# New to Film, Tips?



## taraj_00 (Apr 20, 2012)

Last week, I got the scans back for my first 'non-test' roll of 35mm, Portra 400.  I had read not to overexpose b/c it would go yellow? But everything turned out super grainy... and I can't help but think (from digital) that upping the exposure would reduce that? Any tips?


----------



## apples (Apr 20, 2012)

Scanning can cause undesirable digital noise if the scan/scanner was low quality.


----------



## bhop (Apr 20, 2012)

How 'super grainy' is it?  Do you have any samples?  From my experience with Portra 400, it is 'kinda' grainy, but not 'super'.


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 20, 2012)

It was scanned by Indie Film Lab, on a Noritsu.  I'm thinking my in camera meter might be off too?  I'm not sure.  With my D300 I tend to expose at 0 on the in camera meter, but that didn't work well with this one I don't think.  I'm hoping too that it had mostly to do with the fact that I never changed the camera to spot metering, therefore it was evaluative metering (slipped my mind since I keep my digital on spot all the time)- I did change that this morning!



I really like the tones on the first shot, then 100% crop of it.  It could be me coming from digital, but it seems really grainy to me.  The following is same roll, in the shade, much less grain (it appears to me)...  I know it's user error   I just wanna figure it out!



Thanks


----------



## bhop (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm thinking it's slightly underexposed, if at any, but yeah, kodak's higher speed films have always been more grainy than their fuji counterparts, at least to my eyes.  Your pics look similar to the ones i've shot on Portra 400.

Here are a couple examples of mine, I think both of these are underexposed and I tried to 'fix' it a little when I scanned.. but you can see the grain is there for me too in that kind of situation.  The third pic (my trooper dash) is just an example that shows it can be pretty smooth when properly exposed.  I think you're just used to the digital smoothness.. but IMO, the grain is part of what makes film look nicer, or gives it more 'feeling'.

Here's one I scanned just yesterday.. (same film)



Lunchin' by bhop, on Flickr

an oldie..



Willpower by bhop, on Flickr




Trooper Insides by bhop, on Flickr


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 20, 2012)

That makes me feel better   Thanks for the examples!

I do have a roll of Fuji 400H at the lab right now too, so we'll see which one I end up liking better.


----------



## compur (Apr 20, 2012)

You can safely overexpose most any color neg film, especially the 400+ speed films.  In fact moderately overexposing these films often gives improved image quality and reduced grain.  But, they don't handle underexposure very well.


----------



## STM (Apr 20, 2012)

Lordy, Lordy those look _*MISERABLE*_! Kodak Portra 400 is excellent film for that film speed. It may shift a little with a very slight increase in grain if overexposed but_ nothing _like that! I scan my film with a Nikon Super Coolscan LS-8000 and have scanned several rolls of Portra 400 and they _NEVER_ looked anywhere near that bad, even with Digital ICE turned off.

I don't know if it was their Process C-41 or a miserable quality scanner or a combination of both. Personally I would go find _another lab. _I certainly hope the are not the only one in town.


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 20, 2012)

Ah, I'm just getting started.  This was sent in, but I do plan on trying a few different labs   Any recommendations?


----------



## STM (Apr 20, 2012)

taraj_00 said:


> Ah, I'm just getting started.  This was sent in, but I do plan on trying a few different labs   Any recommendations?



Sorry, can't help you three, I tank process all my own color negative and have not shot color slide in a long while. Once Kodachrome 64 went away 3 years or so ago I just did not see the point any more :x


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 21, 2012)

taraj_00 said:


> Last week, I got the scans back for my first 'non-test' roll of 35mm, Portra 400.  I had read not to overexpose b/c it would go yellow? But everything turned out super grainy... and I can't help but think (from digital) that upping the exposure would reduce that? Any tips?


Quite the opposite actually!! Color negative film *LOVES* to be overexposed, and generally looks like crap when it's shot at box speed and always looks like crap when shot faster than box speed. With color neg, when you overexpose, things don't necessarily get brighter like digital, there's just more information collected. Digital has barely any tonal range unless you're shooting medium format. Film has immense tonal range. 

