Kodak Portra film overexposed - Advice please

CorreCaminos

CorreCaminos

CorreCaminos
Local time
6:54 PM
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
157
Hello y'all,

I unintentionally shot a roll of Kodak Portra 400 at ASA 100 but, needless to say, I'd like to recover those photos.

Any advice on how to develop the roll? It's 120 format and it was a nice sunny day with all the scenes having a brightness range of about 7 f-stops.
 
luckily it deals pretty well with overexposure (i regularly shoot this film at 250 and process normally). I'd pull (or ask your lab to pull) the processing one stop, but don't over do it or you'll risk shifting the color.

A good scanner will pull detail out of the highlights, which I've found to be pretty resistant to blocking up. Often better luck scanning them where you can manipulate the contrast range digitally, than C prints when dealing with recovery. Especially since you can scan them twice concentrating more time on the highlights.

YMMV - but I don't think it's as disatrous as you fear. Be glad it wasn't chrome film.

Good luck - let us know what you do and how it turns out.
 
I recently shot a roll of Kodak Ultra 400UC, not the same as Portra but close, at 100, 200 & 400. Most of the pictures were best at 200. A few at 100 were best and a few at 400 were best. All of the exposures were useable. I wouldn't worry about it. I rate all C-41 film 2/3 to 1 stop overexposed relative to box speed and like the results.
 
john_van_v said:
Isn't this b&w ??
Click to expand...

Hard to say - they have now released 400 VC and NC color Portra films. And they replaced the Porta BW400 with the BW400CN, no longer with the Portra name.

My guess is he is referring to the new color films.
 
rogue_designer said:
Hard to say - they have now released 400 VC and NC color Portra films. And they replaced the Porta BW400 with the BW400CN, no longer with the Portra name.

My guess is he is referring to the new color films.
Click to expand...

heh, judging from the culture here, I think its the B&W version

I suppose what ever version of black they use could shift, and there are color issues w/in b&w the we never thought about till digital came along.

what c-41 B&W do you use ??
 
john_van_v said:
heh, judging from the culture here, I think its the what c-41 B&W do you use ??
Click to expand...

Typically the BW400CN by Kodak - also rated at 250 because I hate the noise it develops in underexposed shadows. But more and more, I've been going back to TriX, and only shooting the C41 when I know I won't have any time to process myself.
 
john_van_v said:
heh, judging from the culture here, I think its the B&W version

I suppose what ever version of black they use could shift, and there are color issues w/in b&w the we never thought about till digital came along.

what c-41 B&W do you use ??
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's the color version since the b&w version hasn't been called Portra for quite some time. Some people like color :)
 
truthfully, it's been a long time since I developed

my best stuff actually hung in the Whitney Museum in NYC when I was a teenager, but life moved on and somehow photography got lost in the shuffle

I am reconnecting with that now, and preparing to set up a lab. I am actually looking to convert a motorhome, as I need a truck anyway to pull my sailboat

All my "15 minutes of fame" work was trix developed in d76. Because I was using polycontrast paper, and loading my own film, I moved to Ilford HP5. The Ilford move was mostly because I knew I could always add contrast, but not take it away.

Just as I was starting to lose access, I noticed that there is a "tropical" developer that may benefit film with wide exposure ranges. I am thinking the c-41 process may help there too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top