Testing The Exposure Limits Of Kodak's Portra 400 Film

[@380stroker]

Try overexposing a dslr +3EV and observe the blown out highlights. In film even at 6 stops over it doesn't blow out, it just color shifts. Keep going to 10 stops over on the film. Give it the torture test.

[@MrCROBosanceros]

I agree 100% !

[@ObsidianMirage]

When he hit 1/30th I was like "PLeAsE StOp!¡ You're killing the Portra!" 😭😭

[@-dubu]

Thats true, but DSLRs handle underexposure WAY better than any CN film does. Considering you are more often going to be in a situation where you have too little light, that is a more useful thing. Still, its impressive.

[@patakk8145]

I just don't understand the results from this video. Almost every image (except -3) looks almost the same when you look at image brightness. How can -2 and -6 have almost the same lightness of the sky for example?? How can 1/1000s get almost the same amount of light as 1/4s??

[@darrelltheriault5793]

@@patakk8145 The lab compensated during the scanning process.

[@mattdayphoto]

Glad I was recommended this channel by Bob Price. Really good stuff, man! Excited to see more.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Matt, thanks for reaching out! I appreciate the comment. 🙌 Love what you’re doing. Looking forward to connecting more in the future.

[@DecemberSounds]

This seals it for me. I won't be shooting Portra at box speed ever again. Nice vid and music. You're gonna blow up for sure.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! 🙌 And I agree, in most situations, a little bit of overexposure is nice insurance.

[@dirtywater5336]

I've learned with film it's always better to overexpose than underexpose. This film handles desert colors so well. I'm going to LA in June and I can't wait to photograph the sandy landscape there with this amazing film

[@RewDowns]

that shutter sound is music to my ears

[@laneschmidt5210]

it's like a bomb going off

[@gryff42]

That's what I miss most on my DSLM...

[@swisswildpicsswp3095]

gave me a hard on

[@SlayR007]

Great video, you should do something similar with slide film (provia/velvia) and with probably smaller exposure changes, maybe in 1/3 or 1/2 steps, whichever one of your cameras is capable of. Newbies are always told hooow much you have to nail the exposure for slide films, would be nice to see how slight changes actually alter the end result!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Great idea. I have a roll of Provia in the fridge. Definitely something I’ll explore in the future.

[@Al0011235813]

It would have been nice to see a scene with more dynamic range-the highlights on the white part of the building did not get blown out, which is impressive (coming from digital); but the shadows were not really deep enough to challenge the film. A suggestion for next time: sunlight peeking in through a dark wooded area.

[@jefflucas_life]

So glad I found your channel, it's July 2020 I am starting film astrophotography, thank you for the review!

[@jonjon1217]

I cannot thank you enough for taking the time too produce these videos. When I hit lotto, I will pay it forward ✌

[@pixieskyline]

Thank you for taking the time to make this video. It has been extremely helpful and spot on what I needed! Subscribed.

[@justcallmesando]

Ahhhhh film... Pure love. Thanks for sharing and your Pentax is a beautiful machine.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you.

[@GolfW4ng]

mahalos for doing this film aint cheap broher!

[@JoshDavid]

This is shot&edited so clean ✨

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks!

[@rajeevchaturvedi8239]

Please tell some about how you metered this particular scene, including your chosen light meter (or camera's meter, if so). I want to know this first step that determined your base first frame. It will help me a lot.

[@OmarSherien]

Your videos are so enjoyable and u spend a great deal of effort on them, subscribed❤️❤️

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Omar.

[@jaeAre200]

New Sub!! Just bought my first film camera--Olympus OM1--it's in the mail. I just started my Street Photography channel (all digital) and sloooowly want to implement film into the channel. I can't wait. And this channel is helping me out alot. Btw, from a filmmakers stand point, I appreciate your proper coverage shots and insert shots. Makes for a very smooth story. Cheers!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks! Glad you're enjoying it. Best of luck with the film camera and your new channel!

[@dirtywater5336]

Being a landscape photographer, I've been using Ektar a lot but recently I saw the stunning results that Portra can render, especially in tan landscapes like desert. I'm going to LA in June and I'm really excited to see how the landscape there will look using this film. Thanks for this information. As usual, it's very helpful

[@KyleMcDougall]

You bet, thanks for watching! I think you'll be really happy with Portra and the way it captures the desert colours/tones.

