review by FPP Podcast listenerAnton Abrahamsen
FPP Founder Michael Raso generously provided me with a roll of Kodak’s Portra 160 (in 35mm) to test out for the FPP. I hope you enjoy the review.
I decided to load up my Canonet QL-17 GIII, a fixed lens rangefinder offering from Canon back in the ‘70s that is, in my opinion, an excellent camera, but now is the time to focus on the film, so I will save a review for a later time. I chose this camera for a few reasons: (1) I had not used the camera for a few months, so I really wanted to correct that transgression; (2) I wanted to test myself on how well I could nail exposure based on intuition and experience (as the meter in the camera is busted); (3) I wanted to see how well the film would react to under and over exposure due to my inevitable errors; (4) I wanted to see the results from the particular combination of this type of lens (single coated) and film. Single coated lenses render images with lower contrast and softer colors than if they had a mult-coating, which has been applied as a standard on lenses from the 80s onward to today. Single coated lenses are especially great for black and white photography because with the lower contrast they can draw out more shadow detail. After a little sleuthing, before shooting, I discovered that Portra 160 and 400 are very different films, not only in regards to speed, but color balance, grain structure, and sharpness. Kodak has provided some easy to read charts here:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/160QA.jhtml?pq-path=2301065
I was elated to find out that the 160 variation is quite akin to the old Portra NC formulation, while 400 is more similar to Portra VC. I have to commend Kodak for a very thoughtful approach to the consolidation of NC and VC variations into a single brand – all in all, you still have a choice, especially considering all of the published data on the pushing and pulling each respective film.
In spite of knowing the information above, I used the film in more of a general use fashion than it was intended. I shot a little nature, a little street photography, a little architecture, and a little portraiture.
Examples and thoughts:
The above is a nature shot at an area near Bulls Bridge in Connecticut (a great spot to check out if you want to go for a picnic and a swim). I do not think this is a good shot, but I think it illustrates what you might expect from the film if you were to do some nature shots. The colors are muted, the grain is fine, shadow detail is exceptional, and you can see what you can see what happens when an area is overexposed. Also quite notable is the fact that I do not see a hint of a bluish cast in the shadowed area, and that is quite impressive. Generally, I would want punchier colors for this type of application; I would not use this film again for nature. However, if a muted color scheme falls into your vision, I would say Portra 160 is a good choice.
Though technically not on the street, I feel this shot embodies the style. I set the aperture as low as I could go (f/1.7) and the shutter speed at 1/30th of a second, held the camera steady as I could and snapped this image at waist level. I am very impressed with how the film handled the subway station’s halogen lighting – there is only a slight color shift! After considering this shot and the shot at the top of this entry (on The High Line in NYC), I have to say that I like this film for a street shooting application. Great skin tones would be a given, but the muted and neutral colors impart a pleasant calmness over the scene that I would not have expected.
The above is an image in Chelsea, NYC during the golden hour. Great shadow detail and great color rendition. Normally, I would think that a film with more sharpness would be better for this usage, but the soft lines add an almost organic feel to the buildings.
I did not have a person on hand to test the portrait capability, so you will have to settle for my blurry mug. I expect something wonderful from the film when used under normal conditions, so I wanted to do something a little experimental. This is in some harsh halogen light overexposing the one side of my face while the other side is underexposed. The color shift is more pronounced than in the subway shot, but it is not unpleasant. Grain is soft which compliments the blur nicely, and as mentioned above, shadow detail is very nice.
All in all, I think Portra 160 is a great film for a wide range of purposes that I would not hesitate to load into a camera, unless I plan on doing nature work.
I am also very pleased with the pairing of this film and camera; judging from the results I think the two complement each other well.
Anton Abrahamsen lives and works in New York City and is always looking for something to shoot.
http://antonandreas.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/antonandreas/
Have you seen the FPP Portra Video Review? If not, see it here:
http://filmphotographyproject.com/video/2011/08/kodak-portra-160-kodak-portra-400-fpp-review