Polar Pro released a new lens filter that they claim gives a Portra film-like look to images captured through it. Apparently, that has caused quite the controversy, so much so that PetaPixel wrote an article about it. I think there’s a lot missed in all of this, so let’s talk about it.
I don’t know much about the filter, except that it is intended to create a “soft, organic” look reminiscent of Kodak Portra emulsions like Portra 400, by utilizing a mix of 1/4 white mist diffusion, warming (maybe similar to Skylight or 81A?), and polarizer. Of course the idea that a lens filter will replicate the look of a certain film stock is ridiculous because it’s apples-to-oranges. It’s like saying that certain tires will turn your minivan into a Corvette. Well, maybe the tires can help give your van sportier handling, but the tires are not what makes a Corvette a Corvette. The lens and especially the filter on the end of the lens is not what makes Portra, well, Portra.
I think the mistake that Polar Pro made is outright stating that the filter will deliver a Portra look, although they do qualify in the FAQs section: “The Portra Filter is inspired by the feel and color response of Portra 400, not a one-to-one recreation.” It can help to achieve the general aesthetic, possibly, but a lot will depend on the camera you are using and especially the settings. For example, if you use their filter on your Fujifilm camera in conjunction with the Velvia Film Simulation or Classic Negative, it’s not going to much resemble Portra. If you use Classic Chrome, well, that has a Kodak-esque palette, so maybe it would work with that. The filter might very well be excellent (I have no idea, I’ve never used it), and perhaps it can assist in replicating a Portra aesthetic on digital cameras, but it’s simply not possible for it on its own to make pictures resemble Portra. It requires the filter plus something else, and that something else is never mentioned by Polar Pro. They should have been more upfront about what is required to achieve a Portra-like look using their filter—it’s not too late, they could still do that.
The criticisms aren’t completely fair, though. The “if you want a Portra look, then shoot Portra film” response is predictable. Yes, shooting Portra film is the most assured way to get an accurate Portra look, but film is expensive and inconvenient. It’s like saying, “If you want Italian food, you should go to Italy.” Yes, going to Italy will ensure the most authentic Italian dishes, but it’s not helpful for today’s dinner plans (unless, perhaps, you live there). There are a number of ways to achieve a fairly good Portra look without shooting actual Portra film, including with software, apps, and straight-out-of-camera. This is nothing new and shouldn’t be viewed as controversial by anyone.
It’s very important to note that one film can produce a whole bunch of different looks, depending on a host of factors. Which version of the film (160, 400, 800, 100T, NC, VC, latest iteration, etc.)? How was it shot (box speed, underexposed, overexposed; which lens; filter)? What was the light (sunny, overcast, artificial light, backlit, into the sun, etc.)? How was it handled (refrigerated, developed promptly, or sat in a hot car, expired, etc.)? How was it developed (freshness of the chemicals, pH and temperature of the water, push or pull processed, etc.)? Was it printed (and if so, which paper)? Was it scanned (brand of scanner, profile used, post-processing)? PetaPixel, for instance, gave examples from one photographer and then mocked Polar Pro’s images, saying they’re nothing alike; however, that was extremely unfair because there might be examples quite similar to Polar Pro’s pictures that were shot on actual Portra film (perhaps like some of these), which would undermine PetaPixel’s point, but they apparently didn’t look very hard to find that.
My take on the whole controversy is that Polar Pro brought the criticisms on themselves because their marketing choices weren’t the most honest or helpful; however, many of the criticisms aren’t really fair, either. So I guess I’m not on either side, but more in the middle. I will probably never try the filter. I don’t shoot much film anymore, although I have a couple dozen rolls waiting to be used (none of them are Portra, though). I had a goal at the beginning of the year to shoot a handful of rolls of that film, but so far I’m at zero (there’s still time, though). Using my Fujifilm cameras with Film Simulation Recipes, including some that are Portra-like, is plenty satisfactory for myself, and I just don’t feel the need to use film anymore. But that’s just me. If someone wants to shoot Portra (or any other film), more power to them. If someone wants to buy the filter, go ahead and do so. Someone else might prefer achieving the look via software and presets, and that’s ok, too. I’m sure there are those who completely dislike the Portra look in-general. There’s no right or wrong approach, only what works for each of us individually. Use what you want, and don’t use what you don’t want; worry less about what other people think.
Good points, but I think you missed part of Polar Pro’s advertising, which clearly states that the filter comes with free Lightroom presets that, in combination with the filter, mimic a Portra look.
I didn’t see that, but that would be the “something else.” Makes sense. On their website, they say, “A film inspired look and feel without relying on presets or heavy grading.” And, “Finished at capture …a finished look straight out of camera.”
When I’m checking out the FAQ on the website for the filter, it says this, tho:
“Is this a preset or LUT?”
“No. This is a physical camera filter. The look is created optically at capture, not applied in post.”
I suspect this is a product brought to market as pure Google-engineering. You are filter manufacturer; lots of people Google “Portra filter”. You make a product to meet the common search term. Cynical silliness.
I doubt this very much. Actually, I have some experience in filter development (although my prototype ultimately didn’t make it to production). Right now, these combo two-in-one or three-in-one filters are “in” so it’s no surprise that they developed one. My best guess is that this didn’t begin as an attempt to mimic any film; most likely, someone during testing mentioned that it reminded him of Portra, and the marketing department took it from there. But that’s mere speculation.
I doubt folks would be in a fuss if it was called another name.
The combo of 1/4 white mist, warming, and polarizer in one filter? Seems fine. Go for it. Getting that all into a thinner layer is a perk, too, for folks who want this kind of product. Futzing with three separate filters seems like a pain, and more likely to create vignetting. Not everyone is a filters kinda shooter, and that’s fine, but for folks into it, makes sense.
Even calling it “vintage portrait” so folks easily guess that it’s inspired by Portra, without claiming it directly? Again, all good.
But once someone “this does Portra” that’s a lot harder to respect, at least as a corporate product. With something like Reggie’s Portra, that’s an individual, doing their best with the tools everyone else has, too.
I think the marketing team took it a bit too far. If the name has been just a little different, or simply toning the message down, would have gone a long ways. They were way too eager to tie the effects of the filter to a specific emulsion, which is obviously silly, and takes away from whatever the filter might actually be.