The idea of fix it later often results in a lot of wasted time and frustration or more. For some, this is much of what this Foto stuff is about, tinkering in software, others not at all.

Regardless, back to the original topic of film for night Fotos, color neg film with good reciprocity characteristics should be higher on the list of priorities. Color accuracy is iffy at best due to the vast potential for mixed lighting sources of various color temp tungsten, mercury vapor, sodium vapor, mono color light sources (usually ok), LED and more.. much more about effect than color accuracy.

Night Foto in B&W, mixed lighting is a lesser issue than color. Resulting images are different in many ways.



Bernice




Original Ektar is only very tangentially related to current Ektar, apart from the narrower latitude and higher saturation.

[interneg]

Not used Kodak Ektar since it's introduction in the 1990's. Think Kodak discontinued the original Ektar, then introduced "Royal Gold?" before the current version of Ektar.


Ektar 25, Royal Gold 25, then a long gap until Ektar 100 was the sequence as I understand it. Royal Gold apparently solved a crystallisation issue that Ektar 25 was prone to.


For some, this is much of what this Foto stuff is about, tinkering in software, others not at all. It's the belief that aimless tinkering with calibration (often of precisely the least relevant thing!) will make someone a better imagemaker in artistic terms that seems the most bizarre ideology. It's usually an unwillingness to see and think outwith the mentalité of a technician.


Regardless, back to the original topic of film for night Fotos, color neg film with good reciprocity characteristics should be higher on the list of priorities. Color accuracy is iffy at best due to the vast potential for mixed lighting sources of various color temp tungsten, mercury vapor, sodium vapor, mono color light sources (usually ok), LED and more.. much more about effect than color accuracy.
That's about the sum of it - the technical stuff is really pretty simple compared to any artistic decision making. Overcomplication (or pseudocalibration) of technique is usually a sure sign of compensation for a lack of willingness to actually make creative imagery.

[Pere Casals]

your usual guessing is based off that.

I'm not guessing, I've shot lots of Ektar, have you ?

That recipe instructing to shot Ektar like Provia is for beginners not knowing what's Ektar, you should be aware.

Internet, look... I usually expose Ektar like everybody does.

But probably you may understand that some challenging scenes have a large SBR, in those conditions (me and many others) we may expose to not loss some shadow detail, resulting some areas of the scene quite overexposed if we want to conserve that shadow detail.

What I'm explaining you is that if having to overexpose some areas of the scene then we have no problem, because Ektar allows a lot of overexposure without damaging detail, and those Ektar color shifts in the highlights are corrected easy in Ps if we want.


Beyond that, if you shot subjects in backlight conditions, with Ektar, you may expose normally your subject and allow the background go +4 or +6 if necessary, no problem, you still will have all detail there. That fairly overexposed background will shift clearly to warm, which is a powerful aesthetic effect, think in sunsets for example with subject backlighted: Ektar reacts amazingly nice with backgorund at say +4.

Additionally, if you make a mistake (with Ektar) and you overexpose +3 you can perfectly recover that shot, simply you have spend some 20 seconds adjusting R-G-B curves individually with Ps.


Ektar cannot be compared to Provia. With provia at +4 you have nothing, with Ektar at +6 you have total detail in the highlights, with a highlight warming delivering nice aesthetics in the highlights. Ektar is shot like Ektar, not like Portra and not like Provia

[Bernice Loui]

Back in those days of do by film, do it proper or suffer the market realities of paying client expectation, one HAD to do if technically proper with creative artistry. There were NO options if you're trying to put food on the table and a roof over your studio-home.

Having grown up and deeply experienced that era, it's pretty well ingrained to habit and expectations.

It is much about learning the technical aspects GOOD, knowing precisely what the technical limitations of film, processing, print making, camera, lens, lighting and all involved then applying them as tools to achieve a creative-artistic result and goal.

