Testing the exposure limits of Kodak Portra 160 film

[@andrewapperley]

I'd be interested in seeing the limits of Ilford Delta 3200

[@victormacneil]

yes please!

[@nandecaetano3393]

same

[@O4KAST]

+1

[@anonharingenamn]

Yeees!

[@MrAterianer]

It would be interesting, yes. But since Ilford Delta 3200 is not a C41 or E6 film, there is no standard developming process for it. When I started using Delta 3200, I just developed it with Ilford ID-11, which is a very good all-round developer. However, the results with Delta 3200 were somewhat disappointing. Only after I switched to Microphen developer, Delta 3200 really started to shine for me. TL;DR: cool idea, but BW films heavily depend on development which makes an analysis more difficult.

[@terrywyse]

Very timely. I just completed my own exposure tests about a month ago using Ektar 100, Portra 400 and Portra 160. Across the board, all these films responded best at +2/3 to +1 stop. I had the model wear a black dress with folds and the shadow detail just popped at +1 stop.

[@jesusa.7064]

It’s be interesting for a exposure test on Portra 800, seeing as one of the big draws to it is its underexposure latitude

[@rolloffilm1996]

Yes)

[@UglyCameras]

Portra 800 doesn’t have much latitude for underexposure, only one stop for pushing to 1600.

[@gootyeriz]

I have rated porta 800 at 400 and metered for the shadows and the results are great.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Coming up!

[@7evive]

@@gootyeriz and you dev at 800 or 400

[@dmcphotographer]

There's something so nice about how matter of fact your videos are. It's just really concise and easy to follow. Thanks for making quality content!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching, Devin

[@murraykriner9425]

Shows how forgiving most of our modern film is to more accurate metering in these pro-level cameras. Kinda hard to go wrong unless your shooting the higher speed films in near daylight conditions. Great video. Thanks.

[@JamieMPhoto]

Great stuff. I like Portra 160 more than 400, so this helps cement my hunches about it. Though 800 has been getting more interesting to me ... I'd like to second anyone calling for an ECN-2 film. Maybe 250D? Though maybe 500T vs Cinestill 800T might be functionally more useful for some and to see how much difference really exists because of the remjet.

[@charliefm826]

Would love to see a test of the infamous Velvia 50

[@KyleMcDougall]

Noted.

[@JonnyRobbie]

The fact that you see the same underexposure characteristic is because how ISO speed is calculated - from the 0.1 over fog+base which is deep shadows. So every film rated correctly will behave almost identical when it comes to underexposure by definition.

[@fpm1979]

I suggest Fujicolor C200 for a future test.

[@camerachica73]

I love Portra 160! My favourite time to shoot it is a sunny late afternoon/evening and I normally rate it at either 100 or 125. The colours are beautiful.

[@jenserwig1707]

I am starting to like 160 better than 400!

[@Zetaphotography]

Id make a Vote for Eastman Double XX BW. Other suggestions of 800T (Vision 500T) film are all good but lets not all forget thats a $12 roll of film to just shoot for fun. Something like this is easy to tell or ask someone to go spend the money and time to shoot. Not sure why each photographer doesnt do this of each film to truely understand how film works. I will try this next season for my top 5 films and see what I like to shoot. I picked up Double XX of eBay for cheap. Currently on a nice batch of expired Reala 100 that looks amazing as day 1. Thank you for what you do.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. 🙏

[@scoopold]

I always end up watching these videos even though I'm getting on youtube for another reason. Thanks for posting them. I'd be interested in Fuji C200 for sure.

[@KylerSteele]

Im interested to see this test on a film that is also pushed or pulled. Think it could be interesting seeing which exposure looks the best in conjunction with changing its development time

[@jklphoto]

As a pro medium-format film shooter for 20 years, I agree. No surprises. Important to note that your description of light meter technique may have eluded some viewers. With an incident meter, simply place the bulb facing toward the camera for 3-dimensional subjects, taking care not to block the light. The bulb averages both highlight and shadow side to yield an 18% reading. Might have been interesting if you had taken a reading in the shadow area. That's technically the correct place to meter for negative film. Have you done a video on Reflected vs. Incident metering technique?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks. Your description is definitely a little more clear. And as mentioned, this was favoured towards the shadows. Haven’t done a video on the different types of metering, but I plan to.

