Shooting Kodak Portra 400 Film

This page is also available in French

Last September, I published a page on processing the contents of a Kodak Photo CD from 1994. Because I liked the results, I decided to see what it would be like to work with film again. I still have three cameras that take film; I chose to use my Minolta SR-T-303 (called SR-T-102 in the United States), a camera that I got in March of 1974. There were two issues I needed to address: first, this camera had not been used since the 1980s, so I wanted it cleaned and checked inside out. Second, the light meter originally used a 1.35-volt mercury battery that is no longer made, so I wanted to have it recalibrated for use with widely available 1.5-volt button cells. All this was done expertly and at a very reasonable price by Bill at ProCemera in Charlottesville, Virginia.

All I had was the camera and an MD Rokkor-X 50mm ƒ1:1.7 lens as I had gotten rid of my other Minolta equipment a long time ago. At the very least, I needed a couple of additional lenses. On eBay, I found excellent used copies of an MD W-Rokkor-X 28mm ƒ1:2.8 wide-angle and an MD 135mm ƒ1:2.8 telephoto lens. Thus equipped, I had to decide what film to use. I hesitated between Kodak Portra 400 and Kodak Ektar 100. I will no doubt end up using both, but for now, I went with the Portra for its faster speed (and to think I used to shoot Kodachrome 25!)

Click on any image to see a larger (2100 x 1400 pixel) version!

The photo of this horse is the first one I took with film in at least twenty years. I framed it, set aperture and shutter speed, applied slight pressure to the shutter button—and nothing at all happened. My first thought was that the camera was not functioning properly, and it took me a couple of seconds to realize that to focus, I had to turn the rubberized ring on the lens! By then, the horse had moved, and I had to wait a few seconds. I framed again, verified shutter speed and aperture, focused, and this time I heard the reassuring slap of the mirror as I released the shutter. While this hasn't happened to me since, I confess that I still occasionally look at the back of the camera after a shot even though there is strictly nothing to see there.

One of the things you cannot do with film is change the ISO in the middle of the roll: once the film is in the camera, you're pretty much stuck with it. Like most cameras of its day, the Minolta SR-T-303 cannot shoot faster than a thousandth of a second, and the aperture on my lenses only closes down to ƒ/22 (the one on the 50mm lens to ƒ/16). A neutral density filter would therefore be useful when shooting Portra 400 film outdoors. This is an area where one is truly spoiled by today's digital cameras.

As you have undoubtedly noticed by now, there is no common theme to these images; they only serve to test camera and lenses and to see how it feels to use film after so many years. All the photos on this page were either shot during walks in the neighborhood or in locations not further than forty-five minutes from our place by car.

So, what do I do after I finish a roll of film? I let a lab handle it, and in my case, that lab is The Darkroom in California. I send them the roll in a postage-paid USPS mailer with a tracking number. They develop the film and immediately scan the negatives at a resolution of 6774x4482 pixels. When this process is done, I am notified by email and can download the scans to my computer as positive digital files that I can then work with using any of my photo processing applications. Two or three days later, the cut and sleeved negatives are in my physical mailbox along with another prepaid mailer for my next roll. What could be easier?

These last two photos, taken at the "Business as Usual" exhibit at the Gregg Museum of Art & Design on NC State Campus show that I clearly struggle with focusing in low light, even with stationary subjects. It will take me more than a few rolls to get back to my old proficiency in this department, but I suppose that this is perfectly normal. So, what were the things that struck me during this foray into film after decades of shooting with digital cameras? There are a few points I can make:

• First and foremost, shooting film is fun! From loading the camera to rewinding the film, one has the impression of going through an ancient ritual. The images are not the same as the ones obtained with digital cameras; I'm not saying that they are better or worse, but I think they are clearly different, though I would be hard-pressed to say in just what way.

• The build quality of old cameras and lenses is amazing! It is a thrill to manipulate the equipment: it feels good and rock-solid. I've had this camera for forty-four years, and for a decade, it followed me everywhere I went: Switzerland, France, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, the United States... As far as I can tell, everything (except the photographer!) works as perfectly today as it did back then. I'm not going to speculate how well my digital equipment will function in four decades.

• The quality one obtains with high-resolution scans of the negatives is far superior than what was possible by scanning negatives or slides in the old days, and at least part of the reason is that certain recent films, such as Kodak's Portra and Ektar, have been optimized for scanning.

• It takes a while to get used to doing everything manually and quickly; in particular, focusing is challenging, especially at large apertures. Of a dozen photos taken of my grandson indoors, not one was sharp enough. In my defense, his crawling speed is nothing short of impressive! Modern autofocus technology has truly spoiled us...

• As I have already mentioned, the inability to change the ISO in mid-roll is extremely constraining. I have taken a number of indoor photos of my one-year old grandson and wondered why I am so poor at achieving tack-sharp results. The answer is very simple: without flash, I am forced to use an aperture of ƒ/1.8 or, if I'm lucky, ƒ/2.8. Even with a modest telephoto lens, such as an 85mm or 135mm, depth of field is extremely shallow. With my dSLR, I simply crank up the ISO to 1600; this gets me two extra stops, and shooting at ƒ/4 or ƒ/5.6 makes a huge difference!

• What has also spoiled us is the way digital cameras record all details pertaining to every exposure: camera, lens, shutter speed, aperture... Old cameras don't record any of this, so one either has to do without it or keep track of it manually. This is a major inconvenience, especially because the data then have to be added manually to each picture file. I may not do this indefinitely, but while I am still testing, it seems useful.

• On the other hand, it is great to go shooting without having to charge batteries. The camera used to take the photos on this page and in the gallery (link below) is fully mechanical, and it functions perfectly well without a battery. True, the light meter needs one, but that button cell lasts for literally years, and should it die, you can keep shooting by guesstimating the proper exposure until a replacement can be purchased. Modern films are very forgiving.

• It is also a pleasure not to be as concerned with dust as one is with digital cameras. I can change lenses without being fearful that dust will settle on the sensor—there isn't one. Nor do I have to be concerned that at small apertures, some traces of sensor dust may become visible in the photograph. Any dust that enters the camera's mirror box can, at most, affect what I see through the viewfinder, but never the actual photo.

• I find I pay much more attention to framing and shutter speed/aperture ratios, presumably because one doesn't have an instant confirmation on how each shot turned out. Every release of the shutter costs money and there are only so many frames on a roll, so it's a good idea to make every exposure count.

• My impression is that there is definitely less post-processing required with film, probably because film has a higher dynamic range than today's sensors. Thus, there are fewer details to recover from dark image areas and less of a chance of blowing out highlights—obviously assuming that one gets the exposure right.

What, then, is the outcome of this experiment? For me, it is definitely positive, though I need far more practice to get anywhere near the deftness I used to have with this equipment. Obviously, my intention is not, and never has been, to stop shooting with digital cameras. However, from time to time, I will gladly go out and shoot some film. Call it nostalgia, if you wish—to me, it's just pure pleasure.

The photos on this page were taken in February and March 2018 in North Carolina.
They, and quite a few more, may also be viewed in a Web gallery or slide show.

Home | Site Info | Family | The Area | Trips | France | Work | Rants | Photography | Odds & Ends

This page was last modified on April 1, 2018
Send feedback about this page to feedback@kiechle.com
https://www.kiechle.com/photography/portra400/index.htm
(optimized for Retina display)

All contents © 1999-2024 The Kiechles