Seems what has happened today, SO many are wanting to tinker with sheet film IMO partly due to the easy availability of LF hardware, scanners, image bending software, YouTube videos (IMO, most are done by very iffy folks) and near instant Foto info via Google search (which may be incorrect and not ALL photographic technical and other information is available via Google). This is OK as the mass interest can keep photographic suppliers producing these materials making LF based images possible. BUT, the space for abusing information is vast. Much like dis-information and Alternative Facts, stuff folks read can be taken as De_Facto orthodoxy. Seems only barrier between this and what once was are old-moldy codgers that once actually worked with this stuff to put food on their table and a rood over their studio-home. Share the realties, Facts and Truth of what it once was based in sound technical backing, one can get abused in various ways by folks who ~Know Better~ based on what they read on the web via Google search... and these are the same folks who might have never pulled or struggled for hours and hours burning LOTs of materials trying to achieve a decent print in a darkroom.


Enough ranting,
Bernice







It's the belief that aimless tinkering with calibration (often of precisely the least relevant thing!) will make someone a better imagemaker in artistic terms that seems the most bizarre ideology. It's usually an unwillingness to see and think outwith the mentalité of a technician.


That's about the sum of it - the technical stuff is really pretty simple compared to any artistic decision making. Overcomplication (or pseudocalibration) of technique is usually a sure sign of compensation for a lack of willingness to actually make creative imagery.

[LabRat]

Or more simply, there's Steve's rule;

"If in doubt, try it out"... ;-)

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

Or more simply, there's Steve's rule;

"If in doubt, try it out"... ;-)

Steve K


Yes... taking a 35mm roll, spot metering and bracketing. That's all.


______________________________

Anyway, if someone still thinks that Ektar has to be shot like Provia because having similar latitude, here we have a sample:

203484

http://www.lettherebefilm.com/exposures

Interneg: no problem with Ektar shot +3. Ektar having to be exposed like Provia is a urban tale. Shot some Ektar and bracket it, and you won't have to guess.

[interneg]

Pere: rather than using the weird force-corrected colour of a minilab (which have issues with Ektar anyway) to tautologically keep making the same mistakes of understanding, the situation is that if you expose your Ektar film to protect your highlights (like a transparency), you will see deeper into the shadows than most transparencies can, but if you are dealing with a longer SBR, then your deep shadows have to be left to go where they will (like a transparency), unless you have ND grads or can light the shadows at the time of exposure. Otherwise you will run into crossover problems, which while you may like the effects, are not representative of the intended colour of Ektar.

[interneg]

Back in those days of do by film, do it proper or suffer the market realities of paying client expectation, one HAD to do if technically proper with creative artistry.

I've found that the highly creative who don't get bogged down in pseudotechnical 'debate' manage to follow how to expose Ektar just fine, without overexposure, crossover etc.

Whereas those who spend their time licking resolution charts and worrying about extreme N+ & N- never seem to get good results out of Ektar.

[LabRat]

My "rule" for shooting any CN film is to expose it like chrome film (with a spotmeter) and NAIL the box speed, and life is easier (and prettier)... ;-)

Steve K

[Pere Casals]

the situation is that if you expose your Ektar film to protect your highlights (like a transparency), you will see deeper into the shadows than most transparencies can, but if you are dealing with a longer SBR, then your deep shadows have to be left to go where they will (like a transparency), unless you have ND grads or can light the shadows at the time of exposure. Otherwise you will run into crossover problems, which while you may like the effects, are not representative of the intended colour of Ektar.

Not at all, if you see again that test (http://www.lettherebefilm.com/exposures) you will find that Ektar behaves mostly like Portra, you have no need to protect Ektar extreme highlights because you have at least +6 stops latitude for the highlights, having to go +4 to see a minimal color degradation. With provia you have a fair degradation if going beyond +1!!! So nothing in common.

Perhaps Portra can be overexposure abused a bit more than Ektar, but anyway Ektar is much more like Portra rather than like Provia, see the samples, absolutely there is no doubt, this is also my own experience. When I have a (portraiture) Ektar backlight then I expose for the face and I let the background go were it wants, no problem, no worries.

[Bernice Loui]

See post# 20.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?155445-Easy-Testing-Used-LF-Lenses/page2&highlight=elinchrome

Do the tech stuff up front to get the actual film speed, lighting meter, color balance, processed film density and .. dialed in. Once this basic stuff is done. Move on to the creative-artistic or best part of print image making.

Futzing around aimlessly or trying to fix it post process is IMO, a total waste of time, resources and effort. Back then once the color transparency is done, it's essentially done. Try to do fix up was a far lesser possibility back then. Being stressed to get it proper the first time enforces discipline of the process and importance of getting the tech aspects correct.