[@jklphoto]

@@KyleMcDougall pro labs serving the portrait/wedding market used to backprint our proofs with numbers from their video analyzers. A trained operator adjusted for film density (which let us know if we were properly exposing our film) and their changes to each of the RGB channels before hitting the (optical) print command. Grossly overexposed film always had some color crossover as you see today. Today, if a commercial lab scans your film, they make those same decisions and deliver (usually) a JPEG. That file has some flexibility in-post, but nothing like rescanning or reprocessing a digital file. That's why I think of color negative film as the original RAW format.

[@JTobiason]

I forgot how much I liked Portra 160. This is a great reminder.

[@KyleMcDougall]

It’s definitely a nice film.

[@JesseSchroeder]

If you're down to try ECN-2, would love to see an exposure limits test of Kodak's Vision3 series, 50D, 200T, 250D, and my personal favorite 500T.

[@RewDowns]

I second that 👍

[@rolloffilm1996]

👍👍👍

[@RewDowns]

If you don't want to invest in chems you can get true ECN-2 developed at Bellows Film Lab in Miami or Colorlab Corp. in Maryland

[@sednasix6608]

Agreed. Kyle really needs to test those Silbersalz stocks. Come on buddy. We need you to cover those!

[@sednasix6608]

@@RewDowns ooh thanks for that MD suggestion. That’s super close to me!

[@fabiocastellari7308]

would love to watch a test of Cinestill 800T

[@ralphstark9961]

Great example of Portra 160 getting more punchy with over exposure. I had heard this happened but never tested it out. I personal shoot 160 between 80 and 120 , but that comes more from my habit with VPS than actually testing. Thank You.

[@voodoodownrecords]

I'd also like to see how consumer grade films like Kodak Gold 200, 400 or Color Plus hold up compared to the professional films since I shoot these much more often!

[@rolloffilm1996]

It’s be interesting for a exposure test on Kodak vision 3 50d or 250D

[@nateeames6826]

I'd love to see you test Ektar 100, Kodak Colorplus, Fujifilm C200, or more slide film options.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Did Ektar a while ago.

[@MikeStrike2]

This came just in time. Currently have my first roll of Portra 160 in my camera

[@iain9887]

Hey Kyle, superb video! This series is really helpful and highly underrated. I shoot Portra 160 quite a lot, and it's great to see the limits of the film explained in such a cohesive way. I'll definetly start rating the film at 100 to preserve some of that shadow detail - great advice! Keep up the awesome work.

[@roryjacobs6817]

Slide film would be really interesting to see. I think a lot of today's film photographers have little experience shooting them so your test would be super helpful to the community. Thanks Kyle.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers Rory. I did Ektachrome earlier this year. May do Provia in the future.

[@anzaeria]

Years ago, I used to shoot a lot of Fujichrome Sensia 100 slide film which was discontinued quite a while ago. It had an extremely narrow exposure latitude. Really tight. You had to get your exposures absolutely spot on 100%. A photography magazine once did a test involving films from different manufacturers (a wide mix of slide and negative films) and they found that Fuji's Sensia 100 had the narrowest exposure latitude of all the films tested. The staff at film labs / camera shops will tell you that professional films have less exposure latitude than consumer films. However, Sensia was a consumer film.

[@sungblee1]

Contact Sheet was my most listened to podcast according to my spotify yearly recap 🙌

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for listening. 🙏

[@federicomuciaccia9191]

I think that, on order for your exposure comparisons to be more effective, you can repeat those shots with a close-up of the face. Because the human eye is super skilled at finding even the slightest color casts when looking at the skintone hues. Skin tones are the most challenging benchmark for color rendition.