With color neg, if you are _ever_ uncertain of your exposure, OVEREXPOSE. Trust me, the film can take it. When you overexpose your film a stop or two, you get cleaner shadows, better contrast, highlights compress a bit, finer grain, and cleaner color. The only downside is you loose a bit of shutter speed. 

Indie Film Lab does good, they're a good choice. I'd say they're about on par with NCPS, maybe Richard.. As for the grain, well that's 35mm for you. Digital is very sterile, and it can be a huge shock switching to film. Even shooting medium format, you'll still have grain in your scans. Also, Noritsu's are typically a little rough, a .3 gaussian blur on things makes a huge difference. 




Next time you shoot Portra 400 (or any color neg film), put the people's backs to the sun, shoot it at half box speed, aperture wide open, and expose for the shadows. It will look beautiful. just check out Jose Villa, that's what he does (except he shoots 400H instead of Portra)


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks for the advice   My low-level film SLR doesn't allow me to rate at anything but box speed (boo, but it was only $44 LOL)...  I will make sure to overexpose!  Thanks for the reassurance that it isn't going to ruin my shots!


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 21, 2012)

taraj_00 said:


> My low-level film SLR doesn't allow me to rate at anything but box speed



Just use your Exposure Compensation ... 
set to +1. That is equivalent to setting the film speed to 200 for a 400 DX ISO film
set to -1 = 800


----------



## bhop (Apr 21, 2012)

taraj_00 said:


> Thanks for the advice   My low-level film SLR doesn't allow me to rate at anything but box speed (boo, but it was only $44 LOL)...  I will make sure to overexpose!  Thanks for the reassurance that it isn't going to ruin my shots!



If you mean it only reads the dx codes on the film canister, then you can change that with tape and an exacto knife.  I've done it with my Olympus P&S and it works.  

These links explain how the codes work
DX coding on film cassettes
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/fototech/chart/dxcode.htm

You can change it by adding black with electrical tape, or subtracting by scraping off with the exacto to get the code pattern you want.


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 21, 2012)

Whew... thanks for the info.  The exposure compensation seems like the easiest way to go!


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2012)

taraj_00 said:


> Ah, I'm just getting started.  This was sent in, but I do plan on trying a few different labs   Any recommendations?


Dwayne's is pretty much the go-to lab for a lot of people.

A trusted name in photo processing for over 50 years - Dwayne's Photo


I have used Mpix for film developing in the past (they only do 35mm C-41), and they did a decent job.  Better than any local labs anyway.  It was dirt cheap too.  $0.35 a frame, if I remember right.  I do it all myself these days.


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks   I had no idea mPix did film... I am shooting some BW, and I shot a roll of 120 last week in my 1948ish box camera


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 21, 2012)

taraj_00 said:


> Thanks   I had no idea mPix did film...


Film Services : Mpix.Com

I was wrong - it's $0.19 a frame - even cheaper.

You just sign in and request mailers (they send them for free).  Each mailer is good for 3 rolls (they send you 3 or 4 at a time).  You put your rolls in it, drop it in the mail, then they process it.  Turn-around time was pretty good too.

edit
They send the roll back uncut, so you will need to cut it, and you will need something to put it in.  You can get a CD, or prints too.  I usually just used them for developing and did my own scans and prints.  Their prints were generally OK though.

They upload the scans to your account, and you can order prints any time you want.  If you don't have any activity for 60 days or something, they delete all of your stored pictures.


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 21, 2012)

Very cool!


----------



## gsgary (Apr 23, 2012)

Portra 400 should not look that bad ive not used it yet but all the shots i have seen are silky smooth but that is on 120 not 35mm


----------



## taraj_00 (Apr 25, 2012)

I've got some 400H at the same lab right now... Next rolls, I'll try elsewhere if these come back like the first ones


----------

