Don’t ignore the fact that you’re going to have to work at it even more than a digital image to extract the full dynamic range and get the colour balance right.
What would your choice be?
As Cunard said, “Getting there is half the fun!”
You and Wolfgang seem to be suggesting that for color, digital would be better for me. How will I ever know this for myself, if I don’t try it?
What is “NC” ? Wolfgang, are you suggesting this is a better choice than the 400? If so, I’ll start with your choice.
(For now, I’m sticking with B&W.)
If I read this correctly:
Kodak replaced the NC and VC flavours of Porta with a single type and did so way back in 2010/2011. In which case it follows that these FilmPack presets do not (cannot) mimic the look of Portra film currently available at retail.
stuck
Ouch! Well, you’ve explained a LOT more that I knew nothing about any of this.
In the early 2000’s, (2003?) I got my first digital Nikon “pro” camera, and I forgot all about film. For reasons I can’t put into words, I’d like to capture the enjoyment that I had shooting film, and I started with B&W. I figured I would go buy a roll of 24 exposure Kodacolor, and have been learning about this whole new world that has opened up with film.
If I understand what you wrote properly, the PhotoLab presets are for films no longer available, and if I buy the new film available at resale, the PL4 presets won’t be the appropriate settings. Knowing all this, if I buy the Portra 400 I linked to from B&H, are you suggesting this is not a good choice if I am going to edit the images in PL4?
(If I buy a single roll of film to test, which film might be appropriate - it would be used mostly for “outdoor scenery type photos”, not portraits.)
Film emulations can be applied to digital images (e.g. from your D750) to mimic the look of the respective film. No need to apply a film preset to a shot of a film negative - unless you want to exaggerate an effect.
1 Like
For NEW pics,
- why not take your Digital,
…
and then scroll down in Color Rendering for the available “filmtypes”, including 3 different Kodak Portra simulations.
Don’t remember to have used any Kodak Portra Film, but tried those simulations. – Like with the others, you can easily see (and apply) the different renderings and then judge yourself, if they suit your needs, instead of only reading about them.
otherwise for the work you are going to introduce … → Negative Conversion
As Platypus has already said, FilmPack presets are designed to give images from a digital camera the look and feel of an image taken on film. Assuming the scanner is a good one, then a scan of a film image will already incorporate the look and feel of the film, so there’s no point applying a FilmPack preset on top of that scan.
1 Like
I guess I was confused (again). Since I an thinking of shooting film, I don’t need to deal with FilmPack.
I have ordered some color negative film. In a week or so, I should be scanning some images, assuming I figure out the proper scan settings.
I’m not really interested in trying film simulations - I would rather buy a roll of film, get it developed, scan it, and see what kind of results it will give me. I have no interest in making my digital images “look like” film - anything I do to process any digital image does this by removing information, not adding new information. If I want to get a photo that looks like it was from film, I will shoot the photo on film.
I had an interesting discussion with a support technician at B&H yesterday.
First, he told me that 25 years ago, when I last used film, I was most likely shooting Kodak “Gold”.
Second, he told me that Kodak’s “Portra” film was created for portraits, and it deliberately is less “sharp” in that it makes skin appear more pleasing, minimizing blemishes - making it ideal for portraits, thus the name “Portra”.
Third, he told me that since I’m mostly interested in “landscape” type photos, I should try “Kodak Professional Ektar”. He says the film was designed to look sharper, with more vivid colors and more contrast.
I now have some on order.
You do as You like – period.
I apologize for any confusion I’ve created, because I didn’t know enough to write my questions properly. I asked about “FilmPack” in the mistaken belief that it would be useful in editing film scans that I made.
I have no interest in shooting digital and make the images “look like” a certain brand of film. As I see it, why emulate when I can shoot the real thing. My issue came down to to decide which film to use.
(I assumed that since I can buy 35mm B&W film, scan it, and edit the Tiff files in PL4, I can do the same thing with color film. I muddied up the water by asking too many questions which I now know are irrelevant.)
Maybe I’m wasting all my time in trying to shoot film again. I guess I’ll find out.
Again, sorry if in my ignorance I asked about things which have nothing to do with scanning real film. You’re all trying to help me, but I now know that some of my questions have nothing to do with what I’m trying to do.
The difference is that, what you thought of as the “look” of a certain film (especially negative) relied on…
- the film
- the developer
- the preference, paper and chemistry of the lab doing the printing
When you decide to scan colour negative film there is very little chance of matching that look and feel unless you use someone else’s idea of how to scan the film, assuming it was developed in standard chemistry.