[@federicomuciaccia9191]

and here is my suggestion for the future video: Ilford XP2 (chromogenic black and white, C-41 development)

[@TheLosingTeamXP]

I’d love to see some blue hour/night time tests! Struggling to understand calculating reciprocity failure compensations so knowing what wiggle room I have would be very useful Maybe some ultramax 400?

[@calebjergens]

Thanks so much! Love these tests. Cinestill 800

[@constantinestewart7416]

Thanks so much Kevin. I just loaded my camera with some Portra 160 and this information will help me dial in exposure.

[@maxrownes7914]

I would love to see a video on Fuji’s c200 film, very difficult to expose for the shadows sometimes so it would be interesting to see if overexposing that film might yield better results.

[@agylub]

Max Rownes don’t expose for the shadows- expose for correct density of the diffuse highlight to achieve true tonality and light the shadows

[@sevsuk2011]

Love this series, as it allows you to use different iso on the same roll. I hope you had a good time here in Brighton, East Sussex in your recent trip.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. And yes, loved that area!

[@RobbieMaynardCreates]

Cant wait to see the TMax test - I feel like its one of the best, lesser used film stocks

[@KyleMcDougall]

Never shot it so I’ll be curious to see what it’s like.

[@LuisMartinez-fr6kd]

Please shoot Provia 100! It’s such a popular and affordable slide film, would be interesting to actually see where it’s limits lie in terms of blowing out highlights and crushing darks/shadows. It’s also marketed as a slightly more versatile slide film, wondering how much that really holds up.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Noted!

[@benelgar-white1174]

Since you have a spot meter, on future videos could you use it so measure the difference between highlights and lowlights or at least a couple of reference points. A scene can easily have 10 stops of dynamic range within it so it seems crazy to not use the spot meter function when referring to highlights and lowlights in a known environment.

[@Falcrist]

I'd be interested in seeing a combination of under/over exposing and pushing/pulling. As in, pull the portra 160 by a stop (including overexposure) but ALSO overexpose it by another stop. So 2 stops of overexposure, and also different development time.

[@dzhemali8512]

I think Agfa APX is a pretty overlooked film and would be pretty interesting to see its exposure limits

[@jontiffinphoto]

Back in the day of film weddings, cir. 1993-2005-ish, as a 1st asst., my mentor, a Brooks graduate would rate Portra 160 at 100 and not pull processing, run 800 at 800, and 3200 as 3200 (only 12 frames from the balcony of the darkest churches).

[@mikej243]

You should tackle a budget film! kodak gold, colorplus or fuji c200, superia xtra to name some.

[@nelsono4315]

back in the day Kodak VPS 160 was my go-to film for portraits. I exposed it at E.I. 80 and got excellent results. I'm getting back into film and was wondering if I could shoot Portra 160 at 160 or 80. Looks like 100 is a safe bet. Thanks for the video.

[@ChrottosNorway]

In the right conditions Gold 200 can look great, but I'd be interested in exactly where its limits are.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Agreed. Gold can be a great film.

[@clarhettcoalfield3616]

Rollei Ortho 25 plus B/W Film would be interesting. Thanks as always Kyle. Cheers.

[@DasAnnihilator]

Ilford Delta 3200 or Cinestill 800 would be really interesting! Also, it would be really useful if you put a little +1 or -1, etc on each picture to show how many stops over or under it was exposed. It would make following along a little easier, especially when you're flipping back and forth.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll do something like that in the future.

[@koishes00]

The Contact Sheet is an awesome podcast and I have listened to every episode, most of them twice. I really appreciate all the work you put in to produce the episodes. There is one small piece of constructive criticism I would offer, albeit unsolicited. I have been feeling lately that a lot of the questions have become quite repetitive. While questions about dealing with criticism online, finding a balance in work/a voice in content creation, and youtube more broadly may be very relevant to you given your place as a youtube personality, they are not that relevant to the average film photographer who is tuning in to your podcast to hear gems of wisdom from those who have made a career in making pictures. Maybe the repetition of questions amongst guests is an intentional choice to capture different opinions on the same topic, but it has just seemed like the same questions being answered by different guests lately. Not a stab at your process at all, as I said, I'm a big fan overall. Looking forward to the next episode!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Appreciate the feedback. Always looking to improve however I can. It's hard to know exactly what appeals to specific people, so I've just been rolling with both things that are on my mind, and also struggles and questions that I hear often from people. But this podcast is very much a learning experience for me. It's something new and I'm constantly trying to evaluate how it's going and what I can improve. So feedback like this helps. Thanks for listening. 🙏

