How to expose 8x10 Kodak PORTRA 160NC ?

[hloff]

Someone with longtime experience with 8x10 Kodak PORTRA 160NC, HELP!!!
I recently bought 3 boxes of 8x10 PORTRA 160NC. In Europe this film is extremely expensive!!!
PLEASE, guidance of how to expose these sheets is needed!

This is a wide question, of course! Many factors involved.
A method, a consistent approach!

Let's consider this: 300mm lens, outdoor scenes, only natural light.
Subject 20 feet away from the lens / landscape focus.

How should I use the light meter (160ASA, 100ASA, 80ASA?)
Reflected light measurement or Incident light measurement?
Read the darkest area first, where I wish to have detail? How?
Taking into account the lighting conditions (bright sun-distinct shadows / soft evening sun-soft shadows) should I change my approach??


Thanks
Henrique

[ic-racer]

I presume you have used a camera before, so, I'll respond about the specifics of the film. What I do in my darkroom in this case is to chop a sheet up in to 35mm strips. These can be exposed (in my case with a sensitometer) and processed easily (in 35mm reels) for your initial tests.

[Walter Calahan]

Use an incident light meter, and expose a test sheet at ISO 160 to see if you like the results.

I tend to find I like my color negative film rated 1/3 of a stop more open, but that's just me.

[vinny]

:)-

[matthew klos]

Just shoot a sheet to test.

[Noah A]

I usually shot the Portra NC films at about a stop over. For most lighting conditions I'd meter with an ambient meter with the dome pointed at the camera lens or even slightly downward.

The 160 was good if you shot it at the nominal speed (160) but I usually shot it at 80, which opened up the shadows a bit and gave a nice look. Much of this project was shot that way:

http://noahaddis.com/ac/ac.html

I'm speaking in the past tense since I've switched to the new Portra Pro film, which is amazing. The 400 is great and I can't wait to try the 160.

[Noah A]

I forgot to add this: It's color negative film and therefore it has quite a bit of exposure latitude. I understand your caution because film and processing are seriously expensive. But you'd have to work pretty hard to screw it up. It's best if you err on the side of overexposure, but even if you go under a bit you can probably still get decent results.

[Marizu]

Would it be worth buying a roll of the same film stock in 35mm or 120 and testing with that?
Or even test in 5x4 which will be cheaper than 10x8.

[tgtaylor]

I just started shooting Porta 160NC (4x5) and a sure fire way to determine exposure accurately without first testing is to meter off a grey card positioned in the same light that is falling on the subject and check if that reading encompasses the shadows and highlights of the image. I use a Pentax digital spot meter and set the exposure index at ISO 160. Color negative better gives you a lot of latitude to work with but it's to overexpose than underexpose.

Thomas

[Ben Syverson]

Shoot it at 80 at least. Any color negative film at box speed will lack shadow detail.

DON'T forget about bellows compensation. When in doubt, add a stop of exposure... or two.

When shooting portraits, I set my 5D to ISO 50, get a good exposure, and then use the same aperture and shutter speed on Portra 160. But again, if you have to round up or down, err on the side of overexposure.

[Drew Wiley]

For anyone who cut their teeth on tranny film and got accustomed to tight meter technique, box speed (160) works perfectly on a neg film like this, and shadows should
be no problem whatsoever. Maybe there are specific reasons to skew this from time to
time for special circumstances, but there's no valid reason to routinely overexpose any of these modern Kodak films. As long as you're getting what you want, that's what
counts; but if a typical variety of lighting conditions mandates repeated overexposure,
I'd question the tuning of your light meter.