In short, unless you send your colour negs to a lab for printing, you will have to work hard to match what you would have expected from a lab, there are no standards. Once film leaves the all-analogue world, nothing can be guaranteed to be the same.
Oh, and you do realise that Ektar has very little exposure latitude? Ektar Film Reviews & Photos - The Darkroom Photo Lab
And then you will need to check out what filters you will need to use if you shoot anything other than daylight 5600°K. Checkout the data sheet for more details - https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/files/products/e4046_ektar_100.pdf
Like I said, if you want to shoot colour neg film, let the labs do all the work 
Fully agree.
@mikemyers
Manually converting a negative into a positive can be done, but will give colour and tonality which might be anything but what you get from a lab. Lab output will vary too and that’s a different story too.
I haven’t shot film since late in the 1980’s. I don’t recognize any of the color film names that I’ve now read about. I used to only shoot B&W seriously, then edit in my darkroom. For color, I bought the film at the local store, and dropped it off at places like CVS Pharmacy, and picked up my 4x6 color prints and the negatives shortly afterwards.
I never got serious about this, and if anyone wanted a print, I had ordered those at the same shop. I was satisfied, my family was satisfied, people I gave prints to were satisfied, and all seemed well.
By the time I was getting more “serious”, I was using digital.
When I needed large “poster” size prints, they were always done by a lab.
The only color print I ever made was a post-card size photo using “Cibachrome”. It worked, but it was far too much effort. Using color negative film worked much better for me.
I realize everything Joanna and you have said is good advice, but I’m retired, I’m doing all this for enjoyment, and even if I’m completely wrong, I’d like to find out for myself - taking some color photos, and scanning them, and processing them in PL4 just as I do now with digital. True, it might look quite different from what I get from a lab, but the lab is making prints, which I have no intention of doing. I just want to get a nice looking color photo onto my computer, so I can post it in my SmugMug gallery.
If someone were to ask me for a high quality 16x20 print, I would take the negative to the lab and have them make the print, which is probably what all of you are advising me to do.
I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.
…which leads me to my original question, what film to buy. My new-found friend at B&H told me that based on the year, I was almost certainly buying film called “Kodak Gold”. He followed that up with telling me that the newer Kodak color films have been redesigned to work better with scanning. I know nothing about this. I think that’s what I started asking here, before things got overly complicated…
I have no idea of what I might have “expected from a lab”, as all my color printing came from places such as CVS Pharmacy at the film counter, where I ordered prints. That, and the machine made color prints that came from the same place.
My goal is to get the color images onto my SmugMug account, and if people want to order prints, the SmugMug labs will handle the printing for each customer.
If I were a professional photographer, I 100% agree with what you’ve written. Right now I post digital color images onto my account, m.smugmug.com, and I have started posting my B&W scanned images there. I would like to try photographing on film, and post those images to SmugMug, meaning I need to scan and edit the images until they look right. Anyone who wants a print can order from SmugMug, or download the image file and print it themselves.
I wouldn’t argue with anything you’ve written, and I guess I need to shoot several types of film to decide which I prefer. Yes, color balance will be yet one more issue, but PL4 can correct that if needed.
Maybe a year from now, I’ll feel very differently about this. You’ve probably forgotten more than I will ever know - you’re in college, and I’m in the first grade. And also, there is no logical reason why I intend to start shooting film again, other than that I think I’ll enjoy it.
(If I had a Nikon D7, with every imaginable capability, it would sell for maybe $6,000, and next year it would be obsolete when the D8 comes out, just as the D7 replaced a D6. I’m tired of that game, and I now that I’m retired, I can’t continue to play. My 1954 Leica M3 is just as good today as the Leica M-A which I could buy for $6,000. Film cameras don’t get old - and I can use any lenses I want on either, just like with my imaginary “D7” or my 25-year-old F4, or an F5, or F6. The electronics get better - which is one reason why the Leica M-A has no electronics, and doesn’t use a battery. …all of which leads me to wanting to use my F4 for a while, before seriously contemplating a M-A.)