[@koishes00]

@@KyleMcDougall no problems at all! Can’t wait for the next episode. It’s good to get feedback but also don’t forget it’s your podcast at the end of the day, you do whatever feels right.

[@SirPreston913]

Great timing! I just ordered a box of Portra 160 yesterday and was wondering what the limits are

[@danielseale9636]

Hey Kyle, what computer monitor is that you're using? I'm having trouble getting accurate colors even after calibration so looking for a better monitor.

[@KyleMcDougall]

It’s a LG Ultrafine 5K. Absolutely love it.

[@lewisjones7732]

Love these tests, helps me out a lot. If you could do a test with Fomapan 200 that would be great!

[@999Cisneros]

This is great thanks. I would love to see a video comparing Kodak 800 and Fuji 800 both in 35mm and 120mm. Thanks

[@KyleMcDougall]

Porta 800 is coming up.

[@Flying4Film]

Khalik Allah shoots Portra 160. He shoots it at night with available light which I'd imagine he's having to push it. The colors and contrast in his work is brilliant. You definitely should check out his work.

[@rowanobrien4027]

Kyle, I love these videos and I know that you shoot mainly medium format but I was wondering would you be able to exposure test a cheap 35mm film such as Kodak colour plus or Kodak gold

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. A lot of requests for those.

[@robinbottrell771]

Have been waiting for this! Thanks!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hope you found it helpful!

[@robinbottrell771]

Most definitely :))

[@steve67-w9i]

Please make one about cinestill 800t

[@edscannell1019]

Hi Kyle....great work as usual. You say you typically shoot portra 160 at 100 iso so just curious do you tell the lab you’ve overexposed the film?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Ed, nope. No need. Just process as normal.

[@edscannell1019]

Kyle McDougall thanks so much Kyle...I’m never sure weather or not to mention it. Keep up the great work...I’ve learned so much 🙏

[@georgebirddrums]

Nice! Very interesting. One stop over looks great. Would be nice to see something outside of Fuji/Kodak/Ilford maybe something from Adox/rolei/foma. Although the obvious choice might be a 100 speed BnW like Acros or tmax.... Provia? That really didn't narrow it down did it 🤦‍♂️

[@STANDRDUSER]

Rollei RPX 400 is a lovely B&W. It’s like Ilford Delta 400 but it’s different.

[@VariTimo]

Please do a CineStill 800T test with and without an 85 filter in daylight. Ideally you’d also make another row of test in a tungsten lit night scene. But daylight with and without the filter will give most people a very good picture of the film. I’ve been shooting it for over two years now (with an 85 filter in daylight, as you’re supposed to) and am absolutely loving the colors and contrast. The grain is a bit much on 35mm but I’m not blowing them up a lot, so it’s fine. Btw exposing it at Kodak’s original 500 ASA will give you the best results (that is 320 with an 85 filter in daylight on a non a TTL meter). And I think the lab scans give us a better reference point. Since most of the tests have been scanned on a lab scanner. Also please make sure that there is something to trigger halation with Portra 800 in the frame since it seems to be more susceptible to that than the other Portra films. And a tungsten lit night scene with Portra 800 would be really great because it’s by far the best low light film left. RIP Fuji Natura 1600.

[@maggotbeer6310]

Hi Kyle, how about testing the exposure limits of some consumer films like Colorplus 200 or Fujicolor C200? I'm sure many people shoot these films a lot (myself included) and it would be interesting to see their latitude compared to the pro films that you have already covered. Thanks!

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. Lots of requests for those. They’re on the list!

