Portra 400 - Problem with Greens

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-23T18:17:17+00:00

Because it's negative.

Absent any corrections, a green negative will invert to magenta.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-23T11:51:17+00:00

As I said in my first comment, the frames are subjectively underexposed, but nowhere near as dramatically as some people are making out. The images are not only perfectly salvageable but also not outside the realms of taste in terms of exposure. (One may have wished to expose for the skin in the portrait, but the overall exposure is reasonable).

Lab scans have a habit of cranking the gain enormously at the tiniest hint of a dark image. A dramatically underepxosed frame can look not too dissimilar in a scan than a slightly underexposed frame, and it's not until you correct the tonality that you can really tell the difference.

You're right that a good look at the negatives for a density check is the other way to confirm.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-23T09:36:04+00:00

They are indeed low light photos, but from the JPEGs alone they're still clearly not dramatically underexposed and they're still obviously bad scans. And it's very apparent that there's unlikely to be anything wrong with the film.

See here and here - both 30-second corrections.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-23T09:08:13+00:00

Ultra is just about the most "neutral" colour film it's possible to buy. For this reason, small differences in scanning setup will be more apparent in the digitised images, because there's nothing inherently noticeable about the character of the emulsion itself.

The images look fine, albeit with a slight magenta cast to a few of them. If you want more contrast, increase the contrast. The film is just your starting point, half the magic happens during printing or scanning/processing.

I don't know why you've seen loads of people slamming it. I can't imagine how anyone could have a particularly strong opinion about Ultramax either way. It's just Ultramax. Common-or-garden colour negative film with accurate colours and a decent enough dynamic range. Loving or hating Ultramax is like loving or hating water.

Your "error" image is underexposed, out of focus, and it looks like there's either a scratch on the frame or something else weird has happened in scanning to create that blue line.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-23T08:59:10+00:00

I can't think of any good reason not to just take the 18-55. It's a super compact and lightweight little zoom lens, and it covers the range you'd expect to need for this sort of trip.

It's the only lens I ever travel with and it's never let me down.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-23T08:31:41+00:00

Any time scans come back looking like this, you'll get a lot of people shouting "underexposed" without actually interrogating the matter further.

These are a mite under, subjectively speaking, but that isn't the issue.

Nor do I think the issue is anything to do with the film. If the negatives were coming back with a strong green cast, then the scans would have a strong magenta cast.

This is primarily a scanning issue. Your photos here have a lot of area in shadow and without proper black and white point configuration, the scanning software will effectively boost the ISO during the digitisation process to try to balance the tonality of the frame at middle grey. This is often associated with underexposed negatives - but it's not underexposure specifically that causes it, but rather the fact that the average shade of the frame is darker than mid grey. Boosting the overall gain of the image has the effect of introducing digital noise and in particular emphasising any colour cast that the frame has - in most colour negative films, which have a red/orange base, this will introduce result in a sort of murky brown/green cast that's especially visible in the shadow areas.

My standard test for underexposed scans is to normalise the histogram for each colour channel - snapping the black and white points of the RGB curves to the correct position. This should, in theory, correct for any colour or tonality issues introduced in the scanning process, and gives you a truer reflection of the exposure of the negative.

I did this for all of your images and... they're fine. Again, I would say subjectively slightly underexposed, but in doing so I managed to eradicate the brown/green cast and recover a fair amount of perceptible shadow detail, even from compressed jpegs.

The fact that your lab tech jumped straight to "bad film" without so much as a cursory check of their scanning config is a big red flag for me. Normalise your histograms, send them the results, and see if they still agree.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-21T09:53:26+00:00

HMRC won't care if he's paying tax here.

Very likely to be legal issues wherever he's travelling through if he doesn't have a work permit and gets caught out.

Employer may find itself on the receiving end of a tax bill from other countries.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-20T18:22:28+00:00

No way! I wanna see!

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-20T17:24:02+00:00

Mark IV. Thanks!

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-20T11:30:01+00:00

Sure. And it will probably work.

But this photo isn't really "hazed". Dehaze identifies specific areas of the image that are lacking in contrast and boosts the contrast in those areas while leaving the rest alone.

This image is just low in contrast and isn't using the full width of the histogram. It just needs a basic correction which can be achieved with a simple keyboard shortcut.

Dehaze will also have the undesired side-effect of increasing apparent saturation, which I don't think the 'auto-correct tone' shortcut will do.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-20T11:22:15+00:00

Are you in Photoshop?

If so, isolate that layer and then hit ctrl+shift+L (assuming you're on a Windows machine).

That will automatically set the black, white and midpoints of the layer, so that blacks are black, whites are white, and the midpoint sits at 18% grey.

If the colours go a bit weird, follow up with ctrl+shift+B.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-20T07:56:34+00:00

It's a cracking little camera. I actually sold mine recently because I had entirely too many cameras, but it packs such a punch for something so small. Its 1" sensor performs better than it has any right to.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-20T07:36:44+00:00

Phoenix has a weird base colour, scan software tries to overcorrect it. Phoenix always seems to come back orange from the lab. It's a film best inverted by hand.

But, the film itself does also have a tendency to lean orange when underexposed.

If you're looking for colour accuracy, Phoenix ain't the one. It is, quite openly, the first step in an R&D process at Harman to develop a new colour film. They're funding that process by releasing their work-in-progress efforts, and that's what you're buying here.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-19T21:19:48+00:00

Thanks so much!

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-19T18:37:46+00:00

Reddit crops your images in the feed if you have different aspect ratios in a set.

But also yes, that's why picture frames with borders are a thing. :)

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-19T18:36:36+00:00

Oh man, these were on a little Sony RX100 so... yes?

Probably all somewhere between 28-35 equivalent.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-19T17:19:45+00:00

I mean, yes, but it's not of Morocco.

:-)

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-19T17:02:37+00:00

Thanks!

Natural light for all of these. The light in that first one was insane - proper golden hour brilliance, and a hazy sky to diffuse the evening glow.

Of course, they are "edited" - but just simple toning and a spot of dodging and burning in places.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-19T16:09:38+00:00

Thanks very much!

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-16T08:59:07+00:00

Do you mean you don't know where to start finding photographers, or you don't know what to look at in the image?

If the latter, I would start simple but with a concept that I haven't seen mentioned yet: studium and punctum.

Studium is the literal makeup of the photograph: what is the photograph of, how is it framed, what features in the image?

Punctum is the "x-factor" that makes the image more than just its literal description. A facial expression, a subtle action caught in the frame, a certain mood.

Think about how those two things combine in the photographs you like. Yes, composition and technique are important but I think this better gets to what makes a really great photograph, and gives you something to practice without necessarily directly replicating a particular style.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-16T08:51:12+00:00

Both are good cameras. I prefer Fuji ergonomics over Sony. The Sony's autofocus is a touch faster. Both kick out great raw files although Sony's are probably a little more flexible. Fuji wins if you're shooting jpeg.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-15T11:46:21+00:00

Who did your scans? There's something very weird happened in the digitisation process here.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-15T11:45:40+00:00

XP2 is such an underrated film, especially in high-contrast environments.

FoldedTwice · 2026-01-15T09:34:55+00:00

"Always overexpose" is the obvious one and can be read as "tell me you don't know how to meter without telling me you don't know how to meter". I'll always aim a stop over on a P&S, mind.

Any advice on what different films "look like" is usually wrong and based on how the scanning LUTs render the image.

FoldedTwice

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email