[@CarlWicker]

cheers for taking the time to make this

[@polarjeez]

Wow this was actually super helpful.. love videos like this going over more technical aspects of film

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you found it helpful!

[@cammackey]

I’ve watched this a few times now. Not sure if I missed the info. But when developing, was the roll developed for box speed? How does that affect the other exposers? I’m developing at home and after watching this think it’s safe for me to shoot portra 400 at 200, but wanting to now see the affects of developing film at box speed vs pulled

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yes, this was developed at box speed. I haven't pushed or pulled film. But there was no need for a test like this as I'm not trying to correct my exposure during developing.

[@connoratcanada80]

Interesting video, would love to see a similar video but on long-exposure night photography and how different F stops impact light source starring.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Right on man. Good idea, and something I’ll explore in the future!

[@slskene]

Videos like yours get me inspired and excited to get out shooting. Thanks so much. Looking forward to future videos.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks so much, Sandy! Glad you enjoyed! 🙌

[@karlwalsh3034]

Excellent video again Kyle, really good insight into the differences in the exposures. Thanks for this, looking forward to more.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Karl! Glad you enjoyed the test.

[@hammerhead2325]

Seriously awesome video. Nothing like proper materials testing and you did all the ground work for us. Thank you!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed!

[@randallstewart175]

The scanning process is largely compensating for failure of the over-exposed image. I think you might reach a more conservative conclusion as to the quality of the overexposed images if the image had a sequence of high key (light tone) components. You would see a more obvious compression of those tones, in effect loosing the separation or differences between those tones. For example, clouds. If you just do not know how to meter a scene and determine proper exposure, then feel free to shoot at half box speed or whatever you like, but doing so will impair your images more than indicated in this example. Frankly, it's cheaper, and in the end easier, to learn how to use a light meter.

[@marcossantana1164]

Great content, and good work at the comparisons. With this huge dynamic rang of portra, it's hard for a shot to go wrong. I always overexpose it 1-2 stops depending on how I want my shadow to look. Subscribed!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Marcos! Glad you enjoyed the test. 🙌

[@MichaelSeneschal]

This is a fantastic video. Thanks for making it, it really helped me out.

[@alecilstrup]

Super concise and informative video man. Really enjoyed this one! I love the look of overexposed portra.

[@F1b3r-l4m]

I actually think that 6 stops overexposed gave a very cool picture. Nice and flat and filmic and I like the color of the skies.

[@skwoo1]

I first saw this video and linked from Petal Pixel. There was a menu option to send a tip. I had thought that I had a way to send some cash to Kyle's tip jar because I found this exposure test to be well done and very informative. Great job. Let me find out how else to tip Kyle :-)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Stephen. Just appreciate you watching.

[@billthornhill8408]

This was an extremely useful video. Especially as my Pentax 67ii just arrive yesterday and I've a whole box of Portra 400 waiting to be used :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Bill! You’ll love the 67.

[@billthornhill8408]

Kyle have you thought of doing Portra 160, possibly using a person as the subject?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Potentially in the future, Bill. I really want to shoot some more Portra 160. Been a bit behind with some of the tests that I want to do, but once I get caught up I'll certainly keep it in mind.

[@chrislim6851]

Awesome! Can't wait for future episodes!!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching, Chris!

[@jhogan54321]

As a newcomer to film photography I am getting so much out of your videos.... on all levels. The chip change from digital to film is a challenge but I am slowly getting there, I think. I have been looking around for either videos or written literature on using flash in film photography and I haven't found a lot. For example, when you are talking about exposing for shadows or over or under exposing, ISO rating etc, I am not all that clear on where this would fit into flash. One of my main loves as a portrait photographer is low key, isolating my subject in an island of intrigue and mood... it took me a while to come to grips with this in digital, but in film, I have no idea at all. I have a Yashika mat 124g with a leaf shutter on indefnite loan (in perfect condition... thanks for pointing me in that direction in an earlier video) and a Mamiya 645Pro. Low key is something I would love to try with both. But flash and film in general is something I would love to discover... any pointers? Video plans? Thanks so much for your vieos.... and your excellent approach to imparting your wealth of knowlege.

