# Kodak Portra 160 (VC or NC) - Overexposure



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2009)

I have heard that it is better to overexpose this film a little, to make the colors pop more.  I've always shot it at the box speed (160), but I've seen some people saying to shoot it at ISO 100 or 125.

I have a roll and a half of the 160 VC left...  I guess I'll finish off the roll that's in my camera at 125 and see how it looks - or should I try 100?

Anyone do this before?  How much overexposure is too much?

Some people say to overexpose by a full stop (ISO 80)...


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 17, 2009)

OverExposing Color Negative, Decreased Grain - Photo.net Medium Format Forum

Scroll down to Scott Eaton's post.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 17, 2009)

Enlightening.

I took some at 100 & some at 125 (2/3 and 1/3 over exposed, respectively).  I still have about 10 frames left on that roll - I'll play around outside later.
(edit - took a few at 80 too.)


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 21, 2009)

Just got my film developed, I'm still scanning the negs - but they look pretty good.  Protra 160 can easily handle 1 stop of overexposure.


----------



## Alpha (Mar 24, 2009)

Portra is excellent with overexposure. I don't think it necessarily looks better. But it is a little punchier. Think of it as having much more lattitude. So if you aren't sure, err on the side of over-exposing.


----------



## kingman33 (Mar 27, 2009)

well, to be 
honest I wasn't using *portra*, but *Kodak* Vericolor  VPS, Expired). *...* If you want 
to decrease saturation I would get  *Portra NC* insted of *VC* and if you *...* *VC 160* 
or  400, so i assume that i had *portra 160vc* loaded, i exposed at ISO 100.


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 27, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> I have heard that it is better to overexpose this film a little, ...some people saying to shoot it at ISO 100 or 125.
> 
> Anyone do this before?  ...Some people say to overexpose by a full stop (ISO 80)...



Well, I would always set the meter for ISO 80, but I never believed I was overexposing the film.  It was more about HOW I metered a scene...  a particular technique of metering.

Shooting outdoor portaits, I would stand where I was about to pose my subject and take an incident reading with the meter pointed at the light source.  In other words, I was exposing for the highlights.  This is a break from the conventional thinking of "expose for the shadows, print for the highlights."

I did this because, over time, I was able to recognise a scene with lighting that offered approximately a 3:1 ratio between highlights and shadows.  In other words, the lighting in the highlights was about twice that in the shadows.  So, ISO 80 in the highlights and 160 in the shadows.

Of course, the lighting ratio would not always be exactly 3:1.  It was sometimes, if not often, greater than that.  I found using this approach to metering would produce negatives that yielded better results from the color lab, as they would print for the lighlights letting the shadows fall where they will.

So...  was I really overexposing?  I suspect not.  

Many photographers worked this way.  When pressed for an answer why we had to meter at ISO 80, a Kodak rep explained as the film traveld further and further from Rochester, the more ISO was lost.  I'm sure he got this question a lot since he had this joke "at the ready."

 Pete


----------



## Early (Mar 28, 2009)

To minimize grain, I always over exposed all my color neg film by 1/3 stop.  There was a theory that the manufacturers over stated their film speed anyway.


----------



## Kiron Kid (Aug 23, 2009)

I burn my 160VS at 125 (1/3 stop overexposure) and get very nice results.

Kiron Kid


----------



## Christie Photo (Aug 24, 2009)

Early said:


> To minimize grain, I always over exposed all my color neg film by 1/3 stop.




Ummm....  overexposure exaggerates grain.

-Pete


----------