Were I to get seriously involved in all this, then everything you wrote would become a real concern, and if I took photos for someone on assignment, the film would go to a lab, NOT my scanner. I doubt I’ll ever get that serious about film, but who knows…)
Added later - I used to enjoy motorcycles. If I were offered a choice of any motorcycle I wanted, free of charge, including all the new “super bikes”, I would ask for a 1960’s BSA Gold Star 500cc single. Ancient, not at all up to modern standards, requires more maintenance… but I love it! My Mazda MX-5 is the closest I can come to my 1960 MGA sports car. I know how “good” all the modern technology is, but I often enjoy the old stuff more - for a lot of things, but not all. My Leica M3 is off at DAG Camera Repair, being reconditioned. I now find myself with two Nikon F4 cameras. For me, photography is one of the best ways to enjoy life, and record it for the future. The type of photos you post here, shot in large format, of lovely scenes, is exactly what I most enjoy doing - but there aren’t too many scenes like that in Miami, Florida…
1 Like
This site lists films from many manufacturers:
I had found a list of Kodak film codes, but the site has gone, alas. The code is printed near the edge of film and reads something like “Kodak Safety Film 6789”. You might find your film type on an old strip of negatives (if you still have them) and search the web for what kind of film it was…
Thanks - I’ll go look if I have any of those codes. I do have old color negatives, if it ever got printed on the film stock, but it doesn’t really matter what I used to use. I never paid much attention back then, unlike B&W where I developed it myself. For color slides my favorite was Kodachrome, ASA 25 as I remember, very, very slow, and I usually got Ektachrome which gave me higher shutter speeds.
Finding and learning how to use color film is a small part of what I’m trying to do. I dug out my old Leica M3, and fell in love with it all over again. It is now off at DAG Cameras making it like new again. And the people I respect most in the Leica forum think I’m better off shooting this M3 than were I to spend the $6,000 or so for the brand new Leica M-A. Essentially, they are the same - and many people I trust have told me the M3 is better because of the way it was manufactured.
Back to today, I dug out this beast of a camera, my old Nikon F4, and I find it’s exciting to be shooting with it again - after spending almost a week re-learning how to use it. Everything is controlled by switches or buttons or knobs or levers - there is no “menu”, and there are no electronics other than for the light meter. It’s still all mechanical, just like all the Nikon cameras before it. I got it in the 1980’s. It was my “main camera” before I got into digital. Joanna will laugh at this - but when I took it out of my drawer, I had no idea how to use it - none! My memory is pathetic, as I’m sure you realize from all the questions I ask about PL4 that I should already know. Anyway, after two weeks of reading the instruction book, and reading a separate book I bought long ago on the F4, I mostly know how to use it. Watching a dozen or so YouTube videos helped too. I doubt if anyone else in this forum would have the slightest interest in it… but what I think I now understand, is that unlike digital cameras, film cameras don’t go obsolete. My M3 Leica and were I to buy it, a brand new M-A Leica would do the exact same thing. A photo from one would be identical to a photo from the other. While the M3 is off being fixed, I got interested in the F4, and as far as I can tell, my B&W negatives are as good as I ever got in the past. I’ll know more once I start scanning.
What this is leading up to, is I want to start using the F4 again, which means buying film again, and now that I’m convinced it does a nice job on B&W, I’d like to see how well it shoots color. At this moment in time, that’s all I’m doing. …and this is in addition to digital, not instead of digital.
1 Like
That is nonsense – otherwise the F4 couldn’t handle your newly acquired VR lens (shown in → Can I apply PL4 lens corrections when I use a "known" lens on a film camera) at all, but it can e.g. like the autofocus – transmitted by ‘electronics’, while with the new generation lenses (no more aperture ring = so called G(elded) lenses), you have some limitations.
Oops, I meant to say the camera wasn’t controlled by a computer. What you noted is obviously correct, but I considered all that to be part of the metering system. Yes, about the autofocus. It’s the user interface that is all “mechanical”, and that’s what I meant to write about. Nowadays so many things are done by menus, not “mechanical” adjustments.
Sorry about that - you are correct, and I used the wrong words to describe what I was trying to say. I should have explained what I meant better - as I wrote it, you’re right, that was “nonsense”.
By the way, the camera can’t handle the VR lens. That’s not functional when the lens is used on a F4. That VR capability is ignored. And you’re right about lenses without an aperture ring - there is no way for the user to control the aperture.
Mike, I enjoy all your posts and fully identify with your sentiments and experiences!
I also have fond memories of way back in the old days when I shot film (usually Plus-X and Tri-X) and then went into the bathroom to develop and print the pictures. Watching the prints in the developer tray slowly appear was always a magic moment! Once I even tried doing some color darkroom work but it was expensive and quite a bit more difficult than B&W, and I didn’t have the money to do much of it anyway.
But things are different now; in retirement I just don’t seem to have the time needed nor the desire to go through all that effort again. Digital has me spoiled 
.
I also think the implementation of so much complex technology has been poorly done on most, and more probably all, of the newer cameras. Though they have infinitely more power and features, NONE of the can even come close to matching the speed and ease of use of the older dinosaur film cameras like the Pentax Spotmatic and Nikon F.
Keep on going, you’re having fun with it!