[@terrywyse]

Would love to see a test of Ilford Delta 100/400 processed in something standard like Ilford DD-X

[@geoffreycoonen5540]

Exposure test of Adox CH100II or Silbersalz 500T would be so nice! :D

[@kristofscheuler]

Great informative content as always. I wonder how some expired film would turn out in one of those videos. As they are meant to be treated at a different iso anyway. Would be a nice experiment.

[@deltadave44]

Lomography Metropolis...I'll even send you a roll to test with...

[@csorgotom]

Would love to see Kodak Colorplus 200 or Fuji C200

[@y34r]

kinda like under-1 looks, Did the same with portra400 and loved the result. Portra line might seem like a cliche but it really is very versatile filmstock!

[@RonnyKohlmann]

Great content as always, Thanks! I know you prefer shooting medium format. But I'd like to see more consumer stocks tested. Gold 200 and C200 would be interesting?

[@KyleMcDougall]

For sure. A lot of requests for those.

[@familygonzcartwright]

I would want to see a exposure test of Kodak vision films. You can find it bulk loaded and it has nothing to do with Cinestill. It would be nice to know how it works because we all know the real stuff is better.

[@luchinooliveros2469]

I would love to see a latitude test comparing the film processed in C-41 vs ECN2 especially since there are now home ecn2 kits

[@kurocamera]

what about testing consumer films? you've tested all professional / expensive films, it would be interesting to see how ultramax 400 / colorplus 200 / superia 400 differ from professional film stocks.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Noted!

[@sarahdippity]

I wish I'm doing film photography currently so I could enjoy all these topics to the max. :) I think it's coming though. For now, I just generally love your style of filmmaking. Cheers Kyle!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Sarah. Always appreciate the support. 🙏

[@lukemntgmry]

Do a cheap filmstock! Like colorplus or pro image or something

[@ClaraPNAraujo]

Ohh that would be so nice!

[@josephomalley1526]

Ask politely maybe . . .

[@chriscorey5164]

How about some love for Ilford? FP4+, maybe?

[@photog1529]

Would like to see an exposure test on Ilford XP2 Super if you get a chance...seems to work well in shadows.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Noted!

[@lewispalmer8062]

Lomography 800 and Cinestill 800T would be interesting!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Noted. Thanks.

[@josephreidhead1639]

I really want to see you do Lomochrome Purple.

[@shaniluipanitashani8916]

Id love to see a Trix exposure latitud test for BW. And colorplus 200 for color

[@justinhensen5266]

Would love to see Tri-X or Delta 3200

[@MarcEstrella]

Hey you mentioned in this video that you usually shoot Portra 160 at 100 which I do with 400 and 800. I rate it a little lower so that I over expose. But, with pushing film do you shoot 160 at 320 or 400 then push it when developing? to my understanding, Pushing is shooting for example 400 at 800 then telling my lab push 1 stop or 2 stops if I shot it at 1600, correct?

[@dynax60]

I believe that you could get the correct exposure (as in your case with +1) if you average light metering across several points: a point on bushes in the darkest side, a sphere released near the face, and possibly clouds ... These are just my thoughts :) In this case, there would be no need to make a correction in the exposure, the light meter would show approximately the same as you got with +1.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Indeed. The point of this test though is to show varying exposures.

[@filipecostapt6427]

Fomapan 100 (or 200/400) and C200 would be great

[@brandonburridge]

Would love to see one of these with Lomo 800 or Tri-x 400

[@KyleMcDougall]

Noted!

[@nolanlister194]

What about some b&w films that fly just under the radar... Foma 100/200/400 & Bergger Pancro 400?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Nolan. I’ll keep em in mind.

[@RIDGIEDESIGNS]

Can you redo the Portra400 using this testing method? I think it’s important to test with skin tones. Thankyou for your efforts btw

[@alberte58]

Please test Silbersalz35 500T (repackaged Kodak vision 3 500T film)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Been eyeballing that film!