It could be that this LF stuff has become more hobby than putting food on the table, roof over your studio-home combined with the image bending software and hardware today, that need to get it all proper first exposure is greatly lessened and the need for that taken for granted.



Bernice




I've found that the highly creative who don't get bogged down in pseudotechnical 'debate' manage to follow how to expose Ektar just fine, without overexposure, crossover etc.

Whereas those who spend their time licking resolution charts and worrying about extreme N+ & N- never seem to get good results out of Ektar.

[Pere Casals]

Any recommendations

OP, in night photography you have 2 enemies:


> Very high SBR, (specially, in city scapes): too high contrast in the scene.

> LIRF: reciprocity failure decreases the film capability to record an ample contrast range, because shadows have more LIRF than highlights.


So you have to balance well your exposure to have detail in the highlights while recording shadows. Of course the detail level you want to record from shadows is an aesthetic choice, but the more you record shadows the more you keep your choices open for the final image, you always can darken your shadows in post processing to the point you want.


To overcome that you should consider 3 points:

> Use well highlight latitude your film allows, in that way you'll record more shadows.

> Consider pulling development, even with color, this will deliver a less contrasty negative but it will record more SBR, later you compensate final image contrast in post.

> Spot metering and Bracketing: test by bracketing exposure in 35mm, with Normal development and pulling (shortening development) by 1 or 2 stops. So I'd start spending 3 rolls of Portra 400.


...but anyway I'd test by spot_metering/bracketing several films (at normal development) to see their particular aesthetics. Learn it with Spot Meter. You want to know how local over-under exposure results in the image capture.

Test also with Provia and BW rolls.

Goog Scanning and Photoshop edition of night shots may require also some practice.

[agregov]

To the OP, I would suggest staying away from slower speed films as you embark on the project. That cuts out the whole Ektar debate here as a moot point. And I would recommend against pushing or pulling color film to start out with. It usually incurs extra lab charges and by not yet having a solid baseline with "normal" color development, you'd be adding an extra variable in judging whether your film exposure is working or not. I'd suggest just starting with Portra 400 and shoot it at 200 asa with normal processing. Try it at 400 too and look at some prints shot at each speed to see which you prefer. And don't forget reciprocity failure. Keep it simple and make work.

[interneg]

> Consider pulling development, even with color, this will deliver a less contrasty negative but it will record more SBR, later you compensate final image contrast in post.

You shouldn't consider doing this unless you have specific needs (mainly darkroom/ technical processes) and only need a very slight adjustment of contrast on C-41. The risks of crossover etc are significant. Your airy unconcern shows that you are guessing from the basis of a lack of experience and research other than assuming that by using terms of art as pseudotechnical jargon you can seem apparently knowledgeable.

[Pere Casals]

Your airy unconcern shows that you are guessing from the basis of a lack of experience and research other than assuming that by using terms of art as pseudotechnical jargon you can seem apparently knowledgeable.

Hey, Interneg, don't be that pathetic. :) Look, buy some ektar and practice with it at night. It's you that have no experience with ektar and probably also none in night shooting.

Look, at night some mild color crossovers from pulling are totally irrelevant, in fact anyway you have many shifts comming from LIRF (you may be shooting f/11 in LF at night), add the different illumination natures you have intermixed (sodium around...), and etc... Don't tell me that you were not aware :)


First you recommended shooting like provia to protect highlights of ektar, (that has +6 stops highlight latitude !!!)... and then what do you do with night shadows, man ??? Where is your vault of experience ?


If you are not able to pull C-41 successfully, then send a test roll to Fotoimpex and they will show you that there is no problem: https://www.fotoimpex.com/lab-service/fotoimpex-c-41-pushpull-processing-for-35mm-and-120-medium-format-film.html

[interneg]