[@michaelbailey7554]

Beautiful video, explained it perfectly and I loved the style of explanation/video. You’ve got my sub and I look forward to more content

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you, Michael! Really appreciate it.

[@GraemeSimpsonPhotography]

Very useful video. Really good see how far you can go with the film

[@mileschun143]

Do you think you'll ever do similar tests for Portra 160 and Portra 800? It'd be interesting to see how the family has its different characteristics.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Most likely will test those as well in the future, Miles.

[@charithmettananda7129]

Starting to shoot film. This video was very helpful thanks :)

[@katelyn195]

This was super helpful and interesting to watch! Loving the videos👌🏻

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Katelyn! Glad you’re enjoying them!!

[@JefferyAHoward]

Great video! I really enjoyed watching and learning from the information you shared. Nicely done.

[@photog1529]

Very informative. Just now getting back into film (35mm, 6x7, 6x17) so this information is very useful. Thanks, and a new subscriber.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching, Mike! Hope you enjoy your journey back into film.

[@scruvydom]

Great video man! Love the production - all the closeups as your changing your settings, the ever distinctive and satisfying clunk of the 67's shutter :) When I've got the light, I always err on the side of overexposure, and rate my colour negative at half box speed. That said I'd maybe draw a slightly different conclusion to you - if you don't have the light, don't be afraid to rate it at 800! Seems to hold up really nicely, and from what I've seen you can even get great results at 1600 and pushing it. I'm not afraid of a bit (or a lot!) of grain though :) The other thing I'd say is - I'm guessing you got the lab to scan these as 'straight' as possible. It would be interested to see how much of that colour shift at +4, 5, 6 stops can be fixed in post. I scan all my 35mm stuff myself with the plustek 8100 and get great .tif files that are as flexible as digital raw files. It would be interesting to maybe look at the attitude of over/underexposed film to processing.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey Dominic, agreed, there is definitely some room for adjustment in post that would help balance out some differences. I did get the lab to scan all of them as 'straight' as possible. How do you like your Plustek? I've been considering it for a while now for my 35mm work. Thanks for watching.

[@scruvydom]

Ah man, the Plustek is awesome! The jump up from when I used to get my film scanned it just unreal. The lab used to do a very nice job sure, the colours look great, the images are pretty much good to go, but in my case the scans were only so-so resolution wise and you definitely lost any freedom to crop, and also because they were jpegs, even though I ordered my scans as flat as possible for further editing, there was really only so much I could do to make then look how I wanted. When it comes to image quality alone, the Plustek is straight killer. Really good quality optics, I usually scan my negatives at 3600dpi, which gets you super detailed 16MP files, although with some of my sharper photos, shot on my best lenses, I'll scan at 7200dpi which gives you insane 72MP files - I don't think you're actually getting 72MP worth of data in there, and they can stand to be downsized, but the detail you get just from 35mm negs is truly outstanding. Here's an example of one of those 72MP files I shot - www.flickr.com/photos/144684403@N04/39963575591/in/dateposted-public/ - you can download the original giant file, the real giveaway of just how much that scanner resolves was looking at the boy on the left's left hand, where you can clearly make out each individual finger. This whole series of Rollei RPX 25 was also scanned at the lower res, but you can see just how much detail and clarity you can get with a low iso, super high acutance film like that. www.flickr.com/photos/144684403@N04/27116718419/in/dateposted-public/ And you've never experienced just how malleable a negative can be if you've only ever been delivered lab scanned jpegs before - the RAW .tif files are a game changer. The downside is really just time, and it's a hell of a downside. You've got to scan each negative one by one, manually advancing the frames through the scanner. If you don't want to loose resolution around the edges, depending on how accurate your camera's frame spacing is you'll either have to adjust you negative's placement in the holder at least once between the first and last of the 6 frames, if not literally every frame for some older less precise cameras. To get the best quality, I use VueScan - which is great - and only scan RAW (White Point set to 0% to avoid clipping any highlights), where I then bring my ugly dark orange file into PhotoShop, where I use CFSystem's Colour Perfect to invert the negative, which gets you perfect colours really easily and is incomparably better than relying on the VueScan to do it for you. Then I painstakingly clone stamp out all the dust spots because I thought I was being smart and saving money by getting the Plustek 8100 (with no IR dust removal feature) rather than the 8200 (which has the dust removal feature) - probably don't do that :) So yeah, if you want the best possible looking files from your 35mm negatives at a (comparatively) insanely affordable price point, you can't go wrong. But if you're looking to make use of all that quality, you're looking at like an hour of your time or more to take one roll of film and turn it into a bunch of beautiful pictures

[@authenticas........]