[@liramarielandes7929]

Why does "giving it more light" mean the ISO number goes down? Why is "One stop over" equivalent to the ISO number going down? A lower ISO means LESS sensitivity to light, so I am confused about this nomenclature. Wouldn't *less* sensitivity to light be equivalent to less light and so be "one stop down/under"? Forgive me, I am a beginner and it's not easy to wrap my head around the push/pull thing. Thanks :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey there, so, if you're changing your ISO so it's one stop lower, the camera is going to give you one stop more of exposure. Let's say that's via the shutter speed for this example. So, let's say you have ISO 400 film loaded, and you set your camera/meter to ISO 400, and you get a reading of 1/500s for your shutter speed as the correct exposure, well, if you now change the camera/meter to ISO 200, it's going to give you a shutter speed of 1/250s, instead of 1/500s, which will expose your ISO 400 film for longer, or give it an extra stop of light, hence 'one stop over'. Hope this helps.

[@AlisterMalcolm]

Interesting, not too many limitations to choosing this over 400 despite it being more popular. I just got 10 rolls of 400 (5 of 120, 5 of 35mm) through, but hope to try some 160 in the new year

[@KyleMcDougall]

Can’t go wrong with either one. But 160 is a bit cheaper.

[@AlexSmith-ln1tv]

how about kodak ultramax 400 or gold 200?

[@jonathanbex8959]

dude this is SO helpful! THANKS

[@mpk33]

I've been shooting Rollei Retro 80s & 400s. Would love to see how they come out in a test like this. Some very nice b&w films.

[@georgialilley4316]

Just wondering what your method was for altering each stop. Did you change the iso rating on your light meter and take a new reading for each shot? Or did you leave the iso the same and change the shutter speed/aperture with each new shot? Thanks ☺️

[@ignacioalcantara513]

cool review as always, i'm just so curious to understand how you managed to get the same exact position on every exposure also the background and the leaves on the floor everything looks just the same...i don't get it

[@parkermillican]

Lomochrome purple!

[@randomgrenad346]

We need this. Such a great film stock.

[@skywithoutend]

would definitely be interesting to see how variable iso stocks respond to over/underexposure!

[@_parkphoto]

In your professional opinion... Do you think if I took Portra 160 and rated it on-camera at like 320 and had it pushed 2 stops in development - so like 640 - (since I do want to overexpose it by a stop but want some more sensitivity from it); do you think that would work well?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Sorry, Austin. Can't help you with this one. I don't push/pull film often, and have never tried to also do something like this with overexposure.

[@SoFloCichlids]

Do kodak gold! would love to see some more budget stocks!

[@hzubovi1]

Thanks for this, for me the normal exposure looks best because the one over has a slightly bluish colour in the greenery behind you

[@AlvesDarlann]

I’m a beginner in film, when he says 1 to 4 stops over does it mean the iso setting? Like 160 normal, 320 1 over, 640 2 stops..?

[@drummersanonymous]

I accidentally shot Portra 160 at 400 ISO and haven’t gotten it developed yet. Was wondering your opinions on pushing it a stop or two, or if it will matter much since it is already underexposed by 1.5 stops, and how much pushing it would help.

[@danieljimenez1989]

Push it one stop

[@GerardMoral]

It'd be really interested if you could do it in 35mm too! Portra/Ektar in 35mm

[@tonyzhu403]

Classic Tri-X 400, please.

[@graydeotto2820]

Mentioned it before but looking forward to slide film, provia, velvia and e100 exposure limits

[@KyleMcDougall]

Already did E100.

[@graydeotto2820]

@@KyleMcDougall just watched it earlier today actually! The worst part is id seen it before and just forgotten because it had been a while lol. Still looking forward to the fuji ones eventually!

[@David_GarciaMontero]

Maybe something with Adox HR-50 or 160

[@Noltababy]

If you shoot 160 at 100 to overexpose it, do you develop it differently?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Nope, develop as is.

[@AlejandroMaagno]

I wonder how this +1, +2, etc compares to pushing film. I think +1 would be similar to pulling film -1.

[@RewDowns]

These results are really surprising to me, it gets more saturated the more you overexpose whereas portra 400 is the opposite right?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I didn’t really notice any saturation changes with 400.