>>3646097what are you judging overexposure on? it's hard to even discern a difference of 1-2 stops over/underexposure when looking at Portra negatives. are you basing this strictly off scans? $10 says you are and parts of the film borders are included, thus throwing off the scanner's autoexposure.
>>3646077only options are cine film or expired c41 rolls that pop up occasionally and wind up selling for more than what 18 rolls of the same film would cost you.
>>3646161It's impossible and downright dumb to try to judge film problems using scans. Wait to receive the negatives. I've had scans look like that, turns out the lab was just stupid as fuck about scanning and the film was fine.
