Kodak Ektar VS Portra 160

@merciless -- Yeah, there definitely is a weird tinge to the image -- but I haven't tweaked the colors at all. These are both straight off a mini-lab scanner.

The Ektar image has more personality. Weirder shift / palette.
 
This is a great comparison... I like the ektar for general photography but you can see how the portra is the film of choice for anything with skin tones.

I feel like kodak now makes the best 100, 160, and 400 color films.
 
Thanks for posting the comparison. I shot a bunch of the new porta 400 in 35mm and was impressed with what it could do technically. I usually shoot E6 and have never been a huge color neg fan but the new portra really impressed me. I have a Mamiya 7 on layaway and can't wait to run some of the new 160 and 400 through it.
 
As for me Ektar is good in autumn colors.
Portra is great all the year.
Anyway I saw some tests with new Portra 160 and it seemed to me that its colors are worse than VC or NC/ They seemed to be shifted to green/yellow tones
 
Arvay said:
As for me Ektar is good in autumn colors.
Portra is great all the year.
Anyway I saw some tests with new Portra 160 and it seemed to me that its colors are worse than VC or NC/ They seemed to be shifted to green/yellow tones
Click to expand...

I haven't done any side by side with the 400 / 160, but I think the 160 looks fairly neutral in this scene. Then again, it is metered at asa 100, so the over exposure might help.
 
@ kzphoto, yes I agree that Ektar has more personality, despite the weird color shifts from time to time...

I personally love using Ektar 100 to emphasize the reds/blues/greens, so this is my favorite color neg to use currently, when I'm not shooting digital or using Velvia :)
 
Thanks for the comparison shots.

My Portra 160 (35mm and 220) just arrived and I'm looking forward to shooting it over the comings weeks (New Zealand photo stores still don't have it in, so had to order it from the States).

Hope it's as good as the new Portra 400, which I absolutely love in my Mamiya 7. I've got lots of it in 220, and am confident that Portra 160 will be joining it as the go-to films for my medium format work. Wish Ektar came in 220.
 
kzphoto said:
I haven't done any side by side with the 400 / 160, but I think the 160 looks fairly neutral in this scene. Then again, it is metered at asa 100, so the over exposure might help.
Click to expand...

I think the over exposure does help, but I prefer to over expose color film a little anyway. I'm not a huge fan of Ektar. It can get a little wild and unpredictable.

Thanks for the comparison.




/
 
For Ektar, I've been shooting it as though it was 125 ISO vs the "listed" 100 but allowing the lab to dev it at 100 - I prefer what I get by underexposing it just a wee bit. Ektar is the only print film I've ever used that "looks like" (for lack of better wording) a slide film. Even the slight green/blue hue/tone within the parking lot image above reminds me of slide film.

Portra is awesome. I use it for weddings and similarly would over expose it at 125 ISO for 160 and 320 ISO for 400 - there's more than enough latitude in the film to allow for it without blowing out the highlights too much and Portra is wonderful to scan :)

Cheers,
Dave
 
I really like Ektar 100; I also really hate Ektar 100... As Dave mentions, I love the way it comes close to a slide film look but its almost impossible to get the colour right straight off the neg. Shooting at 100 I often find two different colour casts in a single frame. The means that you cant correct globally and need to be able to see the different casts and where they appear.

Its actually interesting in the original 2 images that Portra appears shows significantly less green from the florescent lights yet Ektar has picked up all the green.
 
craygc said:
I really like Ektar 100; I also really hate Ektar 100... As Dave mentions, I love the way it comes close to a slide film look but its almost impossible to get the colour right straight off the neg. Shooting at 100 I often find two different colour casts in a single frame. The means that you cant correct globally and need to be able to see the different casts and where they appear.

Its actually interesting in the original 2 images that Portra appears shows significantly less green from the florescent lights yet Ektar has picked up all the green.
Click to expand...

So, how were the images 'white balanced' during post production? Is the green cast Ektar, or a difference in processing?
 
bwcolor said:
So, how were the images 'white balanced' during post production? Is the green cast Ektar, or a difference in processing?
Click to expand...

I've not done the test with the new Portra 160 or Ektar, but Portra 400 shows significantly less green from fluorescents (as in it's not there in many shots at all) compared to Portra 800. I wouldn't be surprised if Portra 160 is more like 400.
 
bwcolor said:
So, how were the images 'white balanced' during post production? Is the green cast Ektar, or a difference in processing?
Click to expand...

You can correct for these color casts in "post" production but, well, part of the appeal of using film should be that one shouldn't (necessarily) have to correct for color casts in "post" - if you're going to correct for color cast you're going to do it before shooting (with filters or such).

That said, to correct it in post, when you scan your negative, hopefully, you can scan to a RAW image format. For example, Nikon Scan 4 (and I believe Vuescan) will allow you to scan to RAW formats (.NEF in the case of Nikon Scan). Import said RAW format into your RAW image converter (I use LightRoom) and correct the cast within the conversion program.

That's usually how I do it.

I rarely, if ever, have to color correct Portra - it is, well, immaculate :)

Cheers,
Dave
 
All of the Portra films are extremely similar in color reproduction. Ektar is only marginally different (a tiny bit more contrast on the negative). All of them are unbelievably neutral.

The big differences people are seeing are a result of their scanning workflow, not the film.

The green cast in the Ektar image above is due to underexposure—the minilab machine is trying to bring up the shadows and just failing miserably. The Portra image was given more exposure (same exposure, but faster film), so the shadows had more information.

Both images are less than ideal because the scanner software (probably Noritsu's AccuSmart?) is adjusting the image for a punchy print. It's blowing out the highlights and boosting the contrast. Some people don't want to monkey with their images, so I understand the minilab thing.

But if you're willing to spend a little time scanning, you'll see that a lot of the "differences" between films simply disappear.
 
bensyverson said:
All of the Portra films are extremely similar in color reproduction. Ektar is only marginally different (a tiny bit more contrast on the negative). All of them are unbelievably neutral.

The big differences people are seeing are a result of their scanning workflow, not the film.
Click to expand...

Certain things like sensitivity to the green from fluorescents are actually characteristics of the film. There is a noticeable difference between Portra 800 and Portra 400 in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom