C41 120 400ISO Landscape

[wjlapier]

I know this could be subjective but for landscape of what is currently available which would you choose? BTW, I'm not a serious landscape shooter but prefer to shoot landscape or cityscape to people. I think there is only Fujifilm Pro 400H and Kodak Portra 400. Could be some Lomo but I'd prefer to stay away from that.

I sold off all my expired misc 120 film and 220 film, and all my Velvia in 120 and 220.

I have one box of Ektar and 4 boxes of Kodak Portra 400. I'd like to stick with 400ISO so I'm not considering the Ektar after it's shot. I'm wondering what you'd choose to get more punch in color between the Fujifilm and Kodak?

I want to concentrate on 120 with the three TLRs I have and would prefer to shoot one film. I develop my own.

Oh, and I have a bunch of XP2 which I feed into my Rolleicord III. The Minolta Autocord and Rolleicord Vb get to shoot the color.

 

[Swift1]

From my experience, FujiPro 400H will have a bit more contrast and saturation, but will be a bit less forgiving with underexposure.


Here's one of mine with Portra 400

Untitled by Colton Allen, on Flickr​

And here's one with FujiPro 400H. Of course, the light conditions make a big difference.

Triptych Of Green Field by Colton Allen, on Flickr​

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I shoot and like both Portra400 and P400H. There's slight differences in the colour palette but overall they're quite similar. At the end of the day I suspect you will probably see more difference from your scanning workflow than the actual films.

Long story short, I would be quite happy to shoot either, and would probably buy whichever was cheaper at the time (actually this is exactly what I just did, which is why I have Portra400 at the moment 🙂 )