I like the over exposed look at day,and at night the under exposed look Interesting video

[@stephensweeney5331]

This it brilliant! Thanks for putting this through the paces.

[@andreathode3782]

I love the Portra 400! Even the colorshift @+3 give it a nice look, imho. Great video, subbed.👍

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks!

[@arthurritsma3881]

Interesting, is there any impact of the scanner software on the end results?

[@johnnyboy8132]

Comparing these off the scans is silly as the scan tech can adjust the exposure. The evaluation should be made from the negative, on a light box with a loop

[@markharris5771]

Very interesting indeed, I don’t think I've gone more than one stop out in either direction but it’s good to know how far you can go with it.

[@GJones-zx5nr]

Very useful stuff, as always. Thanks.

[@tobiahtayo5149]

Love these videos. I like to rate my portra 400 at 200-320 usually. However I was shooting portra 800 rated at 500 and then shot a roll of portra 400 rated at 500 by accident. Should I have the lab push it or just roll with it? Was a pretty dull winter day.

[@HackerMonroy]

Hey Kyle, thanks for making this video. Greetings from Mexico

[@marcgibier6071]

Really like your videos...so cool and excellent work.

[@scoopold]

Extremely helpful video. Thanks for making this!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you found it helpful.

[@RICHARDROLLINSONDESIGNPHOTOGRA]

Very interesting results, thanks for sharing 😊

[@KyleMcDougall]

You bet Richard. Thanks for watching!

[@fthprodphoto-video5357]

Why would you overexpose a photo up to 4-5 stops ? To shoot wide open and achieve more bokeh ?

[@KyleMcDougall]

You normally wouldn’t. Just a test to show how far thing a can go.

[@asmrCA]

It would have been really helpful to know your metering process. Does the "normal" shot expose for the shadows, the highlights, or somewhere in between?

[@eksund1900]

Just discovered your channel. Interesting stuff. I realize this was uploaded a long time ago. But why did you use the shutter speed to control the over- and under- exposure? My experience, after measureing 100:s of film cameras, is that almost none is accurate enough. Maybe you know that your camera is precise, but the aperture is even more accurate for this type of test. Anyway the reults where interesting. 5 stops latitude, about what is expected.

[@beadierps14]

Is this where The Florida Project movie was also shot or they have plenty of abandoned houses like this there?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Not too sure. Haven't heard of that movie.

[@parratt-world]

Kyle, this is very informative. Thank you. I have subscribed and will recommend. Cheers K.

[@lombardy3274]

question - are the faded shadows a result of trying to normalise the exposure through scanning i.e. lifting the shadows / black point? For example, could you 'fix' and underexposed negative by lowering the shadows / black point during scanning and accept that those areas will appear darker in the final image. Would this avoid the faded shadows look?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, you could for sure. There just won't be much tonal separation in the shadows, but you can certainly lower the black point to get rid of some of the 'muddiness'.

[@leafsfan71]

Kyle - I recall you stating that you recommend pushing Portra by 1 stop over (hopefully I am not misquoting you). Do you recommend this for portraits as well? I am just getting into film photography after many years, and am realizing I never really knew what I was doing!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Hey there, I personally overexpose by about half to a full stop. That's different than pushing though which is done by the lab. I personally don't / haven't pushed film before.

[@leafsfan71]

@@KyleMcDougall My apologies as I got the terminology incorrect. You absolutely answered my question. Thanks!

[@j.h.fehlis]

Nice video, again! 🙏🏻 How much would you underrate the box speed?

[@mooshoepork1990]

So goooood! Glad you're doing Ektar and 400H too. I think you'll find the Ektar one really interesting.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Peter. Ektar is up next. Shooting the episode this week. Looking forward to seeing the results as I haven’t shot nearly as much Ektar as I have Portra.