Pere, as ever you want to make mountains out of the merest suggestion of a molehill to disguise your lack of both research ability and pragmatic experience of actually using the materials in question. That Ektar will cause problems when overexposed is obvious from the data sheet - the blue curve starts to upsweep suddenly at the point where your highlights would land if you did not place your exposure to protect them. You can pull C-41 by maybe 1/2 a stop at best - labs offer to pull in C-41, because, as I said earlier, there can be specific reasons to want to do so - cross processing E-6 films is another more regular situation where a small pull can help make it easier to make a print - and as all bets are off on colour in that regard, crossover isn't an issue - indeed, it's a feature. That would be the main reason I'd pull process when I run C-41. You need to carefully read Ron Mowrey's comments about the problems pushing and pulling C-41 films can cause in terms of curve crossover (the films designed for pushing potential, like Portra 800, take steps to negate this). Suffice to say I have plentiful experience with Ektar (including development time alterations to see if a particular aesthetic was more achievable) in a wide variety of contrast and imaging situations from a process, scanning and colour correction standpoint to know that you are not talking from anything other than the vague results of a minilab or similar scan at best.

[Pere Casals]

That Ektar will cause problems when overexposed is obvious from the data sheet

Perhaps, but this happens at +4 and beyond. You may overexpose Ektar a lot, say +3 with no problem with color shifts in the mids.

203508




the blue curve starts to upsweep suddenly at the point where your highlights would land if you did not place your exposure to protect them.

This is not a problem, it is benefical for the extreme highlights, and this is not a flaw of the film design, but a feature that's extremly well tailored by kodak engineers.

You don't need to protect the exteme highlights of ektar, let the extreme highlights reach +6, no problem !!! Sensitometry of the Blue VS Red/Green will deliver those extreme highlights simply warmer, and this is aesthetically benefical because it avoids white washed areas in the print.

Do you think that it would be difficult for kodak shouldering the blue curve ? No !!! They made the curve like that because ektar is more landscape oriented and they want to deliver warmer highlights and warmer solar discs, so you don't have to avoid the highlights to reach overexposure, you have to promote it because the film is designed to work extreme highlights in that way ! is this that difficult to understand?



You need to carefully read Ron Mowrey's comments about the problems pushing and pulling C-41 films can cause in terms of curve crossover

I've read that long ago, wise comments. It's true that pulling beyond 1/2 may incite shifts, but I repeat, in the night photography context we are talking this is irrelevant because you have other color shifts and color accuracy is the least concern. Pulling may extend captured DR, compensating the effects of LIRF, so it's a powerful tool to consider in this case.

I've not prompted OP to pull for night photography, I suggested that he tries it because it can a useful tool for that situation, which is a pretty good suggestion.

What is a nasty suggestion is exposing ektar at night like if it was provia, this is a nosense because you won't record shadows, you have to exploit the ektar's highlight latitude the most you can you allow enough light for the shadows, there is no doubt in that.

[interneg]

Pere, do the matchup to the paper curve and you'll see that you have much less leeway. It was designed to replicate an Ektachrome-like look - and what you are seeing is really only a safety net for helping specular/ bright/ 'blown' highlights from lamps etc look better than they do on transparencies when printed, not meant for regular usage with the exposure heading up that way. As you add more and more exposure, then crossover problems kick in with the resultant casts as you try to correct them (and deal with the effects of the over dense blue channel highlights). Once you overexpose Ektar, the colour relationships that are set up for delivering 7 stops of straight line with pleasant tonality in bright highlights veer off in less pleasant directions.

Provia is superb for night photography (not least, no compensation needed out to 2 mins), but it has a different aesthetic than the softer tones of Hido's use of Portra 400NC. If you want wild ugly colour, there's no reason not to use Ektar and overexpose it for night imagery, though that depends on how much effective speed loss & colour shift (the bit of Low Intensity Reciprocity Failure that matters at least as much as any exposure compensation) there is. Exposing Ektar correctly is going to be no harder than Provia. With Portra you can essentially take an educated guess & at a few minutes of exposure, adding a few more is hardly going to be a problem.

[Drew Wiley]

Lots of night photography involves mixed lighting which includes artificial sources and the best way to figure it out is just to experiment with cheaper 35mm or roll film first. I presume the objective is to get an interesting image rather than a totally accurate one. You can't just go out and place a variety of corrective filters over everything like in an interior set containing mixed light sources. And long exposures lead to unbalanced shifts anyway. That's why I limit my own specific comments about Ektar to daylight applications. But the dye curves are native, and for all practical purposes, you only get about one stop leeway either side of what you'd expect from a typical chrome film. But there's no crime in experimenting and having some fun.