[@colliedogjoy]

Nice demonstration.. I will have to run a test myself - I'm curious to see if the one stop underexposure can be pushed +1 in development to produce a result similar to Portra 800 which is more than 2x the price!

[@KyleMcDougall]

I’d be curious as well. You’ll have to let me know what you find out!

[@hzubovi1]

Thank You very much! Would like to see more test like CInestill 800T, Fuji Velvia 50, 100, Kodak Portra 160, 800...

[@sydneylowe8518]

Hi Kyle! Curious for this test if you shot these Kodak Portra 400 photos at box speed 400 ISO? Or a different ISO?

[@Rampoo11]

looking forward to the ektar and pro400h videos. did you meter for shadows in this episode?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Ryan Kolczaski hey Ryan, metering was an average for the scene, using the 67ii.

[@yumyumkevin]

when you pull the film from 400 to 200 ISO, do you need to tell your developer?

[@aiax742]

so when you under/overexpose, do you use a different roll? like are both the underexposed and overexposed frames developed together?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Everything is on the same roll. The only thing changing is how dense each frame is on the film, which is then compensated for while scanning.

[@ChristianPerello]

I needed this! Thanks a lot!!!

[@jeg569]

Do you develop the photos as if they were at box speed?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep.

[@stevenxue1]

Some say that Portra 160 handles underexposure better. Would love to see a video testing the 160 portra.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Definitely one I'm planning for the future.

[@jcg7634]

Thats a very nice shutter sound

[@jerrylee7737]

Som 30 years back it was said that the exposure latitude of the color negative film was in the order of 7 EV. Unfortunately, the negative was not used in professional photography, all customers (media, publishing houses, photo agencies, advertising agencies) all required only slides.

[@angelisone]

Hi Kyle, I got mine signed by ATG and including some other brands and models: 1. Contax RTS with motordrive, RTS II & RTS III 2. Contax AX 3. Contax 645 4. Olympus Gold M-1 (Yoshihisa Maitani & ATG) 5. Rolleiflex 3003 You are correct, those electronic cameras do go bad. But you can stretch it by removing the battery and place it in dry places. My AX, 645 and 3003 overhauled by ATG. Do you have the motordrive with the RTS?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I agree, keeping the batteries out when not in use for a while is a great idea. I don't have the motor drive. No real need for it with the type of work I create.

[@zachary1616]

Very educational. Subscribed!

[@jamesandcamera]

great episode, definitly subscribing!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you, James!

[@tobiahtayo5149]

How would pushing 1 or 2 stops in developing change the latitude do you think?

[@Zetaphotography]

I just watched all 3 videos. Thank you. Do you have a video for Slide film. I just picked up an Rb67 but I thought it was an SD from the description. Arrived as a regular Pro

[@girliedog]

This is a very interesting video. I've noticed that it seems fashionable to have washed out color images within the "Film Shooting Genera". Any insight on this would be appreciated.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yeah, it's common, but probably just because people enjoy how it looks.

[@eggr17ify]

Just getting into film! It's great! I'm curious though. So you just overexposed your film and it achieved those nicer pictures right. You did that by rating your film on your camera at a lower iso thus underexposing the film. My question is when you send your film in, do you tell them that you over exposed the film? This is that whole pushing and pulling film that confuses me.

[@KyleMcDougall]

In this video I just changed the shutter speed and aperture to over or under expose. But yes, you can change your ISO so that your meter gives you a reading that is either over or underexposed. When it comes to sending to a lab, when I send in I don't tell them anything. They're always going to try to scan the film to get the best results, regardless of how dense it is or isn't. Pushing or pulling is when you get the lab to change the development time, if you want to try and compensate for under or over exposure. With negative film though, as you saw in this test, it can handle over exposure fairly well, but not so much underexposure. So, if you underexposed an entire roll, say if you set the ISO wrong, you could get the lab to try and compensate while developing. People also do it for creative reasons.

[@eggr17ify]

@@KyleMcDougall Got it! I could tell there was a difference but man it's completely different than digital! I have a Sony A7r3 and I loveeeee the resolution. However with this quarantine I had a little creative rut so I decided to try film out. It definitely makes me think more about the image and now sharpness or super high image quality isn't so high up on my list of a perfect image. Your video definitely helped as well! Thanks so much!

[@dime7913]

Hi Kyle, really great video! Not sure if I missed it, but which spot of the image did you meter for the "normal" exposure? Front side of the building, right side, grass, sky? Would be really valuable info!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. This was an averaged reading with the centre weighted meter in the camera.

[@gandharvbhagat4414]

Kyle, thanks for this controlled test it is really useful. I do have a question about push processing, how does that affect the film's performance?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Push processing is when you compensate for underexposure during development. Different film stocks react in unique ways to push processing. I don't have a ton of experience with it though, so I couldn't tell you much about specifics.

[@gandharvbhagat4414]

Thanks for the reply Kyle. I love shooting with available light so am always fascinated with push processing. Would love to learn more if you ever experiment with push processing ! Thanks again

[@bjrnarmornning4199]

Interesting, right to the point, no bullshit - love it!

[@jakcist-cz]

Great vid, thanks for sharing your test 🙂

[@antoine.dutilh]

amazingly useful video man! thank you!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for watching!

[@louiecobo327]

hi, firs of all say thank you for your video because its really interesting and I really love your work. I have a question, you are talking about limits of exposure but my question is: when you expose your high lights, and this ones become overexposed, why they look similar with 4 stops? ansel adams talks that when your lights are in zone VIII they have texture but its the limit. You are exposiing your high lights more than zone VIII and they still being with texture. why this? thanks for all

[@KyleMcDougall]

Negative film can deal really well with over exposure. The more exposure you give it, the more dense the negative becomes. Obviously there is a limit, and you will start to introduce colour shifts etc at some point, but it's a lot more flexible than slide film.

[@jackpiercecomposer]

When you have an overexposed negative, does the scanner compensate for this automatically when scanning? So in effect, the better the scanner you or a lab uses, the better the result? I had some scans back from a lab recently and they were overexposed on the digital scan but the negatives were not that dense in comparison :/

[@KyleMcDougall]

Exactly. The scanning software will compensate. But the type of scanner used also will make a difference. Cheaper scanners struggle with dense negatives.

[@Seventhcause]

I like the negative one the most. I always shoot under 1-2 stops and push accordingly in post

[@skwirl828]

I'm shooting out at the Bonneville salt flats (very white ground) soon with portra 400 during the evening. I'm pretty new to film photography, what would you recommend in a situation like that?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Should be a fairly straight forward environment to meter. If you're using your in camera meter, I'd rate the film at 200, personally.

[@julianhart3608]

Hi Kyle, great video thank you. Did you manage to repeat with the Fuji 400H?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Julian! 400H test has been shot, currently editing it, and waiting for the scans back. It will be up early to mid next week. Cheers!

[@julianhart3608]

Great, looking forward to it. The difference between the two will be interesting to see. Thanks again :-)

[@manneyney]

Really enjoyed this! You should do a P67 video similar to your GA645 video! :)

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks Karl. In the works!

[@MikMilman]

Keep em coming

[@narratoreaccidentale213]

Hi Kyle, how would you recommend measuring a snowy landscape? I read somewhere just average the whole scene and add a stop! Can you confirm? I sue mamiya7 and portra 400. Thanks in advanced.

[@KyleMcDougall]

That could work. If you have a spot meter you could also meter the snow and do the same. Are you using the built in meter?

[@narratoreaccidentale213]

@@KyleMcDougall Yes, I use the built in meter. Do you think adding a spot is enough? Thnks

[@joedavid6186]

overexposed looks pretty good, thanks for sharing

[@OctaviusLucien]

I would like you to also test other films such as slide or b&w film to show the exposure window of these films.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I have some different films lined up for future episodes.

[@camerabrah]

Instant subscribed. I like you better than negative feedback. You are give off a true hipster vibe.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for the sub! Glad you’re enjoying the vids.

[@danielarmstrong2144]

Can you do one for portra 800?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep. Plan to do one in the future.

[@danielarmstrong2144]

@@KyleMcDougall awesome! Love your work man

[@mondedusilence]

awesome channel! Many thanks for sharing

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@darin9655]

YOU HAVE AWESOME VIDEOS!! THANK YOU

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you!

[@icehei11]

Great experimental video. How amazing is over +6 is still acceptable.